EVERYTHING IS THE DLC'S FAULT!

[WildEyedLiberal]

Hackett withdraws from Ohio Senate race? BLAME THE DLC

Despite the fact that neither Reid nor Schumer is DLC? WHO CARES, BLAME THE DLC

Despite the fact that Brown is far to the left of Hackett? IT DOESN'T MATTER, BLAME THE DLC

EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS THAT I DON'T LIKE IS THE DLC'S FAULT!

Late for work? BLAME THE DLC

Dog took a shit on your new carpet? BLAME THE DLC

Your favorite pet candidate lost a race? IT'S AUTOMATICALLY THE DLC'S FAULT

Bush breaks treaties, lies, and invades another country? BLAME THE DLC

No matter WHAT happens, it is SOMEHOW connected to the DLC

THE DLC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ILL IN AMERICA TODAY

EVERYTHING BUSH DOES IS ACTUALLY THE FAULT OF THE DLC

The DLC is our VERY FAVORITE STRAWMAN

After all, who needs to THINK about anything, when it's SO MUCH EASIER to blame EVERYTHING you don't like on a convenient target like the DLC?

EVERYONE you don't like is DLC, regardless of whether they actually ARE OR NOT

So that means you don't actually CARE who is DLC and who is not -

It's just an EASY way to BLACKLIST people you hate

It's not even about the real DLC anymore - very few people here actually understand who runs the DLC, or that DLC members don't vote as a unified bloc, or that they don't take mysterious marching orders from anyone - not even Lieberman - LIEBERMAN is responsible for Lieberman's votes, not the DLC

It's not about the DLC, it's about finding a SCAPEGOAT

It's about kneejerk groupthink replacing critical thinking

And at least one of you will prove my point by calling me a DLC apologist. I GUARANTEE IT.

The smarter of you, of course, realize that this thread is not about the DLC at all.

[BillZBubb]

1. Yeah, right, we're all rubes here who don't know the difference.

Give me a break. I know what the friggin' DLC does and doesn't do. So what if they had nothing to do with Hackett. They had EVERYTHING TO DO WITH ALITO.

[sandnsea]

6. You just proved her point

Do you even know which senators filibustered Alito??? Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Feinstein, and a whole bunch of... DLC!!!!

Criminy.

[BillZBubb]

Bullshit!!!!!

No one "filibustered" Alito. Sure, Kerry attempted to defeat cloture, but that was way after it was assured they would fail. Nice political theater, but not much else.

Most of them, especially Lieberman, went on record poo-pooing a filibuster when the issue was still up in the air. Then once it was certain they wouldn't have enough votes, the ones with presidential aspirations CYNICALLY covered their asses by voting against cloture.

Criminy. Get a clue.

[MisterLiberal]

117. the bottom line

is that the DLC is the reason for the Democratic Party moving to the right. They are watering down our progressive message, siphoning off our finances and they think we're supposed to thank them or something.

If blaming everything on the DLC is one side then you're on the other that is ignoring any effect they have.

[onenote]

153. when was the Democratic party this bastion of progressive thought

Just curious. Was it when the Democrats had a majority in Congress...by virtue of a substantial number of Southern Democrats who were knuckle draggers?

onenote

[sandnsea]

135. What are you talking about?

Why do you separate filibuster and cloture?

Who said anything about Lieberman?

Could the Democrats do anything to please you?

[JeffR]

2. I for one don't think you're a DLC apologist

And I grok what you're getting at. But I have to add: I don't like the DLC.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. Neither do I

Although the DLC doesn't have ONE PERCENT of the Ultimate Power that DU thinks it does.

[JeffR]

12. Agreed

It drives me crazy to see the DLC spoken of in tones of mixed fear and awe. The same way some people talk about Karl Rove, actually.

[Dr.Phool]

20. Well, my back hurts today.

And I'm calling the DLC and telling them to knock it the fuck off already!

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Those fuckers!

I'm pretty sure the DLC ate my homework, those bastards.

[Dr.Phool]

28. Yours too?

And I was blaming my dogs.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. No man, it's the fucking DLC.

They want me to fail my classes as part of their corporofascist Bush-enabling agenda. EVIL, I TELL YOU!!!

[Rowdyboy]

3. The DLC is to many DUers.....

What Bill Clinton's penis is to Republicans. Its the cause of most of the evil in the world today.

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. I almost made that point

The DLC is to DU what Clinton is to Free Repubwik. But then I'd just get flamed for calling DUers freepers by all the kneejerkers who will insist on missing the point.

[MrBenchley]

8. Right on the money and funny as hell!

Great post!

[jonnyblitz]

52. sort of like what Nader is to most Democrats. nt

[Rowdyboy]

96. There's a strong element of truth there that I

won't deny. Hell, my partner and I mentioned Nader in that manner just this last weekend :shrug:

We all have our judasgoats.

[QC]

75. The DLC is the local Goldstein. n/t

[Dr Fate]

7. You dont have to be DLC to support poor strategy. n/t

n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. No, you don't

I DON'T care if people criticize specific people for specific actions when those critcisms are based in reality. I'm not a fan of Reid; I think he's a weak leader. But he's not DLC, and he has nothing to do with the DLC. Criticizing specific actions for a specific reason shows critical thinking. Bandying about the DLC bugaboo shows groupthink.

[Dr Fate]

24. agreed. n/t

n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

113. You just said bandying and bugaboo in the same sentence

...will you marry me??? :evilgrin:

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. Hahahahaha

Alas, my heart is set on another.










I think you know who.







:evilgrin:

[FreedomAngel82]

156. No, no!

The DLC stole him from me to give to you!! Damn them!!!

}(

[seriousstan]

10. Is DLC some sort of shorthand for Rove? I thought he was to blame

for everything.
:sarcasm:

[Dembo98]

11. Why is our party collapsing? And where is the leadership?

[cali]

13. LOL Thanks for this.

You beat me to it, and you did it better than I could have.

[Upfront]

14. You Are Correct.

Screw the DLC! I an one of the dumber ones who can read, and I know who they are and who they stand for. Screw Um!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Totally Committed]

15. The DLC is a Cancer in this Party's body that needs to be cut out in order

for us to survive. Point by point:

Hackett withdraws from Ohio Senate race? BLAME THE DLC Believe it or not, even I don't believe that for a minute! It'was the Democratic Party and the "politics as usual", thereof.

Despite the fact that neither Reid nor Schumer is DLC? WHO CARES, BLAME THE DLC Nope, don't do that, either. Reid and Schumer, when they are a**holes, are simply an example of a neutered, ball-less Democratic Party mentality in which some seek to appease the Republicans simply to hold onto power... having nothing to do with the DLC.

Despite the fact that Brown is far to the left of Hackett? IT DOESN'T MATTER, BLAME THE DLC This Brown v. Hackett thing has nothing to do with voting records or stances or anything. I agree Brown is to the Left of Hackett on many issues. It was the way it was done that irks and troubles me. I feel we are shooting ourselves in the foot yet again. Period.

EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS THAT I DON'T LIKE IS THE DLC'S FAULT! Some days it sure as hell feels that way, but again, I know that's not so. They just SUCK. Their policies SUCK. Their candidates SUCK. Their corporate funding SUCKS. Their Corporate bottom-line above the representation of the people SUCKS. But, I don't like a lot of things the DLC doesn't touch, so no, that's not true.

Late for work? BLAME THE DLC LOL! Oh, lets!

Dog took a shit on your new carpet? BLAME THE DLC My dog is better trained than that.

Your favorite pet candidate lost a race? IT'S AUTOMATICALLY THE DLC'S FAULT Nope, unless it's, well, maybe that IS true... LOL!

Bush breaks treaties, lies, and invades another country? BLAME THE DLC In some cases, they are to blame. They have supported the Bushies in their power grabs with votes and collusion more than any other group of Democrats. Their complicity in warmongering is unimpeachable.

No matter WHAT happens, it is SOMEHOW connected to the DLC Could be, but I doubt it. They are that self-important, though....

THE DLC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ILL IN AMERICA TODAY Nope, wrong again! The Republicans, the Democrats, religious zealots of every persuasion, and a host of others are sometimes at fault as well.

EVERYTHING BUSH DOES IS ACTUALLY THE FAULT OF THE DLC Definitely not. But, everything he SUCCEEDS in doing seems to have their backing, one way or the other.

The DLC is our VERY FAVORITE STRAWMAN This is just an example of your Persecution Complex run amok!

After all, who needs to THINK about anything, when it's SO MUCH EASIER to blame EVERYTHING you don't like on a convenient target like the DLC? See above.

EVERYONE you don't like is DLC, regardless of whether they actually ARE OR NOT Wrong, wrong, wrong... I absolutely despise Ann Coulter and she is not DLC, and even I can tell you that!

So that means you don't actually CARE who is DLC and who is not - I actually care very much, and keep up with who's on their membership rolls and who is not.

It's just an EASY way to BLACKLIST people you hate "Blacklist"... Just the usual DLC triangulation, or was that a joke?

It's not even about the real DLC anymore - very few people here actually understand who runs the DLC, or that DLC members don't vote as a unified bloc, or that they don't take mysterious marching orders from anyone - not even Lieberman - LIEBERMAN is responsible for Lieberman's votes, not the DLC I understand EXACTLY who "runs" the DLC. Corporations and the people they fund run the DLC. It's definitely about the "real" DLC, for me, at least.

It's not about the DLC, it's about finding a SCAPEGOAT More tiangulation -- or that pesky Persecution Complex -- I can't tell anymore.

It's about kneejerk groupthink replacing critical thinking Nope, it's triangulation.

And at least one of you will prove my point by calling me a DLC apologist. I GUARANTEE IT. Won't hear it from me.... because..............

The smarter of you, of course, realize that this thread is not about the DLC at all. Right, it's all about you. I got it.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. LOL

Groupthink, kneejerk, thoughtless ignorance at it's finest.

BOO! The DLC is in your closet! They're certainly your favorite make-believe boogeyman.

Thank you for proving my entire point. Not that you're quite "with it" enough to realize that, of course.

[MrBenchley]

17. Amazing, isn't it?

Sometimes all you can do is shake your head in wonder and astonishment....

[WildEyedLiberal]

19. Truly.

I knew I'd get at least one response like that - completely IGNORANT of the irony and with no clue that their kneejerk stupidity has just reinforced my point better than I ever could.

[MrBenchley]

22. You'll be lucky if there's only one....

Also be aware that there's at least a 50% chance some humorless somebody's going to repost your first message, changing "DLC" to "anti-DLCer" or some such term...

[Moochy]

137. Such a fine meta snark

(snicker)

[Totally Committed]

26. And, you can't see the pomposity of this statement --

"I knew I'd get one response like that - completely IGNORANT of the any trace of irony and no clue that their kneejerk stupidity has just reinforced my point better than I ever could."

And, for the record, at least I never called you "ignorant". I even tried to make my point with humor. You couldn't see THAT either. Looks like we're even.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

31. I don't find kneejerk scapegoating overly amusing

Which is why I made the damn post to begin with. DU fears the DLC the SAME WAY freeperville fears Clinton. Same blind fear, same exaggeration of power and influence, same utter hatred, same unthinking refusal to consider that things might be a little more sophisticated than DLC = EVIL.

I guess my mistake was hoping that DU could rise above such petty groupthink.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. Painting with such a broad brush isn't intelligent either.

Indicting everyone ignorant because the DLC has a severe branding problem, doesn't move the bar to garnering the DLC any respect either.

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. You missed the point too

I DON'T CARE about the DLC or whether ANYONE respects them or not. The DLC is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that people insist on blaming the DLC for everything under the sun, regardless of whether that's actually true or not.

[Pithy Cherub]

38. Then address those who do it - not EVERYONE does. Get over it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

39. Did I say "everyone" does?

If you don't do it, no need to take offense, is there?

[Totally Committed]

18. "Groupthink, kneejerk, thoughtless ignorance at it's finest..."

Ouch! We need to agree to disagree about his, I think. At the end of the day, we are both screwed by all the same peeps... we just disagree about who they are.

"Thank you for proving my entire point. Not that you're quite "with it" enough to realize that, of course.

Right back atcha, babe! :7

:hi:

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

21. Yep, I don't "get it" because I don't blindly kneejerk to an acronym

Allrighty then.

[incapsulated]

25. She makes perfect sense to me.

I guess I'm not "with it" either. I so wish I could be part of the in denial crowd, life must be a lot easier.

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. Keep blaming the DLC for all your problems

If that's what you need to get you through the night.

Figures that an appeal for actual critical thinking will fall on deaf ears here.

[incapsulated]

29. I don't and neither did she

But if ignoring her actual post floats your boat, feel free.

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. The "DLC" is not this all-powerful monotonous entity

Which is exactly what her post implies, and which is exactly the kind of bloated exaggeration and fear that I can't stand. The DLC is not this bugaboo responsible for a disproportionate amount of evil. It's just a convenient way to lump "everyone I don't like/everyone who doesn't fit into my agenda" into a neat little category, regardless of whether it's true or not. That was my entire point.

Joe Biden is an obsequious corporate whore, yet he is NOT DLC. Reid and Schumer are weak leaders, and they are NOT DLC. Kerry had the most progressive voting record of any Senator this year save Boxer and was the only Senator with the gumption to filibuster Alito, yet I'm supposed to hate him because he's allegedly a part of this deep dark evil shadow group because his name is on the DLC website? I'm supposed to reject him in favor of Biden, Byrd (who is conservative and voted for Alito), and Schumer?

It's NOT as simple as DLC vs. not-DLC, and TC reinforced my point that it's easier for some people to blindly hate the DLC and blame them for everything than to actually look around and evaluate what's going on for yourself.

[Totally Committed]

84. While they are "monotonous"...

I think you meant "monolithic". That point aside...

Can I ask where you get the right to say the things you say with regard to my 1st post? I even agreed with you on a couple of points. And, the rest was done tongue-in-cheek and with a wink. I do hate the DLC. I hate their policies, their candidates, their lack of balls, their heads up corporate America's butt, their policies.... I oppose them for sure. But, that 1st post of mine was mostly in jest, because I was hoping you would maybe chuckle a bit and at least discuss the anti-DLC concerns like we were all human beings together.

All I have seen is mean spirited pomposity in response to it. That's too bad, because every time we have a chance to discuss this and waste it fighting instead is an opportunity lost.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

92. I'm sorry I was snide to you

And yes, I meant monolithic. You have hoisted me upon my own petard.

That said, again, the DLC is NOT what you think it is. It's a think tank, and it basically consists of leftover Clintonites. Hillary is the most powerful DLCer left - the rest are either ineffectual (Landreiu), a joke (Lieberman), or have rejected the DLC's third way agenda (Kerry and Spitzer).

I'm sorry I got angry, but it infuriates me when people - yes, including you - refuse to make this distinction and to understand beneath the surface WHAT the DLC is and who you should direct your ire at. I mean, it's just ludicrous at this point to accuse John Kerry of being a no-good dirty DLCer after his courageous filibuster and solidly liberal voting credentials. Or Eliot Spitzer who has exposed a TON of corporate corruption on Wall Street, putting him at odds with the "corporate agenda" for sure.

[Totally Committed]

98. Thank you. This was very gracious of you, and I appreciate it.

More than anything, I wish Kerry would disavow this group, and leave their membership. He's my Senator, but I can't support him until he does. I admired his stab at filibuster (wished it came earlier, but still he took a stab. Good for him) and said so.

And as I said downthread, the fact that Kerry and Lieberman are BOTH DLC shows perfectly that not all DLC-ers are of the same stripe. But, as I said also, I wouldn't vote for ANY Republican, no matter how "moderate", because the fact they are Republican means they vote for and support what I feel is an evil set of policies just by being in that Party. Ditto anyone int he DLC.

Katrina changed everything for me. I want my Party and my country back. People died there because they were POOR, Black, and Democrats in a Red State. I oppose the Iraq war. People are dying there because we invaded a sovereign country because they had oil. I don't see the DLC promoting policies to help the poor over corporations, and disavowing the war any time soon. I therefore oppose them as well as the candidates that support their policies.

You are a class act for apologizing. I thank you again for your generosity.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

100. You're welcome

Also, please see my post # 97 at the bottom of the thread. I know you care about these issues, but: what a person DOES is more important than what group lists him or her as a member. Kerry's ACTIONS show that he is opposed to the Republican agenda, and actions speak A LOT louder than words, or passive memberships. Actions mean EVERYTHING. What if someone gave lip service to progressives, joined the PDA, but then voted with Repukes? In this instance, Kerry doesn't even give LIP SERVICE to the DLC. He doesn't go to their conventions and Al From, who recently gave an interview and mentioned possible DLC 2008 candidates, mentioned Hillary, Bayh, and Warner, but NOT Kerry. Don't you think that's telling? Al From rejected him. Seems to me that the DLC could care less about him, and he about it.

I understand your objections but really, it's crucial to make a distinction between a name and actions. You oppose DINOs, I gather from your posts, and don't consider them Democrats, even though they have a D behind their name. But what about DLC-In Name Only? Because that's exactly what Kerry is - affiliated with the DLC solely because of a website listing.

[Totally Committed]

102. I saw your post, and want to address this part of this post:

"He doesn't go to their conventions and Al From, who recently gave an interview and mentioned possible DLC 2008 candidates, mentioned Hillary, Bayh, and Warner, but NOT Kerry. Don't you think that's telling? Al From rejected him. Seems to me that the DLC could care less about him, and he about it."

It does say a lot about Kerry. I agree. I wish you or another supporter with access to him could impress upon him the need to leave that group and disavow their policies and their support for the wars being fought or about to be fought. Why does he remain with them? Can you tell me why he stays on the DLC rolls if they oppose him and he opposes them as you say?

And, btw, I do not support DINO's... that is correct. If someone were to join the PDA, then vote with the Republicans, I would not support him or her either. I don't see Kerry as a DINO. Right now I see him as a man at a crossroads, trying to have it both ways, and it makes him appear untrustworthy. To win back people like me (Liberals who feel betrayed and dissaffected and angry), he needs to disavow the DLC and start fighting under the banner of the little guy again. He has to make a choice between us and the corporate money or corporate support -- or whatever makes him stay a part of this organization that, as you point out, seems to have no use for him. The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy until he leaves their camp. After decades of being lied to and manipulated, a lot of Lefties like me feel that way.

Thank you, again, for being decent enough to talk about this rationally and without rancor. We are ALL winners when discussions like this can continue at DU. I feel I know your side of things much better now, and I hope you can see mine, too. Maybe next time, we can move closer to an understanding. I hope you will tell Sen. Kerry to leave the DLC, because "labels" matter. They tell you what's inside the packaging. Otherwise, cans would be blank, and people would still vote for "the good Republican". I wouldn't buy a can with no label, and I will never again vote for a Republican -- the same goes for a member of the DLC, or a DINO. Show me a candidate who is for the little guy, for Democratic and democratic ideals, against the agression and tyranny of the other side, and I will support him or her with my vote.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. Why doesn't he explicitly disavow them?

Honestly, I don't think it probably occurs to him - not because he supports them, but because they don't affect him nor he them in any way, so it probably just doesn't occur to him. Bad analogy - I am subscribed to a email list of a group which I do not participate in, yet I always just delete the emails - I don't take the time to bother to explicitly unsubscribe from the list. I'm still not in Model UN, even though I get their emails - I just don't really think about it enough to go out of my way to unsubscribe. I expect that the same is true of Kerry. I doubt the DLC *enters his mind* often, if at all. He is not invited to their functions, he does not socialize with their bigwigs, and I'm quite sure he has no clue the rancor the DLC inspires on places like DU. He knows what he believes and it is clear in how he votes and what he says in press releases and speeches, and I don't think it occurs to him that people judge him for a membership of a coalition of which he doesn't actively participate.

Your point about labels is taken, but at the same time, labels lead to unfair prejudice - remember that lesson in school, about not judging books by their cover, going beneath the surface to find out what's in someone's heart? At first glance the DLC label may be offputting, but once one looks deeper than the surface, you can see that it doesn't say anything about what he stands for. We would ALL, each of us, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, independent, moderate, and apolitical, be better off if we looked beneath the surface, beneath our first reactions and spur-of-the-moment judgments, into a person's character. DU could definitely use it - just this exchange, for example, look how much we've managed to accomplish speaking with respect. I apologize again for my rudeness earlier, and I know we've butted heads in the past. As a fervent Kerry supporter who sees the good he does, and who encounters daily all kinds of people with dishonest agendas who are hellbent on discrediting him, I admit I am extra-sensitive to negativity, especially unfair negativity. I have always, and admittedly still do, consider your attitude towards him unfair, as I have explained in this post all the reasons why it is unfair to dismiss him because of the DLC label. But thank you for reaching out to me - I'm seriously not this mean-spirited bitch monster who likes to personally attack others. It's just very easy to become angry, discouraged, and defensive on DU, and more understanding all around would go a LONG way.

I actually am interning for John Kerry this summer, and I will be sure to tell him if I get the chance the concerns you and others have with the DLC. Again, I have a very good feeling that he gives the DLC no consideration in his daily life - he might have even forgotten that he's still listed on their website, since it's pretty obvious he's not on Al From's Christmas card list. He would likely be surprised to learn all the opinions out there about it. But I have met John Kerry, and he is a warm, genuine, caring person who REALLY DOES listen to the voices of the average person and who really wants to do the right thing. When I met him, he was more interested in talking to my group (all average grassroots Dems) than with any big money people - we had come from all across the country and he was touched and humbled by our support and truly cared about what we had to say. You said you live in Massachusetts - if you get a chance to meet with him in his office or go to a town hall meeting, please do so and tell him what you think. I guarantee he'd listen to you and care about what you have to say.

Peace.

[Totally Committed]

136. You are interning for him this summer...

you are young! I have met Kerry many times over the decades, as well. (He's only a little older than me.) I worked on many of his campaigns over those many years. I've already communicated to him my deep displeasure over many things. As I said, and I meant it: The enemy of my enemy is stil my enemy until he leaves their camp. It's nothing against you, personally... I am just way too old, way too tired, and way too frustrated to put up with bullsh*t any longer. I'm so glad we were able to talk about this.

"- just this exchange, for example, look how much we've managed to accomplish speaking with respect. I apologize again for my rudeness earlier, and I know we've butted heads in the past. As a fervent Kerry supporter who sees the good he does, and who encounters daily all kinds of people with dishonest agendas who are hellbent on discrediting him, I admit I am extra-sensitive to negativity, especially unfair negativity. I have always, and admittedly still do, consider your attitude towards him unfair, as I have explained in this post all the reasons why it is unfair to dismiss him because of the DLC label. But thank you for reaching out to me - I'm seriously not this mean-spirited bitch monster who likes to personally attack others. It's just very easy to become angry, discouraged, and defensive on DU, and more understanding all around would go a LONG way." I know you still consider my attitude toward Kerry unfair. I'm sorry about that. It is very easy angry, discouraged and defensive over these things -- especially when you care as deeply as both of do about our Party and our country. As I said above, I am old. Imagine how you will feel if you get to my age, and everything you worked so hard to achieve and wanted so badly for your country was not even within reach... or if, after all your hard work, the Country and the Party you worked so hard for was in worse condition than before you started. That's where I am today. I am so pissed off and sad and angry. But, that's my problem, and not yours! I think it was great we were able to talk this over. Truly, you made my day.

You are going to love interning. At your age (I'm assuming late teens/early twenties), I was working in the South for Civil Rights, and marching in the streets for Peace. Once this sort of thing is in your blood, it never leaves. I hope you enjoy it a lot, and have a great time. But, don't let the negativity and the fights get you down. In politics, you are going to be far more effective if you can remember today, and approach opposition that way instead of with the anger I know you feel. Not everyone is ever going to agree with you all the time about everything -- especially your support of Kerry. But, how you deal with them could make all the difference. I hope the Senator knows how lucky he is to have you in his corner!

Peace to you, too!

TC

[FreedomAngel82]

161. Yes very true with Kerry

If you go to http://www.archive.org and type in his name you'll get some campaign video's up and there is one where he's on the campaign trail and he goes to this little bity town in Iowa. A TINY town and he goes to this local high school and talks to people there and at the end the video shows some students being interviewed and they all praise him saying how impressed and excited/happy they were he came to their little town! And they said how other politicians skip over them but not John Kerry. And he's a small business owner's best friend. Remember either earlier this year or late last year he did a new bill that will help small businesses. But maybe enough people need to call, fax, email their concerns about him and the DLC and maybe he'll listen if enough people call. He's been a fighter for the people since his anti-war days. Oh and I also wanted to add sometime if you have the opportunity go to c-span.org and in the video search engine type in John Kerry and look for him on "Road to the White House" from August 8th, 2003 and watch him interact with people in Littleton, New Hampshire. I love how he talks to people about their businesses and health care plans and just to get to know people. There's one time when he goes to a local store and this little girl about six to eight runs over to him and gives him a big hug like she's known him forever. It's so sweet. There's lots of other good stuff there too.

[FreedomAngel82]

160. Maybe with Kerry

he needs to have some people encourage him to leave the group? :shrug: I do find it strange that he doesn't have anything to do with them and them him but yet his name is still there. I wonder why that is too.

[FreedomAngel82]

159. I too also wonder

about Kerry. I have heard from plenty of Kerrycrats that he hasn't been affiliated with the group since 2003, so I wonder why they keep adding his name on there. :shrug:

[FreedomAngel82]

158. Right

The DLC has this whole fake thing that the country is moving to the right because they don't believe in election fraud. They also have some former republicans or people who used to work for republicans like some guy who used to work for the Christian Coalition which I find kinda strange I guess since aren't they supposed to be a very rightwing group? :shrug: But I haven't seen much proof that the DLC is overtaking the party because as the orignial poster mentioned there are lots of people trying to go more right who aren't involved with the DLC.

[FreedomAngel82]

157. Thank you!

Oh and don't forget the beloved Dean is a past member too. So does that mean people should not support Dean for anything because he used to be DLC? Or Mark Warner or John Edwards or Al Gore (who was a co-creator wasn't he?)?
Dean is doing a fine job as DNC chairman and Edwards has some great things going on with poverty and Warner did a good job in Virgina and Gore has been speaking out lately and doing passionate speeches (you covered everything with Kerry). So this is why with DLC as a whole I go by individual canidates records. This is like if I had some friends who did drugs, does that mean I do drugs too? Of course not!

[MisterLiberal]

122. okay,

I know this isn't about the DLC, but let me ask you: do you support the DLC and/or their policies?

BTW, so that you can be "in", this question IS about the DLC...

[WildEyedLiberal]

123. That's completely irrelevant to the point of this thread

I have also answered that question numerous times across the thread, if you'd like to scroll around. Saying I think it's ridiculous for so many on DU to irrationally fear and loathe the DLC doesn't mean I love the DLC.

[MisterLiberal]

125. Nice try

but you didn't answer my question.

Yes or no, do you support the DLC and/or its policies?

Surely after dishing all that out you can answer a simple yes/no question...

[WildEyedLiberal]

128. You can read

So read the thread. Sorry if I don't feel like responding to some anonymous internet ultimatum. My views on the DLC aren't hard to find if you can read this thread.

[MisterLiberal]

130. I think I'm on to something here

Two times you've had the opportunity to type either two (no) or three (yes) letters but each time you have spent more time avoiding answering the question.

Why not answer the simple question? My answer is "HELL NO" if you're curious.

Unless you are the only one who is "worthy" of framing a debate or a question in a thread. Is that what you're saying?

[WildEyedLiberal]

131. I'm saying you're wasting my time

And if you can't bother to read that I have answered that question multiple times in the thread, then I could really care less if you decide that I'm a three-headed space alien, because it really doesn't matter what you think.

Have fun on ignore.

[MisterLiberal]

132. Wow

All the way to ignore from a simple question which is directly related to your rant on the DLC.

I would say that if you really have no problem with the DLC that it would take neither effort or time to reply with an answer. None of the vague stuff you are saying in this post, either.

If you are so worried about those who decry the DLC, shouldn't we be equally entitled in knowing your own stance on the DLC?

Here's a free clue: It doesn't matter what you think, either, but at least I'm willing to answer your rant.

Go back to being "in" your own little world.

[Totally Committed]

30. You're IGNORANT, like me!

You're knee-jerking to an acronym together! Hey, at least we're not cluless, insensitive, pompous a**holes. It could be worse! LOL! :hi:

TC

[MisterLiberal]

124. LOL

True, if someone wants to "inform" the ignorant, they would do well to do so in a polite manner. To assume for a moment that such a tirade would be well accepted by those at the end of the rant is ridiculous.

[mzmolly]

33. LOL

:rofl:

[SaveElmer]

37. Zing...right on the money...nt

[MrBenchley]

40. And isn't it hilarious to see the "Who me?" gang

demonstrating how right on the money it IS?

[SaveElmer]

42. Well the OP was correct...

Some people's blind hatred of the DLC keeps them from seeing the actual point of his comments.

[MrBenchley]

46. Yup.

[LincolnMcGrath]

174. And isn't it hilarious to see the "Who me?" gang?

Yes It Is! (snicker)

[wyldwolf]

41. Ya know, what is so ironic about the anti-DLC crowd on DU...

...is that their constant vitriolic obsession with the organization is actually doing the reverse of what they intend it to do.

I've seen more than a few DUers who don't take either side in the "conflict" basically say, "Enough! GET OVER IT!"

My guess is that they see the blatant dishonesty in much of the DLC trashing.

[SaveElmer]

43. Especially when they play ... Six degrees of the DLC...

Use any convoluted chain of coincidence they can come up with to blame the DLC. This Hackett thing is the perfect example!

[Telly Savalas]

90. Finally somebody nearly nails the truth on the head...

the DLC is a cabal aimed at promoting the secret agenda of Kevin Bacon!

I'm not a real huge fan of them, but I find the way they are being tied to Hackett's withdrawal to be just weird.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

47. Hey, radio4progressives, speaking of "lacking evidence"

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

And who can forget you hilarious contention that FDR sought a constitutional amendment to guarantee everyone a job.

And you equally hysterical contention that FDR was elected three times and died during his third term:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2331300&mesg_id=2331633

But I'll issue you a challenge:

Give me three mean nasty bad pieces of trash about the DLC (make sure the same isn't true of non-DLC), demonstrate why they are bad, and we'll see how honest it is.

[radio4progressives]

51. nahh... i'll let you have all the fun... see my other post below...

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

54. Thought so

:hide:

[SaveElmer]

56. You didn't expect anything different did you?...nt

[wyldwolf]

58. no. Just another example to bookmark.

[WildEyedLiberal]

64. The anti-Democratic party agenda is so obvious

It's not even just anti-DLC. It's anti-every SINGLE Dem except the one or two tokens she trots out every now and then to convince us she isn't a troll.

[SaveElmer]

66. Going after "The Nation" now as well...

They had the gall to publish Hackett's internal poll numbers as an explanation for why he quit the race. Now "The Nation" is not to be trusted either...

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. Good Christ

How much farther left can you get than The Nation?

:eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

162. And there for a while

wasn't Mother Jones to not be trusted because they didn't believe in election fraud and now they're kissing up to the whole Hackett deal they're to be trusted? Sorry but I trust "The Nation" more.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. Ding ding ding

You pretty much just described me. I don't care about the DLC and I don't defend or attack them. But it's painfully obvious that for some people the DLC is the strawman that, in three letters, represents all that is evil and horrible and insidious. It serves the same function among those people as does Clinton with the freepercrowd - a scapegoat on which to blame everything under the sun.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Me, for one.

I'm from the UK; virtually all I know about the DLC I've learned from DU, and while I've found it very difficult to form a clear idea of what the DLC actually are and do (I presume "demons who eat babies" isn't the answer), I suspect that I'd probably approve of them, judging by the quality of most of the posts attacking them.

[SaveElmer]

67. Watch out then...

You will soon be attacked...probably accused (along with the DLC), of a secret plot to re-colonize the states!!!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

93. You mean they're on to us already?

Damn! We'll have to initiate phase three sooner than planned. Thank you for the warning.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. You mean they're on to us already?

Damn! We'll have to initiate phase three sooner than planned. Thank you for the warning.

[FreedomAngel82]

163. With the DLC

they were formed after Clinton first won to be for more moderate/center democrats who followed Clinton's more center/moderate platforms. What's so funny is a lot of democrats on DU love Dean, Edwards and Gore and they were former members too. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

169. nope, sorry

They were formed years before Clinton became president.

The Clinton platform was modeled after the DLC's, not vice versa as you say.

[ulysses]

119. I doubt that.

It's a known organization now. That's a good thing.

[wyldwolf]

170. three examples for you

I'm not a real huge fan of them, but I find the way they are being tied to Hackett's withdrawal to be just weird.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2464354&mesg_id=2464874

I don't care about the DLC and I don't defend or attack them. But it's painfully obvious that for some people the DLC is the strawman that, in three letters, represents all that is evil and horrible and insidious. It serves the same function among those people as does Clinton with the freepercrowd - a scapegoat on which to blame everything under the sun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2464354&mesg_id=2464661

I'm from the UK; virtually all I know about the DLC I've learned from DU, and while I've found it very difficult to form a clear idea of what the DLC actually are and do (I presume "demons who eat babies" isn't the answer), I suspect that I'd probably approve of them, judging by the quality of most of the posts attacking them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2464354&mesg_id=2464693

[ulysses]

172. the first person is correct.

The DLC had nothing to do with Hackett's withdrawal. The second person doesn't care either way, and the third hasn't researched the organization.

But they all know know what the DLC is.

[wyldwolf]

179. you must have missed my point

In the post you initially replied to, I said, "...is that their constant vitriolic obsession with the organization is actually doing the reverse of what they intend it to do.

I've seen more than a few DUers who don't take either side in the "conflict" basically say, "Enough! GET OVER IT!"

My three examples show this, and my point wasn't whether they know the DLC or not.

[ulysses]

181. I think you misunderstand my goal.

When I first joined DU, not many of us knew what the DLC was or that it even existed. If people in the party are more aware of the organization, what it stands for and what it doesn't stand for, and how it works to achieve its goals, I'm quite happy with that.

[radio4progressives]

44. Nahh... Just blame the Wild Eye Liberal! It's all your fault !

:rofl:

[sendero]

48. True, the DLC had nothing to do with this..

... but they SUCK nevertheless. And, the assholes who orchestrated this fiasco, they SUCK also. About 80% of the Dems in the Senate SUCK.

There is a lot of suck in the Democratic party. If there weren't this adminmistration, with 1000 times the liabilities of Bill Clinton, wouldn't be chugging merrily along destroying the country while the Dems in power play with themselves.

[Blue_Tires]

49. spot on n/t

[radio4progressives]

50. Support the Abolishiment of the Electoral College System and

implement Proportional Representation with IRV, so that you and the DLC can have your own party... ;)

[Totally Committed]

53. Touche!

Elegant and right to-the-point! With the Electoral College abolished, they say more than two political Parties is a possibility!

Thank you, radio4progressives... a very astute and pithy post!

TC

[radio4progressives]

55. It seems that, one has to state the obvious, over and over again...

for the 2% of those stubborn eensie weensie little minds ... ;)

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. What? That you have an obvious anti-Democratic message?

;)

You fool fewer and fewer people every day with your third party apologetics.

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. I knew sooner or later someone would accuse me of being a DLC apologist

But I won't hold it against you, since I know you're not a Democrat and that your every post on DU serves to divide and sow distrust and antipathy towards Democrats.

Only you seem to think that your agenda is invisible.

[radio4progressives]

69. You know absolutely nothing about me. I've been a Democrat ALL MY life

following generations that date back to the early part of the 19th century.. I'm also a southern ex-patriot - born in Atlanta Georgia, raised in the Military. You don't know shit about me.

I'm a dues paying, card carrying member of my local PDA. I'm fucking tired of the bootlicking bullshit this party has engaged in the several years and i want to see this party get it's fucking ACT TOGETHER, and stop placating the fucking FASCISTS.

If you actually *believe* that critising is "anti-democrat" , that's your problem - go seek your own council. but cheer leading for fascism is not what any american should be doing, i don't give a damn which party one is loyal to.

[wyldwolf]

71. heh!

:nopity:

You said "fucking." :headbang:

[autorank]

164. Agreed!!! I was raised on the values of the "New Deal" -- FDR!!! n/t

[radio4progressives]

57. Why is Feingold the only Dem fighting on behalf of our Civil Liberties?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463240&mesg_id=2463240

[radio4progressives]

62. quack quack quack...

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. Why do you post non sequitors designed to divide us?

Oh, wait, I know the answer to that one.

[MisterLiberal]

127. here's one...

when "moderates" ask the progressives to compromise, it is for "political expedience" but when the liberals ask the moderates to compromise, it's "designed to divide"?

Wow, that is one serious Rovian mindset, WEL...

[wyldwolf]

68. yeah? Why IS that?

I mean, we obviously know why the DLC isn't - what with their diabolical world domination and "progressive" enslavement plans.

But why aren't such great "progressive" luminaries like Kennedy, Kucinich, Boxer, McKinney, and oh yes, Dean, etc., standing up to protect our Civil Liberties?

[radio4progressives]

77. That is a good question... I was thinking your brilliance could shine a

little light on this because, i'm coming to one simple conclusion. and it ain't pretty. Boxer is going to have a lot to answer to, and she won't be able to explain this here that's for damn sure, people are pissed.

and why in the hell Feinstein put a Methamphatimine statute/clause in a legislation that was supposed to be dealing with Espionage and Domestic Terrorism, is beyond me. this bill as it is, not only makes permanent police state apparatus structure, it's actually creating a Gestapo Style police state with the new provisions. that is Fascism.

Of the Senators in the house, only Feingold, Byrd and Jefferds seem to get it. It doesn't seem to concern you much either.

that's telling..

[wyldwolf]

81. But you said only Feingold was... didn't you?

Now it's Feingold, Byrd and Jeffords?

But Byrd voted for that Bankruptcy bill...

Not only that, he voted to confirm Gale Norton and John Ashcroft. He voted against ending timber company subsides to build forest roads and has a 68% LCV rating. He’s voted against numerous abortion bills and only has a 43% rating from NARAL.. He voted for DOMA...

Or didn't you know?

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. Byrd also voted FOR ALITO

Which, BTW, disgusted me. Just making the point that during the filibuster he was a TRAITOR and now he's a hero again.

Chalk it up to the schizophrenia of DU I guess.

[NoPasaran]

176. Byrd's a hero again?

What happened? I knew he wasn't going to last as a traitor!

[radio4progressives]

87. so, what's your point?

Do you even CARE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW????

DO YOU??

[wyldwolf]

97. Thought so

:hide:

[FreedomAngel82]

165. Byrd also voted for Alito

[LittleClarkie]

115. And why was a dude on the DLC list the one to lead the Alito fillibuster?

They treat him like a red-headed stepchild, mind you.

But still.

[bvar22]

138. There was NO FILIBUSTER!!!!

Stick to the facts, not fantasy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

141. Um, thanks to those who thwarted Kerry.

Which was her entire point.

[LittleClarkie]

145. Semantics. Lead the CALL for a fillibuster. And the point remains the same

You can be a good man and still be on the DLC list. And you can be an asshat, and NOT be on their list. Some folks are blaming the Hackett FUBAR on the DLC when it looks like the people most involved were NOT DLC. So to say the DLC took out Hackett WOULD be fantasy.

[Aaaargh]

70. The DLC is not only an organization -- it's a disease

It's perfectly valid to describe a Democrat, office holder or otherwise, who spouts essentials of the DLC line as being of the DLC ilk, a DLC ally or, if you prefer, a DLC-liner.

Beyond that, it's a fact that a number of (unfortunately) prominent Democrats cooperate with the DLC at times, even if they aren't technically "members."

I really don't know whether, for instance, Sen. Chuck Schumer is currently a "member" of the DLC, but it matters to me that Schumer takes the same imperialist position as the DLC leadership does on the Iraq mission and the prospects of further such misadventures in the Middle East. Therefore, it's fair to say that Schumer is an ally of the DLC in this regard.

Why do traditional Democrats focus their contempt and anger over the direction of the party's leadership on the DLC? Because, though the organization has miniscule support among the party's membership, the DLC wields much power through their heavy-duty corporate sponsorship, in our political system which is currently designed to allow for corruption from big money; and because the DLC's policies and rhetoric exemplify the corporatist line which the party's current leadership all-too-often bows to, and which is poisoning the Democratic Party and reducing it to the status of being a watered-down version of the Republican Party -- as well as undermining our country's national security and standard of living.

The Democratic Party belongs to its membership, who are overwhelmingly traditional Democrats and not DLCers, DLC allies, or DLC apologists.

[Totally Committed]

74. Beautiful!

and right on, too.

Super post!

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. The problem with your post

Is that the DLC DOESN'T wield that much power among party leadership. When you fear and hate the DLC this much, you give it far more power than it has on its own.

The only party "leader" who is DLC is Hillary Clinton, and if you want to criticize her and her agenda, that's fine, but the DLC's control over what Democrats DO is nil. Basically, as your post illustrates, "DLC" has become a catchphrase for all the things you hate about elected Democrats, whether or not said things are actually a direct result of the DLC. Schumer isn't an "ally of the DLC" because such a concept is ludicrous.

Your post assumes that the DLC is a puppeteer pulling strings, but all it is is a moderate Democratic party think tank which promotes an agenda you dislike and which claims some elected Democrats as members, some of whom vote according to a moderate philosophy, and others of whom are very liberal.

Edit: John Kerry is another leader who is techinically DLC, but I didn't mention him because he does not adhere to the agenda you defined for the DLC. An insidious corporate traitor certainly wouldn't filibuster Alito or vote solidly liberal on every vote that came up this year.

[radio4progressives]

85. Hello? These "Think Tanks" Are where the Policies, Positions Strategy

is drafted and polished, then it is advanced by the players that wrote thse policies/strategies etc..

How do you think the Iraq War was pulled off? WMD's? PNAC who are also members of AIE and the Council of Foreign Relations. All of these "Think Tank" people who drafted these doctrines are heads of the Pentagon, NSA, the White House, and Congress as well as the Media. Some suggest are now sitting on Federal court ciruit.

What do you think the notion to "privatize" Social Security got promulgated from? Primarily CATO and Heritage and AEI - who sat on the boards of those think tanks? (before 2001)

The DLC is the same exact paradigm.

[WildEyedLiberal]

88. That assumes that the DLC and PNAC, AEI, Cato etc hold equal power

Are they the same kind of organizations? Yes

Do they wield even a shadow of the same kind of power right now? No

If you want to argue that the DLC, as a think tank, shaped Clinton's policy, I will heartily agree with you. After all, Clinton and his entire entourage are the essence of the DLC.

Except for Hillary, that essence has been out of power since 2000, and it's going out of style rapidly - the DLC's influence on the Democratic party is waning, not increasing. People are realizing that the halcyon days on Clinton are not coming back, and that the "third way" strategy which Clinton (yes, with the DLC) perfected and executed is not the answer. Look at John Kerry. I support him wholeheartedly because I believe he is genuine and sincere, but yes, I realize that he joined the DLC during Clinton's years and bought into some of the "third way" philosophy. Some of those votes were votes he now regrets, as the years in the interim have shown NAFTA to be very bad and harmful policy. He voted against CAFTA in 2005. He's still on the DLC website, but it's obvious from his votes that he's realized that the "third way" is not the way to go. Some DLC members still believe in the third way, and of course with Hillary you can see that that faction of the party is not gone.

Kerry's journey from believing in the "third way" to rejecting it mirrors the trajectory of the entire party as I see it. When Clinton won, people believed that it would be a way to reenergize the Democratic party. Now, few believe that, and few in the grassroots express support for the DLC positions or the DLC candidates (Lieberman, even Hillary, of whom I've met no real life supporters).

[radio4progressives]

105. hmm

I'm largely in agreement with the second half of your post, but the opening statements, but i'm unclear on your opening.


You said:

That assumes that the DLC and PNAC, AEI, Cato etc hold equal power

Are they the same kind of organizations? Yes

Do they wield even a shadow of the same kind of power right now? No

If i understand what you're saying, do i think the DLC has as much power as the CATO institute for instance?

That I would agree with you to a point, but that's because DLC is a faction within the party apparatus... where as CATO, AEI, Heritage et al are apparatuses outside of the party, though they wield great influence and dictate policy for the Republican party. That's sort of what the DLC intended to mirror, except as a Neo Liberal apparatus that wrote and advanced policy as well as cultivate "leadership" to hold office etc.

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. True

I was basically agreeing with you that they are a think tank that wants to influence policy. Sorry for the confusion. The DLC at one point was a powerful think tank, during the 90s, but since then its influence has been eclipsed by others, obviously because under Bush neocon/neoliberal views are the only ones heard. But IMO the only way the DLC will enjoy its previous level of influence is if Hillary is elected president, and I really, truly, honestly do NOT see that happening. She will not be the party's nominee.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[BillZBubb]

106. Oh, baloney!

The DLC has power well beyond it's actual membership. It's not a puppeteer. It's a cancer. It sucks the life out of any Democratic attempt to fight back. DLC is the Zell Miller wing of the Democratic party.

Where the DLC KILLS the Democrats at every turn is by undercutting a unified Democratic stand. There is ALWAYS someone from the DLC ready to sabotage any attempt by the Democrats to fight hard. They regularly produce one or two stooges who will agree with the Repugs on issue after issue. That allows the Repugs to claim bipartisan support.

[FreedomAngel82]

166. So where is Zell Miller's name on their list?

[NoPasaran]

177. I think that Rahn Emmanuel would qualify as a party leader

By virtue of his position as head of the DCCC.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. LOL Pathetic

Not everyone who was upset over hackett's treatment and subsequent withdrawl can be deemed a 'leftist' or even 'anti-DLC'. This is what, the 20th thread to try to prop up this false accusation?

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. This doesn't have anything to do with being upset over Hackett

Actually. A lot of people are upset about the Hackett fiasco without accusing it of being a DLC conspiracy. This is fine, and not what I addressed. However, there are plenty who ARE pulling the bait-and-switch and making this all about the DLC, and it is to them that this post is aimed.

I have no problem with people who are upset about the Hackett ordeal and demonstrate a logical argument to that effect.

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. There is plenty of bait and switch, I agree about that.

Plenty of folks turning this in to a anti leftist issue, when the one guy on the local level that I know strongly supported Hackett is as for to the right as anyone in our county central committee. He is furious at the process, because it nipped his boy.

On a side note, How many DLC conventions does Schumer have to HOST before it is ok to consider him "One of the gang". :hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. That's sort of the crux of the issue

There are plenty of "non-DLC" politicians who fit DU's definition of DLC. Schumer, Biden, Reid.

There are several "DLC" politicians who do NOT fit the DLC stereotype, and are quite liberal. Kerry, Spitzer.

This is what I was getting at and why I think it's better to evaluate/criticize pols on a case-by-case basis, as the lines of demarcation aren't nearly as clear cut as "DLC = bad/non-DLC = good."

[Neil Lisst]

80. I have problems with Al From and with DLC, but it's the Wiz of Oz

They WISH they were so influential!

I am very dubious of the constant attacks on the DLC, as is the OP. I don't get Dems who aren't in the minority enough, already, they aren't in a deep enough hole, already. They gotta KEEP DIGGIN'!

Let's win one friggin house of congress, then stop to bitch at each other inside the party. Without some serious party unity and focus, we're going to Whig ourselves into permanent minority status. This is not a parliamentary system. Play with the system you've got.

[Totally Committed]

86. It's the constant triangulation, and undermining I cannot abide.

Al From is a disingenuous a**hole who throws a wrench into this Party's discourse every chance he gets. I will oppose him, the DLC, and any candidate or policy they put forth.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. No one listens to Al From

And you really need to learn the differences between "DLC candidates." It'd help people not characterize you as a kneejerker, because it shows you think only in black and white and are not willing to make exceptions or disrupt your preconceived notions.

[Totally Committed]

91. Look... Kerry is DLC and so is Lieberman....

that shows not all DLC-ers are painted alike. Kerry votes far to the Left of Lieberman on most things. But, I oppose both of them on much the same grounds... they support the policies of a group for which I have nothing but contempt. They suuport war. They support corporate influence and power. They must, because they are members of a group that does.

I would not vote for any Republican, no matter how "moderate", because I know the Republcian Party is evil, and out to destroy this country. Anyone associated, even loosely with that Partysupports a President who is destroying this country, and therefore, is opposed to my beliefs. Ditto all that to the DLC, which I see in much the same light.

My notions are not "preconceived" but forged by decades of working hard for a Democratic Party that is disappearing before my eyes, right along with the country I love. The Republicans are taking away my country and the DLC is disappearing my Party.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. No, your first paragraph is not true

You're almost there. But what is a measure of what a politician stands for? What they vote for, or what website has their name on it? Be FAIR.

Kerry filibustered Alito. Kerry voted against CAFTA. Kerry has exposed more government corruption in his life with Iran-Contra and BCCI than any other pol. Eliot Spitzer - also DLC - as AG of New York, has exposed scads of corporate corruption on Wall Street. But according to you, because his name on the list, that matters more than what he actually does.

At this point, you are just arguing that someone's name on a website matters more than their actions. You are arguing that three letters mean more than what someone DOES. What makes laws in this country? What gets things done? Is it actions, or passive membership? Is it what you do, or what someone says you are?

I think you know the answer to that, and therein, you know it's horribly unfair and WRONG to lump Spitzer and Kerry in with Lieberman. You KNOW that.

[Totally Committed]

99. See my post about this at #98...

it is a further explanation of this point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2464354&mesg_id=2464921

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. LOL

I just referred you to my post 97. Anyway, I responded to you upthread.

[Totally Committed]

103. I saw it, and responded!

Thanks again for this discussion, and for theapology. We are both passionate about our feelings in this matter, but I feel I understand WHY so much better now. If there is another discussion, maybe we can move closer to a real understanding, and find a way to get every faction in this Party closer to the same page before the next round of elections.

:yourock:

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

112. Yes - more understanding is a GOOD thing.

I replied to you again upthread, which I hope you see. I am glad you extended the proverbial olive branch - it IS an issue where passions run high, and that combined with the anonymity of a message board makes it easy for a discussion to devolve into rudeness and flaming. Peace :hug:

[rucky]

104. You're just trying to take the heat off of yourself.

Because everybody knows it's your fault.

Bali? You. AIDS in Africa? You again. Paris Hilton Sex Tapes? ok, that was me, but...

[WildEyedLiberal]

110. SHIT

Did you HAVE to spill the beans to ALL OF DU???

NOW how the HELL am I supposed to cause World War III????

[radio4progressives]

107. FWIW.. I thought this was a "tongue firmly planted in cheek" Rant...

for that reason i didn't read the entire OP, and i first entered this thread in attempt at playful fun...

my attempt at humor was not taken well... and so i depart here, leaving all you to your own devices.. :hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

111. It was, but it was also trying to make a serious point

However, I think we managed to achieve some meaningful dialogue re: the specificity of the DLC upthread. Peace.

[ulysses]

114. well, no.

Just most things. ;-)

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. The rest are my fault

Excuse me while I start WWIII and spread famine and plague across the land :evilgrin:

[FreedomAngel82]

167. Now you've gone and done it

You're going to spoil Bush's plans!

[Capn Sunshine]

116. Rather disingenuous post

Not everyone at DU is as articulate as the pro-DLC group on this thread.

Not everyone is as hysterical about the DLC as this lampoon is intended to portray.

The disingenuity is in its attempt to smear those who DO see a problem with the DLC, to tar them as obsessed paranoids.

I just once would like a legitimate answer on the DLC's funding.
Coors, Olin and Bradley foundations, the Heritage foundations, PNAC signatories, these are arch rightwing groups and people who have a demonstrated animosity for anything legitimately Democratic Party.

The Bradley Foundation's overwhelming support for the Iraq quagmire AND the DLC is rather discomfiting.

Tell me again why one would take money from these people. For what possible purpose.

Not so funny now, is it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. No, that actually wasn't the point of the OP at all

This wasn't a "pro-DLC" post and it's not saying that there can be no legitimate criticism of the DLC.

What it IS saying is that there are those for whom the DLC is a strawman, a boogeyman, the source of EVERY problem in politics; just for example, the Hackett fiasco, which has nothing to do with the DLC.

There are some people on here for whom Bush could fart and it would be the DLC's fault. I object to that kind of irrational groupthink. That is not the same as saying that there can be no criticism of the DLC, or that anyone who criticizes the DLC exhibits said groupthink.

[Capn Sunshine]

134. funny, that

I certainly took it as a swipe at those who have quarrel with the DLC.

And wonderful sidestep on that funding issue.
I was a member until I realized what the true purpose of the DLC is, to provide From etc. with a handsome living brokering for the "loyal opposition".

If the party doesn't cooperate, and progressives take over, corporations stand to lose billions as equity takes over as a national sentiment, and THAT my friend is what the DLC feels we really can't afford.

[WildEyedLiberal]

142. I'm not sidestepping anything

This isn't a pro-DLC thread, so I don't really feel compelled to answer your question, since I've never presented myself as Defender of All Things DLC. Ask someone who is DLC to answer it for you.

I'm sorry that's how you took it, but I meant it exactly how I said I meant it.

[FreedomAngel82]

168. So tell me why

you have a picture of Howard Dean in your signature when he is a former DLC member?

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. there are other influences that try to move the party to the right--not

just the DLC. I have even read some post recently by "anti-DLC" people (and to be honest I am myself anti-DLC) advocating the DLC strategy of not running real progressives even when they have an excellent chance of winning.

But I am having a case of diarrhea right now. And this I do blame on the DLC.

[WildEyedLiberal]

129. Yes, thank you for understanding my point

And it's your own fault for eating that DLC brand taco. You should've known better! :spank:

:P

[SaveElmer]

133. And if you have noticed...

Most of the people on the board who may tend to defend the DLC, or at least to not believe it is the evil force behind every problem have generally praised the candidacy of Sherrod Brown.

For alot of us it is about winning the government back from the demonstrably evil men in the White House. For me at least the difference between Sherrod Brown and say Tim Kaine in Virginia is far less important than the differences between either man and the Republicans in power.

Sherrod Brown is the right man in Ohio right now IMO. And I'd rather even have Ben NElson in Nebraska, where he is about as liberal as you can be and get elected statewide, than the Republican alternative. At the very least, he is a vote for Harry Reid.

[Free the Press]

139. EVERYTHING IS THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS' FAULT!

Hackett withdraws from Ohio Senate race? BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

Despite the fact that neither Reid nor Schumer is progressive purist? WHO CARES, BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

Despite the fact that Brown is far to the left of Hackett, except on voting to link Iraq to the War on Terror and on votes to finance the War machine? IT DOESN'T MATTER, BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS THAT I DON'T LIKE IS THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS' FAULT!

Late for work? BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

Dog took a shit on your new carpet? BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

Your favorite pet candidate lost a race? IT'S AUTOMATICALLY THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS' FAULT!

Bush breaks treaties, lies, and invades another country? BLAME THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

No matter WHAT happens, it is SOMEHOW connected to the progressive purist!

THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY ILL IN AMERICA TODAY!

EVERYTHING BUSH DOES IS ACTUALLY THE FAULT OF THE PROGRESSIVE PURISTS!

The progressive purist is our VERY FAVORITE STRAWMAN!

After all, who needs to THINK about anything, when it's SO MUCH EASIER to blame EVERYTHING you don't like on a convenient target like the progressive purist?

EVERYONE you don't like is a progressive purist, regardless of whether they actually ARE OR NOT

So that means you don't actually CARE who is progressive purist and who is not -

It's just an EASY way to BLACKLIST people you hate

It's not even about the real progressive purist anymore - very few people here actually understand who runs the progressive purist, or that progressive purist members don't vote as a unified bloc, or that they don't take mysterious marching orders from anyone - not even Lieberman - LIEBERMAN is responsible for Lieberman's votes, not the progressive purist

It's not about the progressive purist, it's about finding a SCAPEGOAT

It's about kneejerk groupthink replacing critical thinking

And at least one of you will prove my point by calling me a progressive purist apologist. I GUARANTEE IT.

The smarter of you, of course, realize that this thread is not about the progressive purist at all.

In fact, the progressive purists have caused the Democratic Party to lose two consecutive Presidential elections, to lose the Congress, to lose the Democratic tilt on the Supreme Court, and to lose control of the federal government in general over the past 13 years, right?

If your smart, then you'll know this is not about Hackett vs. Brown for US Senate in 2006, which even a PROGRESSIVE PURIST like myself supports.

***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=437609&mesg_id=438305

Also, close your eyes and make believe that DLC member Rahm Emanuel is not the chair of the DCCC, because his actions as chair of the DCCC mainly include DIRECTLY recruiting and supporting federal candidates for Congress. According to the IRS tax exempt status <501(C)(4)> that the DLC enjoys, the DLC is not allowed to devote a substantial portion of its activities to such causes.

Since Rahm is not acting in his DLC capacity, then his actions as Chair of the DCCC don't amount to activities that could risk the tax exempt status of the DLC, correct?

More importantly, even if Rahm substantially increases the number of Democrats in Congress who are DLC in 2006, it does not amount to a substantial amount of DLC activities, at least not enough to risk the tax exempt status of the DLC, correct?

The DLC does not directly do anything to either recruit or directly support political candidates for federal office, even if Rahm is a member of the DLC and is doing it, correct.

Thanks for clarifying these important issues.

Those damn progressive purists really should be silenced and forced to exist strictly WITHIN their own progressively pure organization so other more sensible CENTRISTS in the Democratic Party can operate outside their organization and control the DNC, right?

[WildEyedLiberal]

143. I think someone warned me upthread that someone would try to do this

Right on the money. Sorry you missed the point of the thread.

[Free the Press]

146. But I had the same intent. Sorry you missed it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

147. What was your intent?

I really don't see it. :shrug:

I don't really see the incessant blaming of "progressive purists" for every ill under the sun... in contrast, the DLC gets blamed for everything from Bush to someone's ulcers.

[Free the Press]

149. Anyone who questions the DLC is labeled a "progressive purist."

This thread humorously portrays the DLC as some sort of victim of unwarranted chronic accusations, but ignores the fact that DU members who are supportive of the DLC are a cohesive and active lot who relentlessly launch unwarranted and chronic accusations against "progressive purists," who dare to question anything about the DLC - an organization that is not exactly forthcoming about its own finances and its activities relating to federal elections and Congressional lobbying.

"Progressive purists" are blamed for nearly every current and historical problem with the Democratic Party, and called far left-wing loonies by these same DU members, often in tandem.

But those labels are not in dispute, right?

That is why I find your thread to be so humorous!

[WildEyedLiberal]

150. It was more a commentary on those who blame the DLC for everything

Not a statement that there is never any reason to legitimately criticize the DLC.

[Free the Press]

151. I never accused you of claiming the DLC is beyond reproach.

My take on your OP is that it was humorous, but to Progressives it was more so, considering the abuse that "progressive purists" get @ DU for everything under the sun, without seeming to be victims themselves.

Just last week I was called a Freeper here @ DU for asking a few questions about the DLC.

That was right before a group of DU'ers, in tandem, reduced the charges to "progressive purist" and "far left-wing looney."

[WildEyedLiberal]

152. Well, sorry you had to put up with that

Sorry for the misunderstanding... I think I've been on DU too long today. DLC, anti-DLC, progressives, centrists - I think my brain is turning to mush. I better go get a drink. ;)

[Free the Press]

154. Cheers!

:toast:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

171. DU members in the DLC?

I think you must be thinking of some other DU. As far as I can recall, I have literally never seen a single pro-DLC post in GD or GDP - the furthest I've ever seen anyone go is "they're not as bad as some DUers make them out to be".

I don't know where this "cohesive and active lot" you're describing post, but it isn't here. Although I suppose it could just be two cohesive and active posters.

I have seen posts attacking what you term "progressive purists", but they're far, far outnumbered by posts by "progressive purists" demanding that the Democratic party be purged of everyone they regard as impurely progressive.

I think that demand is foolish enough, and - crucially - is made often enough, to warrant some attacks on "progressive purists" as a group.

I'm proud to be progressive, but purism is a sure route to perpetual opposition.

[Free the Press]

180. "DU members in the DLC?" link please? Faulty premise; faulty argument!

"I think you must be thinking of some other DU. As far as I can recall, I have literally never seen a single pro-DLC post in GD or GDP - the furthest I've ever seen anyone go is 'they're not as bad as some DUers make them out to be.'"

1). NO, I am not "thinking of some other DU."

2). Did you mean "post" or thread?

3). Your lack of personal awareness of the instances that are the basis for my claims is not evidence against or repudiation of my claims.

4). Join DU, and use the search engine, if you would like to be sure.

***

"I don't know where this 'cohesive and active lot' you're describing post, but it isn't here. Although I suppose it could just be two cohesive and active posters."

1). Cohesive and active are not quantitative measures.

2). Again, you could join DU, and use the search engine, if you would like to be sure.

***

"I have seen posts attacking what you term 'progressive purists', but they're far, far outnumbered by posts by 'progressive purists' demanding that the Democratic party be purged of everyone they regard as impurely progressive."

1). The term "progressive purist" was used by other DU'ers to describe me after I posted questions about the DLC. The term is not mine, so kindly refrain from attributing it to me.

2). I didn't claim to know what the term "progressive purist" means, but instead claimed to be called a "progressive purist" by those in DU who are supportive of the DLC - meaning those who post messages in this forum in support of the DLC.

3). Did you take the time to read the threads that contained those "posts attacking" "progressive purists" from top to bottom?

Many of these "posts attacking" "progressive purists" are contained in the same threads where you "have literally never seen a single pro-DLC post in GD or GDP," but could have if you read the entire threads.

4). Does being outnumbered change the content of messages that the outnumbered have written about those who outnumber them @ DU? NO.

5). Do you have links to demonstrate the greater volume of posts by "'progressive purists' demanding that the Democratic party be purged of everyone they regard as impurely progressive?"

Show me DU searches that verify your claim, and I will agree with you.

***

"I think that demand is foolish enough, and - crucially - is made often enough, to warrant some attacks on 'progressive purists' as a group."

So, does the end justify the means? Do two wrongs make a right?

***

"I'm proud to be progressive, but purism is a sure route to perpetual opposition."

1). I am glad that you are proud to be a progressive. The term "progressive" has many meanings. The meaning you intend will help me to understand which type of progressive you claim to be.

2). When you wrote that "purism is a sure route to perpetual opposition," did you mean that purism only applies to progressives?

If not, then certainly this point can be made against any politician who is devoted to political values that are always on the same point or constrained to the same narrow range in the political spectrum, regardless of whether they are a Democrat or Republican.

3). Is a constant moderate a moderate purist? Is a staunch right-winger a right-wing purist? Is a steady left-wing liberal a liberal purist? Are all of these purists subject to perpetual opposition? Or Are "progressive purists" the only purists that are "subject to perpetual opposition?"

[NoPasaran]

178. Well, the PROGRESSIVE PURISTS who voted for Nader in 2000

Do have a lot to answer for.

[Moochy]

140. Paragraphs are your friend

Critical thinking is aided by modern innovations such as paragraphs, and punctuation! :P

[WildEyedLiberal]

144. It was actually a deliberate construct

It was a tongue in cheek post, and the humor wouldn't have translated very well if I'd typed it like a normal grammatially correct post. And I'll HAVE YOU KNOW that I am a GRAMMAR NAZI, so don't even try to out-grammar-Nazi me! :P

[Moochy]

148. Rant stylie

I figured it was rant-stylie, but I had nothing to add but snarky love. :)

And I will add some of my thoughts, re: Hackett's bowing out of the race. DU's great minds, pro/anti/and ambivalent towards the DLC seemed to me to give out plenty of reasonable facts about the DLC and their non-involvement in this particular event. Even the rabid anti-dlc and pro-dlc factions.

As Moochy proffers a white dove of peace, and is shot by the Cheney lookalikes, hunting a covey of anti-DLC doves. :P

[FreedomAngel82]

155. It's so true

[NativeTexan]

173. DIVIDE and CONQUER...THAT has been the Bushies plan...

...plan all along!!

Seems to be working again, in some quarters.

[pat_k]

175. It's Insiders v. Outsiders -- and DLC embodies the insiders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2463516&mesg_id=2463516