I support the DLC, the DLC are members of the Democratic Party as well

[...of J.Temperance]

I fully support the DLC, and I'd like some people to recognize and understand that us DLCer's are members of the Democratric Party as well.

It's imperative in this election year that ALL who call themselves Democrats pull together for the greater good. We ALL want the SAME thing, whether we're DLC Centrist Democrats or Liberal Democrats... we ALL want OUR party returning to power, we ALL in 2008 want a Democratic President in the White House, we ALL want an end to the politics of division, we ALL want a better future for ALL of our people.

The ONLY way that we can achieve these objectives, is if we pull together and realize our strengths and concentrate on the issues that we can agree on and unite around those issues.

People need to understand that one cannot or should not agree on 100% of the issues, that if one agrees with someone on 80% of the issues then that should be good enough, that agreeing on 80% of the issues is better than having someone whom one disagrees with on 100% of the issues.

People need to understand that issuing litmus tests and purity tests ISN'T the way to advance our party forward, and that being willing to cut off one's nose to despite one's face doesn't exactly help us as a party and that it doesn't help us on our road to regaining power in Washington DC.

The Democratic Party....MY party, YOUR party, OUR party....is a big tent, and the tent is big enough to accomodate ALL of our individual AND collective views.

In order to advance our party forward, sometimes people need to realize that compromises have to take place, and that people like me a PROUD DLCer have to meet the more Liberal section of our party at some halfway point....and that the more Liberal section of our party have to meet us DLCer's at some halfway point....that we have to offer each other olive branches and show each other respect....and by doing these things we can make it easier to advance forward as a party.

In this election year, there are going to be people who are going to attempt to undermine our cause, attempt to demoralize us as a party, attempt to dampen our spirit....I appeal to people NOT to listen or pay attention to these people, ignore them and continue to move forward toward OUR common goal, OUR common aim....the return of the Democratic Party to power.

The DLC needs the Liberal section of the Democratic Party and the Liberal section of the Democratic Party needs the DLC, we are ALL Democrats and I would hope that we can do our best to attempt to both understand AND respect each other more and that we can attempt to utilize one anothers talents for the good of OUR party.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[emanymton]

1. Gaming The System To Win Is Not Worth It.

Members of the DLC may believe the ends justify the means, winning is everything. This is playing by 'their' game-book. Do not agree.

Honest liberalism and integrity are better strategy.

[...of J.Temperance]

3. But winning IS everything

In order to actually DO something and in order to be in a position to put one's policies in place, one first of all HAS to win.

Also one CAN have integrity AND also have the philosophy that winning IS everything.

[HereSince1628]

4. Oh, Lordy!!!!!!!!!!! And I thought you were serious!

And this is a freaking joke thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

[...of J.Temperance]

7. This is EXACTLY the problem

Someone attempts to have a serious, rational and logical discussion....and you slap it down and reject it.

So what one learns then, is that it's not the DLC who's not open to offering olive branches and genuinely interested in opening a dialogue.

The DLC also does have a track record of winning elections with our candidates at state level with Governors and at federal level with Senators, Congress people AND Presidential candidates.

[HereSince1628]

30. No. I mock an anti-democratic elitist organization.

I laugh at the stupid ideas it has spawned.

And why is it you call the left Liberals? We aren't all liberals you know. Many of us are PROGRESSIVES.

You know, people who believe that making the country less classist, less elitist, more inclusive in its policies, regulations, laws and participation in the benefits of society is _EVERYTHING_!

[Totally Committed]

45. Corporatists, warmongers, elitists, classists, Bushie-enablers...

'Nuff said. The DLC needs to GO. Period.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson (1816)

TC

[alvarezadams]

53. Those Hamiltonians refuse to go away

eh?

[Totally Committed]

56. I say it's time we help them a little...

by voting their sorry asses out of office over and over until none of them are left.

Sound good to you?

TC

[alvarezadams]

57. Either that...

...or a Jeffersonian revolution.

What worries me is that the DNC adopted neoliberal economics with absolutely no public debate. The immense majority of the electorate doesn't like "outsourcing" but doesn't realize that it is a central part of the neoliberal "free trade" ideology... or that both parties support it to a greater or lesser extent. Those of us "in the know" have to fight with both hands and one foot behind our backs because of the general ignorance on one side and the absolute prevalence of neolib thinktanks ranging from Cato to Heritage to PPI...

We need a "FOURTH way" that combines the good points of capitalism and socialism, obviating the old talkingpoints that have become dated through abuse. Something that appeals to the "social libertarians" that seems to make up 99% of "progressives" even though such an ideology has never been articulated.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

70. Sigh...

I hope you enjoy your time under a Republican government.

You may not like the DLC, but you do need them.

[alvarezadams]

78. Bigger sigh

"I hope you enjoy your time under a Republican government."

Luckily I live abroad.

"You may not like the DLC, but you do need them. "

I don't need them. I'd rather have my poison without sugarcoating.

The choice you offer is clear: "win" with the DLC even if that is tantamount to a GOP victory, or losing but at least leaving a ray of hope through a true opposition. I'll take the latter any day.

Why is it so important to win at ANY cost... to the point of giving up one's values just to have a "D" in power? Even if said "D" is a neocon/neolib 5th columnist?

FWIW, the neocons/neolibs are the radical RIGHT fringe of the GOP as well as the basis of the DLC. To embrace them is to embrace the enemy... and I won't go to bed with my enemy in order to "win" an election that is tantamount to defeat.

[Iowa]

203. Very well stated. Kudos!

[AZBlue]

216. You live abroad so it's easy for you to be so "brave"

You won't have to live with the disastrous results of your actions. The rest of us will. Thanks a lot.

[alvarezadams]

238. Au contraire

I live abroad so I'm on the wrong end of our government's actions.

I live in Madrid and remember how the actions of Dubya's lapdog Aznar blew up over here.

[...of J.Temperance]

302. No, the way the GOP are going to remain in power is by

People for example supporting that lifelong Green Party fellow who's pretending to be a Democrat in order to destroy Senator Clinton. Okay, I disagreed with the Iraq War from day one, I still disagree with the Iraq War....however I'm not about to throw Senator Clinton overboard because she voted for the IWR....I look at Senator Clinton's Senate voting record as a whole, I don't issue purity tests and litmus tests and I can see the forest for the trees and I refuse to cut of my nose to spite my face.

There are a ton of people who will support the Green Party fellow and willingly so, knowing full well that this could cause that New York Senate seat to go Republican....it's this sort of person that's going to cause the GOP to remain in power, not people like DLC people.

[...of J.Temperance]

305. You consider members of your OWN party as "the enemy"?

That's a GREAT way NOT to win another election I must say.

I like the way pretty much EVERYONE has totally ignored the positive aspects of my OP, where I say that we need to pull together in order to win, that we ALL want the SAME thing.

What this has shown me, it's not the DLC that issues purge threats, it's not the DLC that's not inclusive, it's not the DLC that's not willing to compromise and work for the greater goal and work for the common thread that unites us as Democrats.

If people want to win, people need to compromise and work as a united unit.

[leesa]

106. Ah, the big lie. To win you must become Republicans.

[Totally Committed]

175. Oh, how they want us to believe that....

I swear they're in cahoots with the RNC on this. That way, no matter WHO's elected, the Republicans win.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." -- Harry S. Truman

Maybe Harry was right, and THAT's why we're losing elections... hmmmmm?

TC

[AZBlue]

219. No, that's the big lie.

No one said anything about becoming Republicans. This is about beating them, not becoming them or keeping them in power.

[alvarezadams]

239. So you're against the DLC too then?

'Cos a victory with the DLC is tantamount to a GOP victory - with the added insult of forfeiting any possible opposition.

This "vote for the shirt" garbage has to stop - and "party" has to have a meaning again. I'd hate to see the Dems go down the same path as the GOP, abandoning its values to a cabal of neocons.

[...of J.Temperance]

306. I always appreciate your comments AZBlue

Just sayin'. I've always valued your sensible contributions to DU.

[...of J.Temperance]

356. Total nonsense

Where did anyone say this? However, if you want to keep believing the misrepresentations that you've been fed, then just carry on.

[...of J.Temperance]

367. Thank you Donald Ian Rankin

I would hope that more people than some people realize will accept that the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party needs the DLC....and also that the DLC needs the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

As I said in my OP, we're ALL in the SAME political party, we might differ on some things, but we're ALL Democrats and we ALL want Democratic victories.

[...of J.Temperance]

366. I don't want us to just have 16 Senators

Obviously you'd be happy with us just having 16 Senators?

[AZBlue]

215. Call yourself whatever you want - your ways will keep the GOP in power

eom

[alvarezadams]

260. So effing what?

If the option is between the GOP and the GOP in Dem's clothing - what difference does it make?

If the DNC frees itself of the 5th column it will at LEAST maintain an opposition, while the DNC under the aegis of the DLC would signify the end of progressive ideals.

[...of J.Temperance]

309. The difference it makes is

Roe v Wade would never be in danger for one thing.

[alvarezadams]

331. Good

So people will be able to have abortions as their pocketbooks are no longer capable of raising children.

[CrushTheDLC]

339. The DLC as guardians of Roe V Wade? Now that's funny!

The DLC Senators confirmed Roberts and Scalito. The DLC Senators made sure Casey was the ONLY democrat in the PA senate race. Exactly what has the DLC done to preserve Roe v Wade, when I just mentioned three examples which suggest the opposite?

Fact is that Roe v Wade isn't going to be overturned because that and "makin sure them sodomites cain't get married" are the only way the fascist neocons can get the Freepers out of the trailer park and into the polls.

[...of J.Temperance]

355. Do you have ANYTHING constructive to comment?

Or are ALL of your comments going to be attacking and snide comments?

[SaveElmer]

361. Here are the facts...

The following non-DLC members voted for John Roberts...

Non-DlC FOR

Robert Byrd
Chris Dodd
Russ Feingold
Herb Kohl
Patrick Leahy
Carl Levin
Patty Murray
Jay Rockefeller
Ron Wyden

Total 9

DLC For

Baucus
Bingaman
Carper
Conrad
Dorgan
Johnson
Lieberman
Landrieu
Nelson
Nelson
Lincoln
Pryor
Salazar

Total 13

Hardly unique to the DLC...

As to Casey...if you could point me to the DLC Senators that made sure Casey was the only one in the race I'd like to see it...if you are referring to the DSCC, that same DSCC supported anti-war progressive Sherrod Brown in Ohio...in fact it has nothing to do with the DLC or their position on abortion, it had to do with winning elections...

And oh...here is a paper published on the PPI website written by that DLC whipping boy Will Marshall in which he writes...

There are two things, however, that Democrats shouldn't do. The first is to embrace culturally conservative positions. On the contrary, Democrats should continue to press for stem cell research, block any Bush administration attempt to pack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges, and, in general, stand up to a dogmatic and intolerant strain of religion that seeks to impose its moral vision on the rest of us. Democrats should keep in mind that Bill Clinton won a dozen red states in 1992 and 1996, with essentially the same positions as John Kerry. But Clinton's humble origins, overt religiosity, and cultural empathy with working families allowed him to bond with middle America in a way the Massachusetts senator couldn't.

In fact...that vast majority of DLC members...virtually all are pro-choice. The votes on Roberts and Alito were not strictly about abortion as the number of non-DLC senators voting for those nominees attests...

[...of J.Temperance]

303. What exactly is the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive?

Simple question, because I've never known what the difference is.

I'm a Centrist Democrat, I'm an economic conservative and a social liberal....I'm pro-Choice, pro-Gay Rights, pro-Stem Cell research, pro-Civil Rights, pro-Payroll Tax, pro-Social Security....although I'm 100% pro-Death Penalty and I support the rights of gun owners.

[Hawkowl]

308. Economic Conservative?

To me and many others that means you value corporations over people. It means you put a price tag on lives. It means you are ignorant, and mean spirited because you think the have-nots should pull themselves up by their bootstraps--though they have none.

[...of J.Temperance]

358. I'm not ignorant, I'm pragmatic

I support a Payroll tax cut, I support economic incentives for people on lower wages, I support giving people a hand up and not a hand out....but I also don't think that corporations are evil and I support the Capitalist system....I also don't think that taxing the rich to the highest hilt is the solution to making things fairer for those on lower incomes.


"and mean spirited because you think the have-nots should pull themselves up by their bootstraps--though they have none."


Gosh, talk about putting words into my mouth! Where is your evidence to back up such an outrageous statement?

For your information, I'm 100% against privatizing Social Security. I think though that we need more welfare reform, there are too many people who are abusing the system, people who are capable of getting a job and earning their own way and supporting themselves. We need to put a stop to the cycle of welfare dependency.

Social Security should only be for those who are the most vulnerable and have no other means of economic assistance....for the genuinely destitute, the elderly and the sick.

[Name removed]

297. Deleted message

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

[...of J.Temperance]

304. The DLC has won elections since 1992

Clinton, DLC - he won twice.

Gore, DLC - he won in 2000, he got the most votes....if it hadn't have been for Ralph Nader getting in the way and sticking his big nose where it wasn't wanted, then Al Gore would have been sitting in the WH in 2001.

Kerry, quasi-DLC - he lost.

So, three wins out of four Presidential elections isn't bad.

[Bretttido]

350. Clinton didn't need the DLC to win, he could have won being supported

only by a moldy rock. What about consistently losing senate seats? consistently losing house seats? consistently losing governor seats? consistently losing (as a whole) the percent of state-held seats? All politics are local. If you lose in the local politics and win in the most national office (president), you will soon find yourself losing in both, which is where we found ourselves in recent elections. We gave Traitor Joe of the DLC the boot and are in an environment where democrats will pick up seats in all of the previously mentioned areas. This has been done DESPITE the DLC.

[alvarezadams]

43. DO WHAT?

You suggest that to win the DNC must surrender... in order to do what those in power want to do.

That's a redundancy. It's appeasement followed by surrender followed by suicide.

[Totally Committed]

55. WHY, when the "Third Way" stopped serving us and our Party YEARS AGO,

should the Left now surrender to their cynicism and warmongering and triangulation AGAIN... when they have proved UNELECTABLE FOR YEARS????????????????

I've decided my soul isn't worth it. People matter more to me than corporations, Peace matters more to me than War, and Winning matters more to me than Bi-Partisan cumbaya bullsh*t LOSING again and again and again... :puke:

Never again. The DLC is dead to me!

TC

[MysteryToMyself]

132. My Dad was a strong FDR Democrat

Dad was a fine man. He would say the DLC are no good and not worth the bullet that it would take to shoot them.

[...of J.Temperance]

300. FDR was the greatest President ever

I can be DLC and still say proudly that FDR was the greatest President ever....so WHAT does THAT tell you exactly?

It should tell you that we're NOT the evil incarnate that you THINK we are.


"the DLC are no good and not worth the bullet that it would take to shoot them."

Typical, I'm not surprised that you're apparently wishing death on those with whom you have some disagreements with. Notice that ALL of the POSITIVITY in my OP has been TOTALLY ignored and the differences have instead been concentrated on.

[CrushTheDLC]

330. Don't let Al From and Will Marshall hear you say that!

They praised the 1994 right wing theft of congress as an "opportunity" to strip the Democratic party of FDR's legacy. They, like their neocon masters, wish to destroy every last remnant of the "New Deal". And since they're the ones that create the DLC's agenda, I find it hard to believe that anyone can honestly follow these clods' so called "vision" while claiming that FDR was the greatest President ever. It's definitely a contradiction.

[alvarezadams]

332. It shows just how cynical they are

eh?

[...of J.Temperance]

359. The DLC is big tent

It's completely possible to be a Centrist Democrat and still think that FDR was the greatest President ever, of course President Clinton was the second greatest President ever.

[...of J.Temperance]

357. Your route would be electoral suicide

How many seats would we win if every candidate was say of the Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich variety?

Heck, when he ran for President, Dennis Kucinich couldn't even get 10% of the vote in his own state of Ohio.

[MissWaverly]

156. I hate to say this but Lieberman is their poster boy

and he has done a great deal to hurt the democrats since he lost the primary.

[...of J.Temperance]

360. Actually, Senator Evan Bayh is our poster boy

Followed by Governor Mark Warner.

Warner/Bayh 2008 or Bayh/Warner 2008....we'd win the election with either combination.

[Moochy]

253. Sleep well, with your end justifies the means approach

Read Lakoff's dont' think of an elephant for some interesting tactics for reframing with integrity.
DLC's approach to vilify the "left-wing" of their own party is not an approach that has any integrity.

At least one of the more petty and boorish members of the "DLC or death" crew here is gone. :beer:

[...of J.Temperance]

368. The thing is, the majority of the nation ISN'T Left-Wing

The majority of the nation are Moderates....the majority of the nation has NEVER been Left-Wing, if it had of been we'd of had President McGovern for example and also Dennis Kucinich would have won our party's 2004 Presidential nomination.

People have to realize that the majority of the nation are in the sensible Center, and that we only win when we run moderate Democrats, we have historical proof of this.

[Irreverend IX]

264. Winning is everything...

But (at least at the national level) the DLC doesn't produce that many true victories. They slip a few people into high positions, but they get hung up on playing ball with the Repugs and end up selling short whatever power they may have gained. They "win" by sucking up and compromising, while Republicans win through scorched-earth bulldozing of the opposition. If Democrats want to truly win, it'll take more than compromises and empty promises.

Democrats need to right with bare-toothed, savage aggression. Blast-fax the press outlets, ridicule and humiliate Republicans at every turn, and drop a few hints that Joe Fundy who's up for election this year may have had illegitimate children by his maid. Republicans give no quarter and take all the power they can get and then some, and we won't beat them until we fight the same way. Somewhere out there is a liberal with more charisma than Reagan, and we need to grab him and groom him for the Presidency. Somewhere out there are liberals more devious than Rove, and we'll need all the nasty tricks they can dream up to throw at the right wing. We all know the media are whores, so Democrats need to take the role of National Pimp and beat them into submission. If America's workers and thinkers and middle class see that the party who's supposed to stand up for them is actually doing something for a change, they'll rally behind us and eject the GOP from office forever.

[Bretttido]

351. Haha, I love that line!

We all know the media are whores, so Democrats need to take the role of National Pimp and beat them into submission.

[enough already]

341. And what exactly has the DNC won since the Clinton presidency?

They've actually LOST everything. Screw 'em.

[benny05]

10. Authencity Matters

and I'm tired of corporate welfare.

[AZBlue]

214. So you'd rather lose. Interesting.

I NEVER get this kind of thinking. Never will.
:banghead:

[emanymton]

263. Losing Is Not Necessarily A Given With This Strategy.

Trying to be less liberal and more like GOP began the losses, one can say.

Trying to be GOP-Lite has not helped anyone. Being who one is will always be a winning idea!

[...of J.Temperance]

363. It's not only interesting....it's kind of mind-blowing as well

The way I see it, and I expect the way that you see it AZDem is that losing ISN'T an option....winning IS everything....as I've already said, how can a party put their policies in place and begin to be a government again unless that party firstly WINS the election.

[lumberjack_jeff]

376. I don't think that the goal of winning...

... is served by following the DLC.

They are welcome on our bus, but I've ridden on theirs for too long.

Winning is everything, so let's try it for a change.

[geiger]

343. agree

agree

[lumberjack_jeff]

375. The DLC are wrong in both strategy and tactics.

Winning is everything, and with everything at stake, the ends do justify the means. The problems is that the DLC are not winners. If they were, I'd cut 'em a little slack.

Y'all are welcome on "Dean express" guys, but we're driving now. Two gas pedals and no brakes.

Malcom X was right. "By whatever means necessary".

[HereSince1628]

2. Questions...

Why is it that the DLC thinks elitist good-old boy systems should rule the party and the nation?

Why is it that the DLC is always telling the rest of the party where they should be but is never paying attention to where the rest of the party wants to be?

Why is the only time we hear the DLC whine about party unity is when there is an election coming and they need to be able to take for granted the party base so that they can make more and more of their rightish appeals?

[...of J.Temperance]

5. Where

Have the DLC ever stated that "elitist good-old boy systems should rule the party and the nation"?

With regard to your second question, I suppose it depends what one defines as "where the rest of the party wants to be". For example WHO is "the rest of the party"?

The DLC doesn't just whine at election time, I think that us DLCer's want a continuous dialogue with the Liberal section of our party, and see where we can meet one another halfway, have some compromises, some give and take and some swapping of ideas.

[Richard Steele]

12. Their actions speak louder than words.

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman both had that little (D) after
their names, too...while they supported the fascist NeoCon agenda.

You know what they say: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it would still make a better elected representative than the average
DLCer.

[Totally Committed]

48. Uh... Lieberman is DLC, and Miller was when he was in gov't...

THAT is enough to endict the entire DLC. But, there's so much more...

The DLC has to GO!

TC

[HereSince1628]

26. ???????? The DLC is a by-invitation-only club.

That fulfills nicely my definition of elitist. You know, you too can be nominated if you have been elected to office or if you have spearheaded a successful campaign for legislative action. I think we can say that's not a particularly democratic process. This little membership detail was posted on their own webpage for years. Their goal, since almost all of them have been elected once before is to GET RE-ELECTED, after all as you say for them WINNING IS EVERYTHING.

BTW if you support this sort of elitist nonsense and you aren't invited to actually be a member, your devoted support is always welcome and you can give the DLC your money or your vote and they will dub you a NEW democrat. But what the heck. They are creating different names for different classes of people within their own movement! I guess that a two tiered class system, the division of the party, emerges from the natural order of things because not everyone is good enough to have their opinions respected. That's remarkably undemocratic and something of a resurrection of the perspective of southern Democrats during the post Civil War period of the Reconstruction but painted over a broader geographic canvas.

Now, why did Bill Clinton and the other founders of the DLC do what they did in creating this philosophically classist anti-democratic approach to organizing within the Democratic Party? It's patently obvious that they did it in order to be able to use their elitist positions to gain and maintain control of the Party and the Nation for their new ruling class.

[Totally Committed]

340. Seems like they don't want the DLC "infiltrated" by us filthy Liberals

any more than we want the DNC infiltrated by them. They don't wany any REAL Democrats getting in and start to change things, now, do they?

Fight them... resist the DLC. They are not out for the good of all Americans, they are just out for the good of the bottom lines of selected corporations.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

364. Again, it's amazing that you consider members of your OWN party as

"The enemy"....keep thinking like this and OUR party will never win again.

I'm a proud and committed Democrat, I happen to be a Centrist Democrat, I happen to be a DLCer....and I'm committed to the Democratic Party winning elections, I'm tired of us losing, I want us to begin winning again, I want a Democratic President in the WH in 2009, I want that President in the WH for two terms, I want us to win after that and keep the WH.

"They don't wany any REAL Democrats getting in and start to change things, now, do they?"

Ah, the old litmus and purity test I see....WHAT exactly in YOUR opinion is a REAL Democrat? Is it someone such as the lifelong Green Party member who's pretending to be a "Democrat" with the sole aim of destroying Senator Clinton and thus happily allowing the GOP to take that New York Senate seat?

[HereSince1628]

27. Sorry, posting that once was sufficient.

[annabanana]

6. since winning is everything,

they will tell us whatever they think we need to hear. . You can't make an omlet without killing baby birds....

[ima_sinnic]

8. "In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the contras,

applauded President Reagan’s "Evil Empire" rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the cold war, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat. . . .

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of "Great Society" of the Johnson administration, DLC Chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. . . . Robb’s speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

. . . Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling "big tent" politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.

. . . Seven months before Dean took the DLC to task for pushing the party to the right, the DLC had mounted an initiative to discredit Dean. . . . Then, at the July 2003 DLC annual conference, the DLC leadership blasted Dean and other presidential hopefuls for flirting with a "far-left" critique of the Bush administration and pointed out the political folly of attacking Bush’s tax cuts and his national security leadership. Commenting on the "Democratic Weaselship Council" in Salon.com, Joan Walsh observed that the DLC was “in danger of adopting a political terror strategy involves doing the enemy’s work for them: damaging your own party’s candidates by declaring them ideologically flawed and unelectable." (14) Though claiming to be centrist, the DLC leadership often manifests itself as extremist and conservative, as charged by many on the center-left like Dean.

In fact, both the DLC and the closely associated Progressive Policy Institute have elicited sharp criticism from several centrist and progressive factions of the Democratic Party. . . .

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

Profile of the DLC as it appears on the conservative RightWeb.
You can try to "make nice" all you want, but the DLC destroyed Howard Dean and for that I will never forgive it, and in fact will fight it tooth and nail as Repuke-lite corporate ass-kissers.

[...of J.Temperance]

11. Why are we believing what a Right-Wing website says about the DLC?

That ENTIRE article that RightWeb has written is just simply an outrageous smear job.

[ima_sinnic]

13. "smear"? what in it is not true? they LOVE the DLC

on edit: by the way, I stand by what I said about Howard Dean. Dean was the choice of We The People--instead, Kerry was forced down our throats.

[MysteryToMyself]

39. Yes and all the while the press had his Viet Nam protest ready to show

They led many to believe Kerry's war record would help democrats win. THE corporate media love the DLC.

In AR, the republicans vote for Blanche Lincoln. The republican editorials love her.

[alvarezadams]

46. Rightwing?

What a laugh! You need to peruse that site... and if you're able to dismount a single statement by IRC you're a lot better than the rest of the DLC.

[...of J.Temperance]

362. Huh? It's called rightwingweb.com and you're saying it's NOT Right-Wing?

Lol! So if rightwingweb.com isn't Right-Wing, WHAT is it? A progressive website called rightwingweb.com?

[AZBlue]

220. Find that from a non-right wing source and you'll have my attention.

eom

[...of J.Temperance]

9. I'm going to be

Away until Monday....so I hope that we can get a good thread going here, with some positive and interesting comments from a variety of people.

[Cobalt Violet]

Nice drive by thread.

[Cobalt Violet]

17. Nice drive by thread.

[ima_sinnic]

19. yes, really. it should be ignored so it sinks. I regret having to post

to say that, which just moves it back to the top.

[...of J.Temperance]

311. You IGNORE the positivity in my OP and instead attack someone

Why?

[...of J.Temperance]

299. Wrong

I'm on again. I've never done a driveby thread in my entire time on DU....you should be more well mannered, just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you have to not show manners.

I had to do something until today, I'm sorry that I can't be on the internet 24 hours a day and 7 days a week just for YOUR benefit.

[Richard Steele]

34. Yeah, when I "want a good thread" I always run away 30 minutes later...

NOT.

Your actions are the OPPOSITE of your lying words-
you really ARE a DLCer, aren't you?

[...of J.Temperance]

369. Manners don't cost anything, so you should think about getting some n/t

[MysteryToMyself]

38. How convenient

:kick: :dem: :kick:

[emanymton]

14. Returning Democratic Party To Power Is Not The Goal ...

The goal is the govern with honesty and integity. So much needs to corrected in Washington. Understanding the goals are just the beginning.

Return of the Democratic Party to power is not why people vote.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. Our party can't move anymore right without being Republican.

It's time for the DLC to move to the left.
Just when have they realized they need Liberals? I haven't seen it.


Just exactly what should good Liberal compromise on?

[Cobalt Violet]

18. I just wanted to know what a good Liberal should compromise on.

[Cobalt Violet]

20. But no, Your going away til Monday.

[Cobalt Violet]

21. Kinda makes it hard to have a dialog.

[Cobalt Violet]

22. But hey, I can always reply to myself.

[ima_sinnic]

25. LOL!! hey, we could role-play! could be good practice ;)

[Cobalt Violet]

29. I can't believe starting a thread, asking for dialog, and then dropping it

It can't be too important. I suppose he just wanted to lecture liberals on what is good for us.

[Cobalt Violet]

23. I knew I shouldn't have expected much more from a DLC.

[...of J.Temperance]

307. As promised, I'm here....I said until Monday, well I'm here now n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

24. They're ALWAYS such a let down.

[ima_sinnic]

16. what is the stand of the DLC on impeaching, indicting & imprisoning

the entire cabal that seized our government by coup d'etat in 2000?
what is the stand of the DLC on not only withdrawing from Iraq but throwing huge amounts of reparations at it in some kind of penance for wreaking havoc and mayhem and inflicting a reign of terror there?
what is the stand of the DLC on affirmative action? on not only eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy but increasing their taxes? on reining in corporations (i.e., getting rid of that ridiculous "personhood" crap and instituting ACCOUNTABILITY), restoring the Fairness Doctrine in media, penalizing offshore activities that escape regulation, taxation, and labor laws, on somehow quashing palm-greaser lobbyists who are controlling our Congress, etc. ??

need I go on?

[mtnsnake]

28. When it comes to impeaching, why are you only concerned with DLC'ers lack

of initiative? Heck, I don't see ANY Democrats, DLC'ers or otherwise, threatening to hold Bush accountable for his crimes and lies, so enough with the implied selective criticism of DLC'ers on this important issue. Please don't bring up the symbolic move to censure either. That's nothing but a slap on the wrist and it's an alternative to any REAL punishment.

[ima_sinnic]

32. well, gee, the DLC "says" it is "Democrats," right? where is their

courage and initiative? I don't give a rat's @$$ about "other Democrats," I want leadership in skimming the scum off the top.

[Totally Committed]

58. Lieberman snubbed his nose at the Democratic electorate of CT,

changed Parties, shared his internal polling data with Republicans, put Republican advisors on his campaign, and HE still calls himself a "Democrat". "The Third Way" means to there's a RIGHT way, a WRONG way, and a THIRD way which goes where the wind blows, where the corporations tell them to go, to wars the Republicans want to start and nowhere NEAR helping the poorest of all Americans.

Courage and inititative? From the DLC? Only if Corporate America and the Republican Party tells them it's okay.

I refuse to live on my knees any longer... as a Democrat, as an American, as a PROUD AS HELL LIBERAL. The DLC has said time amd time again they don't want my "kind"... I'm a "jihadist", a "rabble-rouser"... I shake their boat too much. Well, pardonay mwah......... F*CK THEM!

The DLC is DEAD TO ME. They need their Third Way AND their sorry losing asses voted out of office NOW. The day will come when wither they or those like me are gone from this Party. That day cannot come too soon for me.

I'm ready to rumble over this. Seriously ready. Down with the frigging DLC!

TC

[alvarezadams]

62. Yet the DSSC...

... still shows Lieberbush as a Dem candidate!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2786944&mesg_id=2786944

http://dscc.org/2006races/ct /

And the DLC has the nerve to call for party unity? For "understanding"? They didn't "understand" the voice of the electorate and they say... screw it.

The DLC is a FAR WORSE enemy than the GOP.

[Totally Committed]

65. Are they are hedging their bet, OR is it a *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*

signal to Lieberman? The most telling thing will be whether or not he is stripped of his committed assignments when the Senate is called back into session. Reid will then show his colors once and for all. And, should he win, by hook or by crook... he shouls lose ALL his seniority, even if he comes back to the Party.

In any case, he shouldn't be listed ANYWHERE as a "Democrat" of any kind. He chose to leave the Party. He's an arrogant, cynical, warmongering, corporatist hack who is a DLC poster-boy. He needs his ass voted out of office, but until then, he needs to be stripped of the ability to serve on committes representing the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

TC

[ldf]

114. what PbTC said!

:thumbsup:

they ALL need to go. we are here, because they are there.

we need to clean house, from the top down.

[Totally Committed]

162. AMEN!

:thumbsup:


Couldn't agree more.

TC

[...of J.Temperance]

313. That's fantasyland and electoral suicide

Nobody in the mainstream Democratic Party supports Impeachment and Imprisonment....this isn't to say that the Bush Administration hasn't committed crimes.

[AtomicKitten]

329. not so fast

I think many Americans would support impeachment. Once the Dem House begins investigations in earnest, the evidence will demand it. But rather than handing the boogeyman issue of impeachment to the GOP and stepping right into their talking points prior to the election, I am content in the knowledge that oversight will lead to investigations which anyone with an ounce of gray matter realizes will lead to impeachment. It's the extrapolation of the implications of the oversight that counts, not threatening the GOP with it and playing into their election strategy.

[lastknowngood]

31. When the DLC becomes Democratic I'll listen. They are not members

of my party, they are Repug who have been pushed out of their party or just whores who take the corp money to Fu*k the American people.

[cmd]

33. Parties of one are not much fun

Democrats come in different packages. DLC in one of them. Until you can accept that fact we will continue to lose elections.

[William769]

35. The most sensible post in this thread.

Thank you.

[TankLV]

196. No, the most idiotic. If there's a choice between a repuke-lite & repuke,

the people will chose a repuke everytime.

The DLC is repuke-lite.

They ARE the PROBLEM.

They should get out of the way.

[William769]

231. At least you have your meme down pat.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

316. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

36. until the DLC can accept the fact that they're not the boss of me,

I will never support it. They have far too much influence. They don't simply accept the role of "one group" or "one aspect" of Democrats, they have to control the whole ball of wax. They have lots & lots of money. They play dirty. They have FAR TOO MUCH INTEREST in maintaining the status quo and making sure their incumbent candidates get nice, cushy, perky "jobs" far removed from the people they are supposed to be representing and nice & palsy-walsy with their corporate masters. Any "outsider," like Howard Dean and Ned Lamont will be smeared and foiled as if by Repukes.

[cmd]

71. Thank you for John Roberts and Sam Alito

You see, that's what we get when we don't work together. Have you pegged me as a centrist? Well, you are wrong. I'm a far left progressive. However, I've been around a long time and understand that you have to work with what you have. If you vote for someone with a D after his/her name, I love you. I don't care where you stand on the political scale.

[alvarezadams]

79. Of course...

...why do you think that we have a Roberts and an Alito? How did the DLC help stop them?

[ima_sinnic]

88. ?? thank ME for Roberts & Alito? who were the DLC fake "democrats"

who voted for him?
It takes more than a "D." Zell Miller has a "D." Do you "love" him?
sheesh.

[alvarezadams]

50. Sure

There are fools in the GOP that defend it to the last breath. You know the type - the traditional paleocon - the "small government" and "idolationist" types. They defend Dubya despite the fact that Dubya's sold them out 100% through the neocon agenda.

How can you define these folks? Vote-the-shirters? Idiots?

That's what you and the DLC propose: vote-the-shirt surrender of all values.

Fuck that crap. I'd rather lose and be a bona fide opposition than win and be tantamount to the GOP.

As for the DLC winning anything - fine record those folks have, eh? And it's not surprising - the fence-sitters know a case of hic haec hoc when they see it.

[MysteryToMyself]

54. If we have to vote DLC or the New Democrats

to win, we haven't gained a thing. We may as well have the Bushites. The DLC New Democrats have hurt the party. Just take Joe and go away.

Oh by the way, is Rupert Murdock, republican owner of FoxNews, still backing Hillary?

Is Bill Clinton still asking, if he is the only one who likes George Bush? If he is, you might tell him "No, all the DLC NEW DEMOCRATS love him.

It took a long time to realize we were betrayed. I kept waiting for the Democrats to step up to the plate. It is so wrong.

There must be a better forth way.

[AZBlue]

221. Excellent post

[Moochy]

255. Democrats in different packages

Yeah the DLC package is designed to fool the unwary buyer into accepting republican policies, dressed up in divisive Orwellian doublespeak, all the while feeling like a good democrat.

[Hawkowl]

298. RIGHT ON! nt

[MysteryToMyself]

37. Treason comes to mind

I am very aware that the DLC is part of the Democratic Party. That is why I donate to individuals instead of the party because I want my money to go to real Democrats, not republican lite.

The DLC is the reason voters say there is no difference in the two parties, except the Democrats want abortion and gay marriage.

The DLC need to read about FDR...yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Study what kind of shape the country was in and how he dealt with it.

The republicans say they are the party of new ideas, but the thing is their ideas are evil, greedy and so wrong.

You may think you are saving jobs, but you aren't really...you are creating a monster. FDR dealt with the same problem. America should be a good place to live, not just a good place to do business.

I have read Blanche Lincoln say "We will change Social Security in a more thoughtful way". Social Security doesn't need changing. It is the only government program with a surplus. Yet, you stand by, saying nothing as Bush declares our Treasury Bonds are worthless pieces of paper, as they take out the surplus we put in, so we baby boomers won't be a burden to our children and grandchildren. You don't say a word when they treat it like welfare, when those who retire, will have contributed to it for 50 years. We want our children to have Social Security. We don't want them to be thrown to the mercy of market forces. Social Security keeps the elderly from becoming poor, helps workers who become disabled and takes care of their children when an earner dies. Have you ever thought how much prices would have to go up to support all who depend on the market for their retirement? I didn't think so.

You ignore the fact that Cheney wanted to do pre-emptive strikes on Russia. Imagine that.

It isn't enough to say "The poor can get credit,now." when you pass a ominous Bankruptcy bill. You helped pass this as the financial experts say to expect to spend $300,000 out of pocket for each person after retirement. You have made it expensive and almost impossible to go bankrupt. Why didn't you just make it harder for the few that filed frivolous bankruptcy?

It isn't enough to mandate voting machines, just because it would help the "blind" see the names of those running better." You could have made some ballots with extra large print.

The DLC have a pattern of throwing a penny in for the poor or disabled while screwing up the country.

My list of why I don't want to compromise is endless, but the main one is the feeling I get when I hear the middle class have been betrayed once again. I am tired of wars that shouldn't be happening. I am not anti war, I am against unjust wars. I am tired of other countries feeling sorry for us because 25% here don't have health insurance. I am tired of the lobbyists being the only voice heard. They should be outlawed.

I am just tired of jerks.

[mmonk]

40. I oppose the DLC

so you may as well get used to some opposition because it won't go away. There was nothing wrong with the democratic party even though that seems to be the theme of the DLC. The DLC in ways similar to republicans, does not seem to understand the dangers of mixing the political system with corporate and religious aims that are sometimes contradictory to our constitutional form of government and protections designed for its citizenry.

[alvarezadams]

41. Fundies are members of the GOP too...

...yet are the "GOP core" happy about it? Neocons are members of the GOP (and the DLC), yet does the GOP rank and file appreciate the fact that their party was taken over by them?

If the choice is between the DNC losing WITHOUT the DLC and the DNC winning WITH the DLC, my decision would be clear as water: let the DNC lose as long as it maintains its heart and soul. A DLC-run DNC that is nothing but the GOP with sugar coating would be far worse than being in the opposition - because with the DLC there would be NO opposition.

Winning for the sake of winning is a mistake. Especially when said victory is Pyrrhic.

You speak of people "needing to understand" this, that and the other. This is ironic coming from a DLC supporter, considering that the DLC has done its utmost to alienate all progressives. Why doesn't the DLC "need to understand" - instead of insulting, demeaning and dismissing the very core of the DNC?

You speak of lithmus tests and purity - when that is precisely what the DLC does as it exercizes its 5th columnist muscles. The DLC can fuck off with such hypocrisy.

The DNC does not need the DLC. AMERICA doesn't need the DLC.

Here's an idea - let the neolib/neocons of the GOP join with the neolib/neocons of the DLC and create a third party based on benefitting corporations, wielding military force for the benefits of corporations, supporting globalization and outsourcing. They'd be a BIG hit with the corps, AEI, Heritage, et al. And you might get a vote or two to boot.

The DLC is every bit as much the enemy as the GOP ... in fact it is MORE of an enemy inasmuch as it would appease the forces that progressives fight against with hypocrisy, manipulation and corruption.

And keep your thinktank-funded talkingpoint clichés for the politically naive.

[ima_sinnic]

44. excellent, I agree completely, couldn't have said better myself!

:patriot:

[MysteryToMyself]

59. Fire Bruce, then study FDR, then maybe we can talk

Republicans have always voted for Blanche Lincoln. Always have and always will.

The rest of us should form a new party. Progressive republicans would probably join.

[theanarch]

204. it would seem the choice is more likely between...

...Democrats losing without the DLC, or LOSING with them--the DLC has had six chances to retake one or both chambers of congress since 1994, and hasn't done it yet. For too long, Clinton's two, Perot-assisted victories have been cited as a winning strategy; for Bubba, perhaps, but it's been an unmitigated disaster for the Party. The DP has been losing elections for 12 years on a GOP-lite platform most of its base rejects; perhaps if they tried running on a platform the base agrees with and supports (yes, 'class warfare' and all), they just might start winning again...but, that means endangering the hundreds of millions the DNC rakes in every campaign cycle from corporate influence-buyers, and we can't have anything interfere with that, now can we?

[Warren Stupidity]

42. We don't need the DLC they need us.

Once upon a time their access to corporate purse strings allowed them to control the party. The good Dr. Dean showed us the path to independent individual funding, and freedom from the corporate kleptocrats that the DLC represents. They are running scared - one of their own - Asshat Joe got the official boot by the blogbarians - Dean is sitting at the head of the DNC. Hillary is not happy - all that work staking out the war hawk position and carefully positioning herself as DLC favored daughter for 08 and now it might all be for nothing.

Until the DLC divests itself of its free trade fundamentalism and war hawk idiocy I want nothing to do with them or thier funding or their candidates. They represent everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

[alvarezadams]

51. Excellent

[SaveElmer]

60. Who is "us" ?

Are you implying DLC members are not "real" Democrats...

[alvarezadams]

63. No, I'm not implying it

I'm outright saying it.

And what's more, I say that those that support the DLC are dupes as are paleocons that support Dubya despite the fact that Dubya has sold out every single paleocon ideal.

[SaveElmer]

67. Prototypical answer from the litmus-test left...

In addition to voter fraud which is now used to explain virtually every Democratic loss (diluting the believability of actual cases of fraud)...they now have the crutch of the DLC to fall back on to explain every party ill...

It is the litmus-test left's version of the Clenis...an all purpose entity to blame everything on...keeps you from having to actully confront evidence that the vast majority of DLC members are quite progressive, both in their records and in their stands...or that the DLC simply does not have the power or influence you would like to believe...

As to who are real Democrats, I will take any DLC member committed to the party over any person in the self-described "base" who threaten to take their vote and go home whenever something doesn't go their way...

[alvarezadams]

68. Prototypical rw cliché response

"In addition to voter fraud which is now used to explain virtually every Democratic loss (diluting the believability of actual cases of fraud)...they now have the crutch of the DLC to fall back on to explain every party ill..."

Have I ever posted on voter fraud? And no, I don't blame the DLC for ANY party ill because I reject them as Democrats. Nevertheless, what good has the DLC done for the DNC?

"As to who are real Democrats, I will take any DLC member committed to the party over any person in the self-described "base" who threaten to take their vote and go home whenever something doesn't go their way..."

I can just imagine how you would have voted in Weimar.

[SaveElmer]

80. ...

"Nevertheless, what good has the DLC done for the DNC?"

Returned the Democratic Party to competitiveness after the disastrous reforms instigated by the McGovern wing of the Party...moving us from a 49 state defeat in 1972, and a 49 state defeat in 1984 to electing Presidents in 1992,1996, 2000(stolen)...and if people here can be taken at their word, 2004 (also stolen). And the intervening 1976 victory (Watergate backlash), was won by a...oh yes...conservative Democrat...

In fact, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has never fielded a successful Presidential candidate.

"I can just imagine how you would have voted in Weimar."

Ah yes the other refuge of the litmus-test left - the Hitler reference. More subtle than most, but clearly implying I am the type of person who would have gone along with Hitlers takeover of the Republic.

I suppose I could respond with noting the clearly McCarthyite tendencies of the litmus-test left's efforts at party purging. "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the DLC?"

But in reality, it is simply indicative of another characteristic of the litmus-test left - the inability to put issues into perspective. Which explains their total inabilty to deal with any type of dissent (a characteristic shared with the rabid right wing).

"Yes Bill Clinton did some good things but I can no longer support him after the Telecommunications Bill of 1996."

Your Weimar reference also implies we are at a similarly dangerous tipping point as Germany was in the early 1930's...which is nonsense. We aren't even at the most dangerous point in our countries history...As bad a mash as George Bush has made of things, there is nothing that cannot be solved by our current political and economic structures. And all it will take for now is Democratic control of the government.

[alvarezadams]

84. Wrong

"Returned the Democratic Party to competitiveness after the disastrous reforms instigated by the McGovern wing of the Party..."

That's a red herring.

"And the intervening 1976 victory (Watergate backlash), was won by a...oh yes...conservative Democrat..."

Conservative, yet. DLC, no. Carter would stand at the left of today's DNC - and completely outside the DLC.

"In fact, the left-wing of the Democratic Party has never fielded a successful Presidential candidate."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

"Ah yes the other refuge of the litmus-test left - the Hitler reference."

No, not a Hitler reference. A reference to those in Weimar that didn't see the danger in the Nazis and voted for the plethora of rw parties that ultimately allied themselves with him.

"I suppose I could respond with noting the clearly McCarthyite tendencies of the litmus-test left's efforts at party purging. "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the DLC?""

You could, but it would be foolish.

"As bad a mash as George Bush has made of things, there is nothing that cannot be solved by our current political and economic structures. And all it will take for now is Democratic control of the government."

So you propose that the group that is most closely aligned with the beliefs of Dubya (on economics and foreign policy) would make a difference?

Wake the fuvk up.

[SaveElmer]

90. Well since we are answering in sound-bites now...

"That's a red herring."

Left wing denial

"Conservative, yet. DLC, no. Carter would stand at the left of today's DNC - and completely outside the DLC."

DLC organized in 1985...Carter would fit quite comfortably as a DLC member

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

Historically innacurate.

"No, not a Hitler reference. A reference to those in Weimar that didn't see the danger in the Nazis and voted for the plethora of rw parties that ultimately allied themselves with him."

My mistake...a Nazi reference...much better

"You could, but it would be foolish."

See answer 1

"So you propose that the group that is most closely aligned with the beliefs of Dubya (on economics and foreign policy) would make a difference?"

Again innacurate, and indicative of left-wing laziness

"Wake the fuvk up."

Spelling error, or just couldn't bring yourself to use the actual word?

[Totally Committed]

95. Non-sound-bite response:

New Dem of the Week: Ben Nelson (6/1/06)
U.S. Senator, Nebraska



http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=111&contentid=253373

THIS Ben Nelson:

Strongly opposes "Abortion is a woman's right". (Sept 2000)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Rated 7% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Rated 86% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Rated 21% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Opposes linking Human Rights to trade with China. (Sept 2000)
Supports expanding Free Trade. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Rated 58% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues. (Dec 2002)
Ease Canadian border-crossing rules. (May 1998)
Grant fast-track authority to the President. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Rated 50% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)
Supports spending on Missile Defense ("Star Wars"). (Sept 2000)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2005)
Rated 40% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Rated 62% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2000)
New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2000)
Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. (Jan 2001)
Rated 40% by the ARA, indicating a mixed record on senior issues. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates. (Sept 2003)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)

http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Ben_Nelson.htm

If this is the sort of "New Democrat" the DLC sees as their "New Dem of the Week", we might as well be voting for a Republican! Read his views!!!

So... SaveElmer, while I repsect you, I cannot respect the DLC or your support of their DINO candidates or issues. They chose this DINO moron as a poster-boy!

TC

[alvarezadams]

97. Did you catch this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2786765&mesg_id=2786765

Here we have the corporate media whoring for the neocon agenda... and the DLC's very own PPI painted as a "center-left" (ROFLOL) thinktank, playing pointman for the GOP.

The make me ill.

[Totally Committed]

99. I did see it...

Warnings from the DLC like this one don't help:

Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'
July 29, 2003, Tuesday
By ADAM NAGOURNEY (NYT); National Desk

"Democratic Leadership Group, organization of moderate Democrats that helped move party to center 10 years ago, warns that Democrats are headed for defeat if they present themselves as angry 'far left' party fighting tax cuts and opposing war in Iraq; group's leaders voice concern for what they fear is emerging perception of entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that council rejected long ago; neither Howard Dean, who has attracted wide notice for his criticism of Democratic Party, nor any other Democratic presidential candidate was invited to attend two-day conference of leadership council; Al From, founder of organization and ally of Bill Clinton, invokes sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F Mondale in 1984 as he cautions against return to policies that he says are recipes for another electoral disaster; those policies include less emphasis on foreign policy and inclination toward expanding size of government; council's current president, Bruce Reed, is unable to name any Democratic candidate in 2004 race that embodies council's philosophy way Clinton did in 1992"

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FF6345B0C7A8EDDAE0894DB404482

TC

[SaveElmer]

102. Brother...

So I could pick the most egregious member of the left wing...and assume that he is representative of all left-wingers...

So maybe I will put up a picture of Lyndon Larouche and just assume every left-winger agrees with them...

I am not asking for respect for the DLC...I really do not care...

What I am saying is the DLC has turned into a catch all crutch for the left to lean on to explain their failure to have their views attain a majority in the party...

The DLC is not the reason.

[Totally Committed]

104. But, they hold up this Neanderthal as a shining example of their view...

He is their DLC-er of the Week. The man is a DINO, if there ever was one!

Did you read that list? By endorsing him, they are endorsing that record! Mother of Mercy, my friend, even you have to agree he's a DINO.... read that list!

Made me wanna chuck my breakfast.

TC

[SaveElmer]

105. Well again off point...

Ben Nelson is not may favorite Senator...but he is a Democrat in about the reddest state in the country, is a reliable vote for Harry Reid for majority leader, and is still far better than the right wing nut jobs that could be in his spot...

[alvarezadams]

115. Then you're talking apples

and we're talking oranges.

At most I've seen posters point out that the DLC has not brought electoral success - as far as your allegation concerning "blaming the DLC for party problems".

What most of us argue about is the fact that the DLC is the enemy. It has nothing to do with electoral success or failure - it has to do with utterly egregious policies and the need to keep them out of power.

[alvarezadams]

117. Try this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2787284&mesg_id=2787359

[SaveElmer]

122. You are right...

And it is really the heart of things. We don't have centrist democrats because of the DLC. It is the other way around. Those members would hold those views regardless of the DLC being there.

The DLC as an organization has never gotten anyone elected. It is the perception that the Democratic Party moderated itself that made us competitive again IMO. Membership in the DLC is a public demonstration of that fact. And is being used by centrist Democrats as a public forum for reorienting the image of the party.

As an organization the DLC is virtually powerless.

[Cobalt Violet]

246. Own him, embrace him.

He's your shining star of the week.


Feels good don't it.

[Moochy]

257. Is Larouche in office? no? what a red herring.

No the DLC is not the reason, but the symptom of a sick representative democracy that has been undermined by corporate graft, and a checks and balance system that has completely broken down. (Republican congress)

[mmonk]

240. Perfect response.

Show them directly just how rightwing their view of "center" is. Show how "new" means different and how republican that new looks and is. Show by their votes just why the republican right has little or no opposition. Show them why the Greens say there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats and why we've lost valuable voters who might not agree with Greens on every issue, but want to vote in opposition to the republican party. Show them why so many people are fed up with the lack of opposition and are tired of nuanced politics instead of opposition politics.

[alvarezadams]

96. Baloney

"Carter would fit quite comfortably as a DLC member"

He is an internationalist and not a neoliberal. Thus he is completely outside the DLC. And fwiw, he's gone more liberal as he gets older.

""Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
Historically innacurate."

Ah yes, he was a conservative, eh? No doubt with DLC potential. Sheesh.

""So you propose that the group that is most closely aligned with the beliefs of Dubya (on economics and foreign policy) would make a difference?"

Again innacurate, and indicative of left-wing laziness"

NO IT IS NOT INACCURATE. The DLC stands lockstep with the misadministration on foreign policy - and is wholeheartedly neoliberal/pro-globalization. The laziness is YOURS - because these points have been brought up in thread after thread (with links and references) and YOU never address them.

"Spelling error, or just couldn't bring yourself to use the actual word?"

Habit from sites with filters.

So for your benefit - WAKE THE FUCK UP.

BTW, I RESPECT conservative ideals and conservatives. As long as they're honest and as long as they know what they're supporting. I particularly respect paleocons... but those who insensibly support something through misunderstanding or ignorance have my contempt.

By all means let there be conservatives in the DNC. But NOT vis a vis a 5th column that supports radical rw policies under the guise of superficial "centrism" or false "progressivism".

I challenge the DLC to come out of the closet and join the extreme rw of the GOP in forming a party based on neocon foreign policy and neolib economic policies. They can't and won't do it - because they wouldn't get a vote outside the members of corporation boardrooms. THAT'S my lithmus test.

[Totally Committed]

98. alvarez is correct! Carter is an internationalist and no war-monger...

He would never fit in with the DLC.

TC

[SaveElmer]

127. Sorry...

But I reject the term war-monger...

The dictionary definition of which is...

"One who advocates or attempts to stir up war."

Again, it indicates an unwillingness to look into the complexities of the reasons Democrats who supported the IWR, did so. None that I know of were voting a pro-war stance. If you look at the statements of those members you can see that they were hoping to drive Saddam Hussein into allowing inspections to restart.

[alvarezadams]

129. Non sequitor

The DLC not just supported the IWR, it STILL supports "staying the course" in Iraq. Now. Today. And the founder of the DLC and PPI is a signer of PNAC statements forchrissakes.

[SaveElmer]

130. And what governmental position...

Does he hold?

[alvarezadams]

133. non sequitor

[SaveElmer]

136. You sound like "Nomad"

From Star Trek...

So I take it it is more important what Will Marshall and Al From say, than what actual Senators say...interesting!

[alvarezadams]

138. Let me put it this way

Before 2000, what position did Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney (or any other PNAC signatories) have in the government or their party(s)?

What role does AEI, Heritage (et al) have in the GOP... and what INFLUENCE?

Get the picture yet?

[SaveElmer]

141. Well...

If Al From, or Will Marshall are ever given highly influential governmental positions, I will reassess my views...I think I have little to worry about on that score...

For now I will pay more attention to my actual representatives and their views!

btw: Dick Cheney was a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense.

[alvarezadams]

146. Former

[SaveElmer]

101. ...

"Ah yes, he was a conservative, eh? No doubt with DLC potential. Sheesh."

Roosevelt and Hoover's stands on issues in 1932 were indistinguishable from each other. At NO POINT in the 3 1/2 Roosevelt terms was he ever considered a progressive. He had serious opposition from liberal members of his own party, and from populists of the era. His reforms were a profoundly conservative response to the depression crisis.


"NO IT IS NOT INACCURATE. The DLC stands lockstep with the misadministration on foreign policy - and is wholeheartedly neoliberal/pro-globalization. The laziness is YOURS - because these points have been brought up in thread after thread (with links and references) and YOU never address them."

You have yet...in any thread...to show how a policy paper from the DLC gets translated into action...you have consistently refused to show any mechanism of power, influence of otherwise, that would demonsrtae the type of control you seem to believe the DLC has over the Democratic party...you can't because it does not exist!!!!

"I challenge the DLC to come out of the closet and join the extreme rw of the GOP in forming a party based on neocon foreign policy and neolib economic policies. They can't and won't do it - because they wouldn't get a vote outside the members of corporation boardrooms. THAT'S my lithmus test."

Again, conflating the DLC with the positions of its members...which is simply not true in most cases...your refusal to look at the individual records of those with DLC membership is LAZINESS...the fact that you would reject an Eliot Spitzer out of hand for DLC membership is
indicative of this laziness.

"So for your benefit - WAKE THE FUCK UP."

I hope you feel better...too bad you feel the need to resort to cursing...

"BTW, I RESPECT conservative ideals and conservatives. As long as they're honest and as long as they know what they're supporting. I particularly respect paleocons... but those who insensibly support something through misunderstanding or ignorance have my contempt."

I respect liberals who are willing to discuss things in a respectful and open matter, and are willing to acknowledge the smallest chance they do not have all the answers. What I don't respect, and what we see so much of, are liberals who ascribe opposition to their cherished views as ignorance...

[Totally Committed]

108. "I hope you feel better...too bad you feel the need to resort to cursing"

That's below you. You are an intelligent, articulate person. That quote just says to me "If I can't win the argument on fact, I'll just baffle you with bullsh*t." Shame on you... you're better than that.

TC

[SaveElmer]

109. So you are calling me out...

For objecting to cursing directed at me?

[Totally Committed]

110. No... not at all!

I'm just saying you're fully able to make an argument without the objection. We're all adults here. Some of us are quite emotional about this issue. There's bound to be cursing. What I said was a compliment. Ignore the cursing if and when you can, as it tends to make you appear to be an intolerant prig who wants to win at any cost, and we all know that's not the case.

TC

[SaveElmer]

112. I see...well you are probably right...

I have had many discussions with Alvarez, usually civil...but it appears he is getting frustrated with me...I was just disappointed that's all...

Boards like this are probably not the easiest way to get your point across, and I am sure I am not catching his entire argument, and I suspect it is the same the other way...

[alvarezadams]

116. Uh

I didn't curse at you. I didn't say "fuck you", I used an expletive as a tour de force, to show deep feeling.

It is dishonest to consider it an insult.

[SaveElmer]

119. I apologize...

You were not cursing at me...

[alvarezadams]

111. Now THAT'S funny

"Roosevelt and Hoover's stands on issues in 1932 were indistinguishable from each other. At NO POINT in the 3 1/2 Roosevelt terms was he ever considered a progressive. He had serious opposition from liberal members of his own party, and from populists of the era. His reforms were a profoundly conservative response to the depression crisis."

Who felt opposition was Hoover from the conservative wing of HIS party. FDR felt the opposition from the conservatives of both parties. To this day conservatives anathemize the name of FDR. He may have STARTED as a "centrist" but he ended up wholly liberal - to the point of trying to purge conservative dems from the party.

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/20th/1930s/depression-responses4.html
http://ap.beta.polardesign.com/history/franklindelanoroosevelt/biography/DomesticAffairs.common.shtml
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/432newdeal.htm
etc
etc
etc

"You have yet...in any thread...to show how a policy paper from the DLC gets translated into action..."

Nor can I do so for AEI, PNAC etc. It's a moot point.

"you have consistently refused to show any mechanism of power, influence of otherwise, that would demonsrtae the type of control you seem to believe the DLC has over the Democratic party...you can't because it does not exist!!!! "

Of course it doesn't. It's a non sequitor - I can't show you a mechanism that shows how Exxon influences the admin - just connections - but it undoubtedly does. Are you looking for some sort of admission of participation in a conspiracy? Gimme a break!

"Again, conflating the DLC with the positions of its members...which is simply not true in most cases..."

Aw come on. The DLC has an agenda. Politicians adscribe to the organization. They do so either because they are cynically manipulative or because they subscribe to the agenda. If they do not agree with the agenda they have no reason (outside cynicism) to associate themselves with it.

"your refusal to look at the individual records of those with DLC membership is LAZINESS..."

No, I look at them and I see it clearly. Lots of token votes on unimportant progressive issues - and only the abandoning of neolib or neocon policies when it is clear that to maintain such stances is politically inexpedient. Kerry supported NAFTA but then dropped CAFTA, for example.

"the fact that you would reject an Eliot Spitzer out of hand for DLC membership is
indicative of this laziness."

If Spitzer is good - and neither a neolib nor a neocon - he should reject DLC membership.

--------

What's YOUR stance on neocon foreign policy and neoliberal economic policy?

[SaveElmer]

118. Well...

We have gone over these things in the past so I won't rehash my position here...I would just say my membership in PETA does not mean I am throwing blood on people wearing fur coats. I agree with the overarching animal rights theme, and am a member of many animal rights organizations..

The overarching theme of the DLC is to reposition the party to make it more securely a majority party, this means readjusting how the Democrats are viewed on issues over which we have lost many elections...

However, I disagree with much the DLC proposes...

I used to be a rabid free-trader for example, but am much more skeptical about it now...I opposed CAFTA, and am supportive of reforms to NAFTA, mainly environmental and on labor issues...

I agree with much they propose on Energy, gun control, and the environment...for example

If you don't mind your last question deserves a much more detailed response, which I will be happy to formulate for you...however I am actually at work (luckily I own my own business so can't get fired) so must get back to it...

And I'd like to say one more thing...first I apologize for the stridency in some of my answers to your questions, they deserved a more thoughtful response...

Also I do think a board like this is not the best way to get ones views across, and I recognize I may not be internalizing your entire argument, and I am probably not articulating mine as effectively as I would wish...I will try and correct that on any future discussions!

[alvarezadams]

121. Theme is not agenda

"The overarching theme of the DLC is to reposition the party to make it more securely a majority party, this means readjusting how the Democrats are viewed on issues over which we have lost many elections..."

By assuming the most extreme foreign and economic policies of the radical rw?

I don't buy it. If you embrace the enemy in order to beat him, it is tantamount to joining him.

"I used to be a rabid free-trader for example, but am much more skeptical about it now...I opposed CAFTA, and am supportive of reforms to NAFTA, mainly environmental and on labor issues..."

Good for you. So on the pondered scale, you're 45% anti-DLC.

"I agree with much they propose on Energy, gun control, and the environment...for example"

Those are their "sugar coating". Their token "progressive" stances to counter their neocon/neolib stances.

"Also I do think a board like this is not the best way to get ones views across, and I recognize I may not be internalizing your entire argument, and I am probably not articulating mine as effectively as I would wish...I will try and correct that on any future discussions! "

No problem. I am visceral on the subjects of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. They are lines I will not cross - especially for the sake of a letter after a name.

[SaveElmer]

123. How about this...

You say..."By assuming the most extreme foreign and economic policies of the radical rw? "

At your leisure...send me any links etc you would like me to read on this topic...

And I guarantee I will do so, and respond.

Conversely, I will send you any information I think would explain my argument better...

Both in response to yours, and which speaks to my contention that a blanket opposition to DLC candidates is counterproductive to the ends you seek...

[alvarezadams]

125. How quicky you forget

I posted the link to Will Marshall's signing of PNAC communications (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php). As for economic policy, visit the PPI or DLC webs - and use some critical thinking when you do so in order to divorce the superficial progressive rhetoric from the underlying neoliberal content.

[SaveElmer]

128. Well I do apply critical thinking...

And I know you have sent me this link before...I thought you might have others...

It is possible to apply such thinking and come to a different conclusion than you do

[alvarezadams]

131. Only through cognitive dissonance

On other threads I've gone, point-for-point, over the DLC "agenda", highlighting the rhetorical manipulation hiding neoliberal policies.

You're an ex-free marketer... look at the policies from that perspective. If it isn't clear to you then, I give up on you.

[SaveElmer]

135. Well if that is the way you feel...

I have made a good faith offer to consider anything you might want me to read

A rarity in an atmosphere that fosters black and white discussion...

My previous arguments, as I made clear, involved the actual power of the DLC and the wisdom of rejecting DLC candidates out of hand because of their affiliation. As such, the details of DLC views are relatively unimportant in my view. However, since you do deem them crucial, I have indicated a willingness to look over anything you wished to present, to consider them and respond.

If you change your mind the offer stands

[alvarezadams]

140. As I noted in another post...

You say that because the DLC has no "power" and that association with the DLC has no importance... and I could say the same thing about the PNAC cabal before 2000.

[SaveElmer]

145. Good point...

However, for now, my faith in the basically good intentions of the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers is unshaken...based on their longstanding records of excellent public service...something which cannot be said about the crowd in there now.

When they give me cause for a reappraisal I will do so...however, simple membership in the DLC is not sufficient.

And it is certainly not sufficient for me to be willing to leave the Government in the hands of those there now...

[alvarezadams]

147. If DLC members are true to their beliefs

and they associate themselves with an ideologically-driven group because of said beliefs, they will be no better than the GOP that they "replace".

If they are political time-servers that joined the DLC out of expediency, they do not deserve my support - unless they repudiate their association with a thoroughly odious ideologically-driven (and corporate/Bradley/Olin-funded) group.

[SaveElmer]

152. So I assume then...

You would have witheld your vote from FDR due to his politically expedient alliance with southern racists?

Or his politically expedient internment of Japanese Americans?

[alvarezadams]

153. That was before my time

"You would have witheld your vote from FDR due to his politically expedient alliance with southern racists?"

FDR's "alliance" with the Dixiecrats was far from such - and FDR effectively repudiated their support through his policies.

"Or his politically expedient internment of Japanese Americans?"

Again, before my time. I might have, depending on the alternative.

Until now you've argued on the basis of non sequitor ad ignorantiam. Now you've graduated to begging the question, dicto simpliciter and ignoratio elenchi, overlying a general base of red herrings.

Don't you love logical fallacies? http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#consequent

[SaveElmer]

161. Ok...

I think we are at an end...

Back to the typical ltmus-test liberals inability to acknowledge honest dissent...

Thankfully, your scorched-earth views are relatively rare among Democrats

[alvarezadams]

163. Bull

That was just a stupid post.

[SaveElmer]

168. Nice...

Pleasure talkin to ya!

[alvarezadams]

154. Then again

I'm not running for political office.

[SaveElmer]

169. Thank goodness...

For small favors!

[alvarezadams]

170. Losing it again?

Calm down dude!

[AZBlue]

222. SE ...

just wanted to say thank you for logic, reasoning and a cool head among all this insanity. It gives me hope!

[SaveElmer]

265. Thanks AZBlue...

Appreciate it!

[Reckon]

188. I know a damn neocon when I see one!

My suggestion is if they're true Dem's they need to separate themselves from the DLC before 2008 primaries -- when we will see who is lazy on election day.

The republican-lite corporate butt licker's have to GO!

[alvarezadams]

86. BTW, SaveElmer

I'm not exactly the only person posting on this thread, nor am I the most "extreme". Perhaps you'd care to address someone else's posts too?

[SaveElmer]

91. Alvarez...

Unless I am mistaken, you responded to my post first...and I have in fact responded and replied to another sub-thread here.

[alvarezadams]

92. No problem

I was just wondering why you don't seem to engage with anyone else.

[SaveElmer]

94. Well to tell you the truth...

Despite the wide gulf between us...I typically get more out of discussions with you than most...

But I do engage others!

[MysteryToMyself]

72. So is that why the New Democrats helped pass

the mandate that we have electronic voting machines?

The New Democrats and the Bushites are dedicated to one thing. Staying in power and keeping the corporation's status quo and improving their profits. And look what a mess we are in.

Now, they are going to ride in again on an electronic voting machine.

Make the voting machines accountable and verifiable, then maybe we would win a few.

It is odd that there are a lot more poor and working middle class than there is the Rich elite, but the rich keep winning.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[SaveElmer]

267. Straight from the mouth of the litmus-test left...

We've come to expect as much from you too!

[Name removed]

317. Deleted message

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

[Moochy]

256. Mr Benchley called and he wants his ellipses back. n/t

[SaveElmer]

266. That was actually funny...nt

[Raksha]

268. The "litmus test left"? What's THAT-- the new DLC frame?

Did Karl Rove come up with that one? If so, it's not one of his better ones.

God, how I hate the DLC! Almost as much as I hate the Repukes, and for pretty much the same reasons.

[SaveElmer]

270. It's an accurate description...

Of the attitude of purists who take any dissent from their liberal orthodoxy as a betrayal of Democratic values....and view those that take those views as enemies...

Your post provides a sterling example of such an attitude!

[alvarezadams]

271. Gimme a break

You ALWAYS spout that "purist" nonesense. It is really getting tiresome seeing you use GOP-type mantras.

[SaveElmer]

273. Well then stop acting that way...

It is an entirely apt description.

[alvarezadams]

275. You want tit-for-tat?

Stop acting like a cogdissed GOPer. It too is an entirely apt description.

I am surprised that you feel the need to echoe meaningless mantras.

[SaveElmer]

276. You know what...

I am called everything from "corporatist" to "right wing shill" to "Zellocrat" to "Neocon" to "GOP Whore" around here. I generally have avoided using any such pithy description of those I debate on here. However, it seems that tactic doesn't stop it from the other side, so I decided to come up with something less vulgar and more descriptive to use...so if you would like to use the term "Cogdissed" to describe me, well, I have been called much worse.

[alvarezadams]

279. If others insult you

don't take it out on me.

I am on record for embracing "centrists" and even "conservatives". My issue with the DLC has nothing to do with either - but with the combination of extreme rw ideologies (hidden with rhetoric) and the fact that somehow the DLC has become identified with what they're not.

That's why I will not accept that idiotic "purity" mantra.

[SaveElmer]

280. If you are offended by that term...

I will be glad to refrain from using it when responding to you.

[alvarezadams]

I'm not offended

It is simply annoying. The last thing we need is the repetition of GOP mantras forchrissakes.

[alvarezadams]

283. I'm not offended

It is simply annoying. The last thing we need is the repetition of GOP mantras forchrissakes.

[TankLV]

318. I know - they're all accurate descriptions, too, huh?

It's hard when presented with the TRUTH.

[...of J.Temperance]

365. It's meaning

That some people demand that we support a candidate that ONLY agrees with us on 100% of the issues....the litmus and purity tests come into effect when someone says "well, I only agree with them on 80% of the issues and not 100% of the issues, so they're not a real Democrat and so I'm not supporting them....I'll support the Democrat who's only at 8% in the opinion polls because I agree with them on 100% of the issues, and it's more important to me that I agree with them on 100% of the issues than winning the election."

Also known as, cutting off one's nose to despite one's face.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Like DLC member Joe Lieberman?

In some cases yes DLC members are not real Democrats. However by 'us' I meant the rank and file Democratic voter. The DLC is an elite organization and they need us - the rank and file Democrats - or they have no reason to exist. As they no longer have the funding club to bang us over the head with, we do not need them and their corporatist war hawk bullshit. Thanks for asking. Obviously that needed clarification.

[PassingFair]

184. I am sitting up to respond with a BRAVO for this post.

The "strategists" of the corporate funded DLC
have been allowed to lead our party down the
disastrous path we now find ourselves on.

War without end.
Government controlled corporate propaganda TV.
Inadequate health care for US citizens.
Breach of the Church/State separation wall.
Economy in shambles.
Voting machine integrity destroyed.
Nafta/Cafta/Outsourcing/Off-shoring

The time is WELL PAST for an uprising.
Take a look around J. "Temperance".
If the DLC will not step back, they will
be overtaken from within, and from the bottom
up, but they will NOT be making policy for the
party any more.

[matcom]

47. not a single vote for the greatest page

:think:

[HereSince1628]

49. Yeah, sermons to the choir ain't the greatest material.

[MysteryToMyself]

66. Seems we have conflict in the congregation

Sisters in the New Democrat section have been having an adulterous affair with the brothers of the Republican section. They have neglected their family.

Mercy or smiteing is the question being pondered. Smiteing would work for me. Where are the rocks?

[paulk]

174. looks more like a sermon to the mob

[alvarezadams]

52. It should get lots

just so that the fence-sitters and DLC supporters can see the overwhelming response.

[MysteryToMyself]

61. Jesus trusted Judas and you know what happened then

:think: Maybe we need a "Greatest response to a fluff piece page"

[SaveElmer]

176. Judas was framed...

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com

[alvarezadams]

177. I thought that he took the fall

as opposed to being framed.

[SaveElmer]

180. Yes...that is true...

This exculpatory evidence was later rejected by those putting together the New Testament...Council of Nicea I think

So I guess you could say he was framed posthumously...

[alvarezadams]

182. Phreow

Don't get me started on Nicea...

I am a relatively (baloney, totally) obscure historian, specialized in Roman and Medieval Peninsular (Spanish) history, primarily contributing on social, economic and philosophical influences. Church history is one of the reasons why I have moved towards the left over the years.

[SaveElmer]

183. Well I have to say...

I am not a big fan of most organized religion, with a couple of exceptions (Unitarians, UCC)...

For the most part I find they are content to ignore the contradictions in their faiths with the actual history of Christianity...

Or with science for that matter!

So I did take an evil pleasure in watching my Christian friends agonize over and try to explain away the Judas writings!

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Now just one minute there ......

.... what you say is fine. No argument. Meet halfway. Respect. Olive branches. All good words and all admirable notions.

But would not the screaming be just as loud if a far lefty liberal sitting official were to lose a primary to a more conservative challenger and then the liberal ran as some bogus 'independent Democrat'?

The situation in Connecticut is what it is because one selfish man chose to be more concerned about his own future than about his party.

Nowehere in your otherwise just fine entreaty was there a condemnation of the tactics, if not the man, Joe Lieberman, Former Democrat.

He is, in fact, a proud member of the DLC. And I have yet to hear another proud member of the DLC decry his actions.

When I hear that, I might consider reaching for that olive branch.

What you say is dead-on correct. The problem is, it falls short of condemning an action that is not only divisive internally, but may actually be helping the GOP. It is SURELY being done in league with the GOP. For that, there is NO forgiveness. And from the DLC there is, as yet, no condemnation.

[Totally Committed]

82. Quoteth Stinky:

Nowehere in your otherwise just fine entreaty was there a condemnation of the tactics, if not the man, Joe Lieberman, Former Democrat.

He is, in fact, a proud member of the DLC. And I have yet to hear another proud member of the DLC decry his actions.

Posted on a Homepage Thread by the great Bob Geiger:




Eacch and every one of those who are on record as supporting Lieberman is DLC. EVERY ONE. The "Third Way" obviously means "Their way or the highway". They are supporting a man who has ABANDONED the Democratic Party... who has called the base of the Party "Jihadists"... who has defied the will of the Democratic Party electorate in the state of CT, and is running as an INDEPENDENT. So, THAT'S what they mean by the "Third Way"?

The whole damned bunch needs to get lost, imo.

TC

[Raksha]

269. A very good point!

Re >>Nowehere in your otherwise just fine entreaty was there a condemnation of the tactics, if not the man, Joe Lieberman, Former Democrat.

He is, in fact, a proud member of the DLC. And I have yet to hear another proud member of the DLC decry his actions.<<

I didn't think of that. When are these alleged "loyal Democrats" of the DLC going to condemn Lieberman's betrayal of the Democratic Party? I'm not holding my breath on that one!

[Totally Committed]

69. Just one of the illuninating articles at dlc.org:

"Reclaiming the Democratic Agenda"
By Jackson Diehl, The Washington Post

Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism.

Their problem isn't only that some people (mostly Republicans and independents) don't believe they exist. Or that the flamers at MoveOn.org would expel them from the party if that were possible. They also face the formidable task of rescuing what they believe is a quintessentially Democratic policy agenda from the wreckage of the Bush administration, so that a future president can do it right.

This is about a coalition of mostly younger foreign affairs professionals who held mid-level positions at the State Department and the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and who have spent the past several years formulating a distinctly Democratic response to the post-Sept. 11 era -- as opposed to a one-dimensional critique of President Bush or Iraq. Now they are beginning to gravitate toward some of the centrist Democrats who -- unlike Pelosi or Reid -- might actually emerge as serious presidential candidates in 2008, such as former Virginia governor Mark Warner, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

This month they published a fascinating book that lays out what the foreign policy of a winning campaign by one of those Democrats -- or perhaps Hillary Clinton -- could look like. Sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is an outgrowth of the Clinton-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), it's called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty."

Read More, if you can stand it, at:

http://www.dlc.org/

TC

[alvarezadams]

76. No, I can't stand it

I've read enough DLC garbage to last a lifetime.

What gets my gall isn't just the -wrongheadedness- of the hawkish/neolib mentality. It is the utter hypocritical cynicism that they inevitably spew. Time after time they paint a virtually GOP picture, propound GOP platforms - and then place the label "liberal" or "progressive" on it. Who the hell are they trying to fool?

That's a rhetorical question - it's clear that they want to fool the electorate. Until relatively recently I thought that all the corporate millions they spend on painting what is reactionary/regressive as progressive were misspent. But then I see a couple of DU posters supporting these bastids, falling for the progressive rhetoric and the token liberal stances on unimportant issues.

I get so angry with these manipulative SOB's I could spit.

[Moochy]

258. a couple of DU posters supporting these bastids

Here's a cheers to one less this week, you know who you are!! :hi: but thanks to the science of advanced meatpuppetry the tired sorry memes continue to circulate in driveby threads such as this.

I'm utterly convinced that the cowardly tactics of these info-warriors is organized.

[ima_sinnic]

93. UGH! what stinking blather!!

Just put the R after your names and be done with it!
Corporate whore sell-outs, every one, and they're not satisfied unless all of us step into line with their traitorous BULLSHIT.
No, I will never vote for a DLCer because they are joined at the hip to repukes and nothing will ever change. I WILL sit it out!! With a DLC president we can expect: more endless war, more jobs leaving the U.S., more and MORE CEO perks and bennies and disproportionate salary, more credit/bankruptcy/consumer screw jobs, LESS corporate accountability, etc. etc.
in other words: SAME SHIT DIFFERENT "PARTY"

[Crunchy Frog]

103. In other words...

The neocon agenda is being carried out incompetently by the Bush administration. The DLC wants the Democrats to be the party that will carry out the neocon agenda competently and successfully; to "do it right". I can never, never support anyone with that agenda, no matter what letter they have after their name.

If aggressive war for the purposes of reshaping other people's countries to conform to our view of "democracy" is a "quintessentially Democratic" policy agenda, then I may belong to the wrong party.

When they are as open and accepting of "MoveOn types", as they ask us to be of them, I may soften my opinion towards them. At this point it looks like their pleas for tolerance and a "big tent" are about as one-sided as Republican pleas for "bipartisanship".

[Reckon]

189. Like I said..

I know a damn neocon when I see one!

[BootinUp]

323. I would have to see whats in the book, this is more for show

expanding the army, oh yeah thats gotta be a key part of the solution. Not.

[Totally Committed]

346. Oh, come on, now, Jim........

I took the blurb exactly as-is right off their front page where it is highlighted like it's the Dead Sea Scrolls. That's what they believe. That's what they want all who go to that page to know about them.

TC

[BootinUp]

354. Thats true, but its marketing

its not a basis for intelligent governing. I am not saying you did anything to skew it though.

[Crunchy Frog]

73. I may be mistaken, but

I seem to recall reading about many instances in which the DLC, or it's spokespersons, have denounced more liberal Democrats in the strongest of terms.

Does the DLC see people like me the way you would have me see them, or is this "big tent" business a one way street?

My problem with the DLC is not so much that they have some views I disagree with. It's more to do with the dismissive and hostile attitude they've displayed towards others in the party who's views differ from their own, even to the point of undermining their own party by reinforcing RW talking points.

[LWolf]

74. I don't.

I stick to the issues; they are the priority.

From my perspective, the only reason to support the Democratic Party is to move progressive issues forward. The DLC, no matter what orwellian labels they choose to apply to themselves, are not going to do that.

So I've got 2 choices. I can leave the party, and work outside, or I can stay with the party and work from within to combat the corruption that is the DLC. The DLC is the terminal cancer of the Democratic Party, in my opinion, and I'm going to apply radiation on a regular basis.

Should the cancer completely take over the party, then the Democratic Party will be minus my support and my votes, just like the Republican Party has been for the last 3 decades.

[MysteryToMyself]

155. Lwolf, the cancerous roots are too deep for radiation to heal them

The real democrats need to start working on a solution for 2008 elections, but it may be too late for this country by then. November may be too late, even.

Some have asked others not to run against them for the good of the party. Unbelievable arrogance and deceit.

[Toots]

75. Benadict Arnold was a Revolutionist also.

You can support them as long as they support America but when they switch their support from America to Fascism or even Corporatism then they are no longer supporting a country of the people by the people and for the people

[Lady President]

77. I pretty much agree with you....

Clearly, we are going to be in the minority on DU, but I do agree with some of your ideas.

IMO, the DLC is necessary right now. There are not enough progressive Dem. voters to ensure victories. I don't want to keep Dems. out of office because they failed some arbitrary purity test. My own views tend to lean a little further left than most DLCers, so I will vote for the liberal candidate in a primary. However, I completely agree with you that I will vote for a DLCer who agrees with me on the majority of the issues, rather than a someone who agrees with me on none of the issues. I think there is a vast difference a DLCer and a GOP candidate.

In my ideal scenario we would elect as many Dems. as possible in the fall. Once we have a majority, then we can be more selective and vote for our perfect candidates.

[alvarezadams]

83. WHY do you think that there are not enough...

...progressives?

Because, for the past 50 years, the rw has demonized, dismissed and campaigned against progressive concepts, supporters and ideals. They've done so with the cash of big business, paid to rw thinktanks... and the "critical mass" was achieved when the Scaifes, Coors, Bradleys, Olins et al took the lead in supporting the neolib/neocon agendas.

The DLC and its rw neocon/neolib thinktank, the PPI, are funded by the Bradleys and Olins. And they don't part with their cash without knowing that it's going to help their "cause".

So what is the DLC? It is the corporate/rw's way of covering all the bases. The corps don't care about abortion, about capital punishment or the other token progressive causes that the DLC use as windowdressing to attract DNC supporters. They care about economic and foreign policy - and in these areas the DLC stand lockstep with the GOP, AEI, Heritage, etc..

It's called the "bait and switch" - attract them with the shiney minutia and don't let them see the ugly reality that makes up the core. Falling for their venus-flytrap is the worst thing one can do for the progressive cause - 'cos these people are manipulative bastards.

You swallow your bile and vote for them despite their constant attacks on the "liberals"... and they'll turn around and say "I told you so - see how many 'moderates' are out there?" You empower them--- and give them a greater weight within the party. And within the party their unabashed objective is to move the party to the right.

Where it matters - economic and foreign policy - the only difference between a DLC and a GOP candidate depends on where the GOPer stands. If he is an extreme RW GOPer there's no difference whatsoever. If he is a moderate GOPer, the GOPer is more progressive on core issues than the DLCer.

[greendog]

85. I support politicians who support...

...working people. Those who support the class war, against me, will get no support from me.

[CTLawGuy]

87. I welcome anyone who wants to be a Dem in the party

but I will fight hard for candidates I approve of in the primary. And I expect that the DLC will support the Dem nominee, even if the nominee is not in the DLC. I support any nominee that is DLC.

[buddhamama]

89. I'd like to know your position/thoughts on...

Lieberman and the DLCers who continue to support him?

[ima_sinnic]

100. "ALL who call themselves Democrats pull together for the greater good" ?

--is that why the DLC smeared Howard Dean and Ned Lamont and other "outsiders"--who were THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE, the DEMOCRATIC VOTERS?
--is that why the fake "Democratic" senators who refuse to get behind Lamont, the people's choice for Democratic candidate, are ALL DLCers?

HYPOCRITE, LIAR.

DLC has one agenda, and one agenda only, your bullshit about "including everybody" aside: to line the pockets of their stalwart corporate defenders. If a democratic candidate is not a corporatist, that person will be dissed by the DLC.

you can drop the mask now, we see the R behind the fake D so you don't need it anymore.

[DeepModem Mom]

107. Thanks for a courageous post! nt

[buddhamama]

199. courageous?!

have we sunk so low in this country that posting opinions on a message board is seen as an act of courage;
never mind the fact the poster never returned to his thread to defend his position.

[Totally Committed]

242. "..never mind the fact the poster never returned to his thread to defend

his position."

Leaves me to ask the question: How does one defend and indefensible position?

TC

[buddhamama]

243. i chose not to go there

i am willing to listen and keep an open mind.

i asked a sincere and legitimate question in this thread and have yet to receive a response; a little disappointing to say the least.

[Moochy]

261. Ad hominems, broad brushes, smears

Shouldn't that be :
"How does one "succesfully" defend... "

Because the techniques listed above seems to be the modus operandi of the DLC-o-sphere.

[...of J.Temperance]

312. Shucks :) I appreciate that DeepModem Mom :) n/t

[Gregorian]

113. Gee grandma, what big teeth you have.

But I still love you because you're my grandma.

[nashville_brook]

120. DLC'ers need to recognize who has hegemony in the party

now.

it's not them.

it's not Lieberman. or Hillary Clinton or changeling canine sporting blue fur.

we're the Yellow Dogs. it's our time now.

[MysteryToMyself]

124. The DLC New Democrats blame the real Democrats

They keep saying that the other Democrats blame everything and everyone but themselves when Democrats lose. They say we blame the voting machines and the DLC.

They are so wrong to say we are to blame. Some votes in our county were 9 votes difference. Some were 15,000 difference. Something is wrong with that picture.

The middle class watch the DLC posing as Democrats vote against their interests and that is the reason they don't vote or vote for others. That is the reason voters say they don't trust the republicans or the democrats to vote for their best interest. Once that trust is lost.....

The media is the biggest reason. They criticize Jimmy Carter so much that Ronald Reagan got elected. They are the enablers of the Bushite's ruination of America. They can tell the truth but fog it up so much people can't find it. Nothing can compete with the megaphone of the media. They have beat up on the good Democrats to the point they are mostly gone. Thanks to the Democrats that voted to help take away the fairness of the Media. Take away the Media's protections. They were there so the Media could tell the truth. They don't tell the truth so take them away.

Another reason is the Green and Independent parties. Knowing they are handing the elections to the Republicans, they keep running. The way the Republicans are helping Lieberman to run as Independent, makes it obvious that some in those two parties are getting paid to take votes from the Democrats. Many are sincere. If the democrats could negotiate with the sincere Green and Independent voter, we might have a winner.

We need to have a new party. Let the DLC have the Democratic Party. There is a forth way.

[mtnsnake]

126. The anti-DLC whiners around here are enough to make ANYONE pro-DLC

Most divisive people ever. wah wah wah wah. Nothing but useless ranting and moaning with nothing ever positive to offer in exchange. They need to take a break from their complaining and realize that the party is about a great number of issues, not just a couple "special interests" issues that's important to them.

Good post, J.

K&R

[Warren Stupidity]

137. So you support endless war and outsourcing our jobs.

Great. Yeah we are so divisive to take issue with the DLC. They however are never divisive when they attempt to paint all opposition to their f'ed up kleptocarcy bullshit as 'divisive looney left'. Of course.

[mtnsnake]

157. It's stupidity like your comment that exactly proves my point

I have my own fears and concerns about the DLC, but the way some of you paint them is as if they're nothing but pure evil that's out to wreck the party.

Next time try thinking before you put your own words into someone elses mouth.

[Warren Stupidity]

160. So do you support the war in Iraq? The DLC does.

Lets start there. Simple question.

[mtnsnake]

164. Of course I don't, but thanks for asking this time, instead of telling me

like you did in your previous post.

You even go so far to assume and imply that I'm some sort of DLC worshipper, when that simply isn't the case. There's things I don't like about them and theres's things I do like about them. Nothing is ever as simple as black and white.

[Solon]

237. Would you be kind enough to list what you like and don't...

like about the DLC?

[MysteryToMyself]

139. When the DLC work with the Republicans the middle class loses

and the poor have already lost.

It was the new idea people that have helped destroy the country. People on welfare used to get commodities. Peanut butter, oatmeal, beans crackers. Then the stores saw they had competition...so the enablers voted for food stamps so the stores could profit. Then you gave them so much they were living better than those who worked. It was a setup.

Every good program has been destroyed by throwing it to market forces. Medicare had a surplus in A or B but Bush "fixed" it by throwing it to the health industry with no bidding allowed. That surplus is gone and it is teetering on bankruptcy.

That is the way they do it. They take a good program and do their best to make it to expensive or unfair. Then they "fix" it by destroying it.

This Pension reform bill they recently passed, is going to make taxes higher about the time it is time to pay back the Baby Boomer's Social Security bonds, causing deep cuts to all.

The bankruptcy bill is going to cause most of the middle class to be unable to leave anything to their children.

Thank you DLC for helping Bush destroy fine FDR programs.

[Moochy]

252. Yeah if this was an election for senior class president

Your logic might make sense...

[Moochy]

262. If only all those whiners could get together..

All those miscreant whiners who steal valuable blog reading time from mtnsnake, could plan a policy think tank and convince companies that this new group represents the interests of the big, well funded corporate donors.
Maybe we "leftists" could use the same deceptive framing that the DLC uses to fool those dumb sheep in charge of corporate america to part with their after tax profits.

Maybe... Maybe monkeys will fly out of my ass too.

[Raydawg1234]

134. Fuck the DLC

[IndianaGreen]

144. Ditto

They are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Rowdyboy]

142. Back when Democrats actually won elections, we were a coalition.....

Obviously, today, many "progressives" want no part of any coalition beyond themselves.

[alvarezadams]

148. Not so obvious

when it is the DLC pointing out and dismissing the liberals at every turn.

Sounds like a case of pot, kettle and black.

[Rowdyboy]

158. The DLC can't win without progressives, just as progressives can't win

without the voters represented by the DLC. It takes both to win a national election.

[alvarezadams]

165. WHO does the DLC represent?

If they were honest about their policies (neocon/neolib), they would get NO votes.

By all means have a center or even a conservative wing of the party. The more the merrier. But don't let a corporate-funded manipulative bunch lay claim to a center that they do not respond to with actual policies.

All they ofter to the putative center is rw clothed in progressive rhetoric.

[BootinUp]

166. Its a failure to recognize the real cause

of the continued losses. The remedy they propose is akin to drinking hemlock.

[Warren Stupidity]

167. The DLC is not a voting block.

They are a small group of elites who believe that they know what is best for you and me and the Democratic Party. They are, as their name clearly states, a 'Leadership Council'.

They don't have a voting consituency. They claim that they are centrists, and 'centrists' might be a voting constituency. However in reality on many issues the DLC is to the right of center.

The DLC pushes issues and positions on issues that it believes the Democratic Party should support.

For example, the war in Iraq. While currently in a bit of a strategic retreat on Iraq, the DLC has long championed the war, and its position is that we, the Democratic Party, and in particular the annointed DLC leaders, can fight the war better than those idiot neocons in the Republican Party. This is Hillary's position and it was John Kerry's position. They the must succeed war hawk Democrats.

The DLC has long pushed free trade, and has done so without much regard for the effects of free trade agreements on labor. They are huge fans of globalization and pay at best lip service to its effects on american workers, on environmental regulation, on the emerging industrial nations that have become the labor pool for global capitalism.

When we reject the DLC we are not tossing a voting block out, we are rejecting the self-proclaimed leadership role of the DLC and many of the policies that it promotes.

[alvarezadams]

172. Don't say that to SaveElmer

He's in major denial mode.

[Moochy]

335. Someone has to fill those clown shoes..

...the ones that MrB left in Al From's basement.

[PassingFair]

186. They are party "insiders" that have been pulling strings for

...far too long.

Clintoon leftovers, waiting to dig
up their buried nuts.

Their "power" is only perception.
It is being challenged now.
This will be the saving of the party.

[LeftishBrit]

143. Speaking as a left-wing non-American..

I am a British citizen who is so disappointed in "New Labour" that I vote 3rd or 4th party (Liberal Democrat or Green) in all national and local elections. I deeply regret and oppose the rightward shift of our parties in the UK. I would probably be to the left of almost any Democrat in American national politics. I don't have a detailed knowledge of what the "DLC" stand for, but if, as I gather from the context, they are something like New Labour, I would probably despise them. We did get a fair bit of news here about what's going on in Connecticut, and I was delighted that Lieberman's party deselected him, and hope that Lamont will win in the end. I hope other right-wing Democrats are replaced by more liberal ones, if that is possible.

Having said all this...

I can afford to vote against our main parties, because in recent years the Conservative leaders have been certain losers (Howard; Duncan-Smith) or only slightly to the right of Blair (Cameron). If we had someone like Bush, I would have to vote for anyone, including Blair or a rat, against him.

Bush's brand of Republicans are a horrific danger to the entire world; so please, please, please get them out! If you can do this, while also getting rid of the right-wing Democrats, all the better. But - on behalf of all the people in the world who have no vote in your elections, but are still affected and endangered by the current government- the biggest priority is to get rid of the Bush Republicans!!!

[alvarezadams]

151. They are very much akin to New Labour...

...although somewhat further to the right (especially on foreign policy). It isn't coincidence that the DLC/PPI have coopted Blair's concept of a "third way".

As for the priority of booting Bush - have you thought out the consequences of doing so under the aegis of the DLC? In the British context you're lucky to have other options (LibDems, Greens) that have a chance to at least hold seats in Parliament. Here it is black or white, GOP or Dem. A victory by a "New Labour" DLC would empower them and effectively leave the neoliberal/neoconservative cabal without ANY opposition.

Make no mistake about it, the DLC would provide a "softer" or more "people-friendly" version of hegemonic power-wielding and globalization.

You might be interested in this: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/alvarezadams/3 . It's a blog eliciting a debate on a "4th way"...

[mikelgb]

149. isn't that the..

DINOS for
LIEBERMAN
CLUB?

[MysteryToMyself]

150. The reason Lieberman and the DLC have better voting

records than they should have is because they take turns voting with the republicans. Most DLC voted for the bankruptcy bill. Those banking lobbyists pay good...uh... err I mean give good arguments.

They can and do work for the republicans by not putting up good debates. Like Lieberman voting for cloture with little debate on the bankruptcy bill. A good debate may have changed some votes. He voted against the bill but he helped it win.

Blanche Lincoln insisted on giving parents a child care tax break in Bush's tax break for the rich. That won the minds and hearts of many young parents. They love Bush for that tax cut. Get the irony? They get a $1000 tax cut and it costs millions for the interest on the deficit. It won't be paid off in time to pay the treasury bonds of the boomer's Social Security and the Pensions need tax payer help.

Clinton charged the middle class too high taxes, enabling Bush to get votes for cutting taxes. They aren't the brightest light in the room.

One thing that I have heard is all who run for office get to keep the money that is donated. Blanche Lincoln got 7 million for the Primary. I doubt she spent much of that. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I understand although it seems unbelievable. If that is true, who made up that rule? Who voted for it? I have a feeling I know.

[wryter2000]

159. I'd like to know what the DLC has ever won

Seems to me, they won two Presidential elections when William Jefferson Clinton was at the top of the ticket. That says more about WJC than it does about the DLC.

True, Gore won, but if it hadn't been his backing away from the most brilliant campaigner in my memory (Clinton), it wouldn't have been close enough for the Supremes to award the ball to Bush.

And I've had enough of people (DLC and non-DLC) treating the election of the President as the be all and end all. We have an election this year, you know. If we win one house of Congress, there will be real hearings about the abuses and crimes of BushCo. When they all face subpenas, the corporate media will have to report the truth.

P.S. I'm not completely anti-DLC, but I wish they'd stop telling me to be a good girl and sit down and shut up.

[Reckon]

191. Not if the DLC has anything to do with it..

"If we win one house of Congress, there will be real hearings about the abuses and crimes of BushCo."

[Radical Activist]

171. I will always support my ideals above any man-made institution.

Doing otherwise is a betrayal of oneself.

[alvarezadams]

173. I did once

when I voted ABB last time around.

Never again.

[TankLV]

200. I am strongly inclined to agree as a deep reflex.

But I have to take stock of the circumstances at the time of voting.

I just voted in the primary for the first time in a long time. Never missed the main election, but if I didn't KNOW all the issues involved, I left the primary decisions to others.

Never again.

[Zorra]

178. No tent is big enough to hold those who want to burn it down. The

DLC is not the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.

The DLC is a seperate organization from the Democratic Party.

Very, very few Democrats belong to the DLC.

Progressive Democrats, in general, can compromise with more moderate Democrats.

But we will not compromise with anyone that consistently promotes and supports republican policies. This is the very necessary litmus test for purity. These people will destroy the Democratic Party from within. They don't get it, and Democrats cannot trust them.

Like Joe Lieberman, for example.

Yes, the Democratic Party is a big tent. All are welcome.

Except for the slimy fucking republican moles that wish to destroy our party from within by pretending to be Democrats and using their mealymouthed bullshit republican talking points to try to make the Democratic Party more like the republican party.

Republican moles can all go fuck themselves. We don't want them, and we sure as hell don't need them.

[boolean]

193. EX-FUCKING-ACTLY. (nt)

[reprobate]

179. JT, I'll support the DLC if you'll support my stand of......

complete public funding of elections.

But then you won't, will you. Because removing the influence of corporate money from politics would mean the DLC would have nothing to do.

QED.

[SaveElmer]

181. Wasn't directed at me...

But I would be all for public financing of elections...

Such financing wouldn't affect the DLC at all however...they are not a political party and are not subject to such stricures...

[reprobate]

201. IMO their main job is to raise campaign money from corporations

[SaveElmer]

210. That is a myth...they are proscribed by law...

From contributing or directly aiding in political campaigns...

[reprobate]

272. I was referring to the fact (actually my impression reading about DLC)

that the DLC was originally formed by extremely wealthy business leaders and their friends to fund the democratic candidates who were amenable to the desires of corporate leaders. I can give you no sitings for this, but from my reading over the last fifteen or so years, that's what I believe the DLC is all about.

Many here believe Bill Clinton to be the be all and end all of the perfect Democrat. IMHO, as a DLC member, he showed which side of the isle he supports when he supported and pushed NAFTA. This fiasco of an economic model ensured that american jobs left the country and to me this is not the way a Democrat works. And of course, the DLC was a huge supporter of NAFTA.

[chaska]

185. DLCers are really socially liberal Republicans. We don't need...

that. DLCers make real Dems stay home. Give us back our party.

[boolean]

187. The DLC is part of the PROBLEM

Where in the Republican party is there a faction of people actively working against the Republicans? Because that is what the DLC is to the Democratic party. It's the DLC that smears the left wingers as crazy loons. It's the DLC that divides the party. It's the DLC that allows the GOP to call Democrats wishy washy and flip floppers.

The DLC either needs to join the Republicans or it needs to get the hell OUT.

[Reckon]

190. You left out...

lazy left-wing ltmus-test liberals.

[boolean]

192. Give me an example...

Give me an example of an organized group of Republicans that actively undermine Republican candidates and Republican campaigns. Sure, you might find a few Repugs who disagree with certain policies, you might find Repugs who speak out to save their own skin...

But where is the DLC equivalent in the Republican party? Where is the group of Repugs that organize smear campaigns against fellow Repugs? Where is the group of Repugs that fund raise in order keep far right wing candidates from winning elections? I don't see any anti-abortion Repugs trying to stop Giulianni from running for president. I don't see any anti-gay Repugs telling the people of California to not vote for Arnold.

I *DO* see DLC members not supporting Lamont, the democratically elected DEMOCRAT. I DO see DLC members supporting an illegal, unjustified war. The Repuglicans keep winning because the Repuglicans don't have a cancer eating away at them from the inside. The DLC is a cancer.

[alvarezadams]

244. Their coup is already over

Surely you remember the days of Newt, the undermining of McCaine, etc. The GOP was taken over by the neocons and neolibs years ago - the difference with the Dems being that at least SOME Dems are resisting what the GOP electorate swallowed.

The GOP's case is incredible. We all know the paleocon list of values that make up the immense majority of the GOP voter base -- virtually all have been abandoned by the current neocon crowd. Yet, like our DLC supporters, they continue to "vote the shirt" regardless of the fact that they have been sold down the river.

The neocons and (to a lesser extent) the neolibs are really neither "left" nor "right". They are alien - if they had to actually run on their "values" and "platforms" as an independent party they wouldn't carry a state or even a district. Thus their need to infiltrate an existing party, adapt their rhetoric to sound "conservative" (to the GOP) or "liberal" (to the Dems) in order to prevail...

Indeed, the DLC is a cancer.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[CrushTheDLC]

195. Anyone whose name appears anywhere on a document on the PNAC website...

Is an enemy to me, to my party, and to my country. If the DLC purges itself of every last neocon traitor, then MAYBE I might give them a chance to redeem themselves.

There can be no "big tent" that accomodates literal traitors against the United States of America who have sold this country out to fascism.

[SOS]

198. The DLC rivals Paris Hilton in the over-rated category.

They're down to 8 Senators and Tom Vilsack.
What multinational corporation is going to shell out $50,000 for a lunch with Blanche Lincoln?
This organization is dead. Irrelevant. The Iraq War was their death knell.

In 2006 and 2008 only the DNC matters.

[MysteryToMyself]

218. Blanche Lincoln is on the Finance Committee.

and she is not even republican lite. She is pure republican. She always insists on some little thing for the rest of us while giving the rich anything they want. I am voting against her, no matter if it is a nut Republican walking around naked. I am like the other poster. I like my poison straight, not disquised as a Democrat.

She has 7 million already for the election. Unbelievable.

Be afraid.

[Zodiak]

319. It is actually 22 Senators

half of the Democratic caucus.

All of the * are DLCers.


Harkin (Iowa).................. 90
Boxer (California)............. 86
Lautenberg (New Jersey)........ 86
Durbin (Illinois).............. 81
Feingold (Wisconsin)........... 81
Kennedy (Massachusetts)........ 81
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov... 77
Kerry (Massachusetts).......... 76 *
Akaka (Hawaii)................. 76
Levin (Michigan)............... 76
Mikulski (Maryland)............ 76
Reed (Rhode Island)............ 76
Sarbanes (Maryland)............ 76
Biden (Deleware)............... 71
Dodd (Connecticut)............. 71
Wyden (Oregon)................. 71
Leahy (Vermont)................ 69
Obama (Illinois)............... 69
Bayh (Indiana)................. 67 *
Schumer (New York)............. 67 *
Dayton (Minnesota)............. 67
Inouye (Hawaii)................ 64 *
Dorgan (North Dakota).......... 62 *
Reid (Nevada).................. 62
Clinton (New York)............. 60 *
Murray (Washington)............ 60
Byrd (West Virginia)........... 57
Stabenow (Michigan)............ 55 *
Kohl (Wisconsin)............... 52 *
Menendez (New Jersey).......... 50 *
Bingaman (New Mexico).......... 50
Rockefeller (West Virginia).... 48
Feinstein (California)......... 45 *
Cantwell (Washington).......... 43 *
Conrad (North Dakota).......... 43 *
Leiberman (Connecticut)........ 43 *
Carper (Deleware).............. 38 *
Baucus (Montana)............... 36 *
Johnson (South Dakota)......... 33 *
Lincoln (Arkansas)............. 29 *
Pryor (Arkansas)............... 26 *
Nelson (Florida)............... 24 *
Salazar (Colorado)............. 24 *
Landrieu (Louisianna).......... 19 *
Nelson (Nebraska).............. 5 * * = DLC

Notice that all Democratic Senators that vote with progressives less than 45% of the time are DLCers.

They are a cancer in the party and they hold too much power. Kerry is the only DLCer I support fully. Hillary to a faaaaaaar lesser degree. The rest can take a flying leap, as far as I am concerned.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

207. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemFromMem]

208. Don't let what's happening in the GOP happen to us.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/19/213312/372

This is why I supported Lieberman. I'm against his war views, but I think Democratic Party unity is a higher priority than one vote in the Senate. We should accept that there will be some Democrats who vote with Republicans on specific issues. For every Lieberman, there's a Chuck Hegel. I care about who is chairing the committees in Congress. The party that controls the committees, runs the show. I'd rather have a few Democrats that vote like Republicans but caucus with our side when it comes to determining who is the majority.

I ask DUers - would you rather only have candidates who are liberal and stay in the minority or accept moderate and conservative Democrats and control Congress where the agenda will largely be determined by liberals?

[Yellowcake]

209. Good post...

and I agree.

In regards to Lieberman now, I still support him because I believe it's important to have those very few moderates who are able to work with the other side (even if most extremists would hate the very notion of partisanship). Lieberman, Harold Ford, John McCain, Chris Shays, and the few others left. I'm sick of the partisan bickering.

That said, I would like a Democratic Congress, with the moderate Republicans trying to make the concessions and the compromise

[Reckon]

212. Being bipartisan works both ways..

..give and take, but in case you haven't noticed it's all right-wing or nothing. The repubs are the extremists and the DLC wants to follow them off a blanking cliff (fascism)<-- Do you disagree with that?

[Reckon]

213. what's happening in the GOP "IS" happening

to the DLC for the very same reasons. The country is rejecting their warmongering views!

[DemFromMem]

234. wrong

If this were true, we wouldn't have to struggle to get a majority in each house of Congress. We would have massive majorities. The reality is that a lot of American still don't trust the Democrats. In many cases, DLC candidates are the only kind of Democrats with a decent chance of getting elected. Don't be a pollyanna and think otherwise. If you live, for example, in my state of Tennessee, forget winning statewide office and being liberal on most issues. Of course, DUers really do give a pass most of the time to southern Democrats so I guess people accept that reality. I think Lieberman got nailed because he's from Connecticut, a state that is generally to his left. Were Lieberman from an Alabama or Oklahoma, I don't think he would be so reviled by members of the left.

[Dora]

211. The DLC does not support all Democrats, so I do not support them.

Early in Howard Dean's campaign I sent an e-mail to the DLC complaining about some of the things they were saying about him.

Their response? A snarky and terse one-sentence e-mail informing me that THEY ARE NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY and that I could find the Democratic party's website at... etc.

I wish I had saved the "fuck you" e-mail I sent in response, but it's long gone.

But I learned. The DLC is a front for would-be power-brokers in the party who want only to win, and care nothing about serving the interests of the party or of the citizens of this country who put their faith in the Democratic party.

FUCK THE DLC. They are NOTHING but a crew of self-appointed craven asshats as bent on DC power positions as are the cretins in the GOP.

THE DLC CAN KISS MY WHITE, FEMALE, MIDDLE-CLASS-AND-SINKING, VOLVO-DRIVING ASS. A swift kick in the face is all they'll get from me in return.

[AZBlue]

217. THANK YOU!

"I appeal to people NOT to listen or pay attention to these people, ignore them and continue to move forward toward OUR common goal, OUR common aim....the return of the Democratic Party to power."

Problem is that their goal is to NOT return the Democratic Party to power. Pure and simple.

[MysteryToMyself]

223. Our government is a shadow of itself

If you think about it, the whole thing is absurd.

A few states vote and by the time it gets to the rest of us, it doesn't do any good to vote in the primary. The decision has been made.

The DLC and Republicans huddle in dark rooms and plot against we the people. It is more about tricking us than doing right by us.

The debates are wasted on questions meant to make the Republican & DLC look good and the Democrat look bad.

If the Media doesn't like a candidate, they show their face so close up you can't see their hair and use harsh uncolored lens.

The Media are corporate whores who are there to push the Bushite propaganda.

The list is endless.

I am tired of playing their sick games, they don't play fair. If we win, we still lose. I'm dropping out.

[oldboy101]

224. Some don't want to win, they only want to complain

Reading over the responses to this thread it is quite clear that some here are NOT interested in electing Democrats to office, unless they share their own radical and liberal views on everything of importance.

Taking this approach and running down our candidates who are not liberal enough for the tastes of some is a sure way to guarantee the continued control of the Congress by Republicans. Is that really what you want? Hasn't the nation suffered enough at the hand of the Republicans?

We need to present a united front to take back the Congress this fall, and yes that means the DLC including Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln, as long as they will still caucus with the Democrats and give us possible control of the Senate.

Talk to the contrary is self-defeating.

[Reckon]

225. Listen!

The Bu$h admin had broken law after law and the DLC has been in lock-step with every bit of it.

Here's our radical and liberal extremist views. Click and LISTEN TO THEM!!!! rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter011606_gore.rm

[CrushTheDLC]

227. You can't support Joe Lieberman in this forum

As he is deliberately attempting to undermine the Democratic candidate for Senate, Ned Lamont. Joe Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Some would say that was true years ago, but as of his un-concession speech in the primary, it's official.

Supporting Lieberman is self-defeating.

[alvarezadams]

241. Electing those that would

emulate the GOP is self-defeating in more ways than one.

Besides giving us "more of the same", a DLC victory is another nail in the coffin of what is left of any opposition to the extreme RW in the US of A.

[Reckon]

226. The DLC needs to start upholding

the Constitution of the United States Of America before they call ANY true Democrats extremists!

[MysteryToMyself]

230. Is it radical to expect Democrats to uphold FDR's deal?

This is in response to the DLC. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You don't even know what a wonderful thing Roosevelt did. You don't have any depth of compassion or knowledge. Didn't anyone ever tell you that the democrats are supposed to fight for the middle class? The republicans always take care of businesses and the rich. You have fell for their lies like a child.

There are different kinds of smart. Book smart and world smart. The DLC set up there taking the taxpayer money and work for the rich and make losers out of the rest of us.

It took me a long time to figure out that the DLC are part of the republican party.

You don't even support the elected Democrats like Lamont. You are the radical ones or worse, you are traitors.

[MysteryToMyself]

228. FDR's New Deal vs Bush's Bad Deal

Response to Reply #101. ...


You posted that "Roosevelt and Hoover's stands on issues in 1932 were indistinguishable from each other. At NO POINT in the 3 1/2 Roosevelt terms was he ever considered a progressive. He had serious opposition from liberal members of his own party, and from populists of the era. His reforms were a profoundly conservative response to the depression crisis.

Either history has been rewritten or you have the wrong Roosevelt, if you read that. When Herbert Hoover was in power, life was so hard for many people they called road killed rabbits "Hoover Hogs".

It was a case of too much money in too few hands. Many were in dire straights. Franklin Roosevelt told the businesses and the rich to let loose of some of that money or he would do it for them. He started the New Deal. He came up with welfare for those unable to work or unable to get work. He created Social Security and unemployment. He and his cabinet passed an income tax on payroll and required the business owner to match their worker's Social Security. He was fought tooth and nail by the businesses, the rich and some of the poor. The poor listened to what the rich said about "guvmint" handouts for the lazy. He tried his best to set Social Security up so it could not be ruined. He had it put on record with each having individual accounts. He wouldn't let the extra money be loaned to just anyone, for fear of a setup loss of it. He made it a law it had to be put in US Treasury bonds because they were the safest investment in the world. He was dearly loved and was elected until he died.

I really worry about what is being taught to our children at school as far as history.

The Media has learned to confuse the voters to weaken the Democratic party so the rich can have it all. I wish I had never heard of the DLC, our Media and the Bushites with their stupid ideas and dumb Bad Deal.

The worst is yet to come. The republicans and their enablers are waiting until after this election to put the screws in.

[Reckon]

229. Best post of this thread.... n/t

[Phredicles]

232. I'm tired of the DLC pulling our party ever rightward.

It SHOULD be obvious to everyone by now that the real extremists in this country today are in the GOP. If the DLCstas truly aspire to be a "centrist", "moderating" force, I think it would be best for everyone if they would switch parties and get to work on moving the Rupublicans to the "center" for a freakin' change.

[paulk]

291. I would argue that it's "voters" that are pulling our party rightward

you know, the people who keep putting Republicans in office.

They've also put a few DLC members in office. Like the 20 DLCers in the Senate - that you would like to "switch parties".

[alvarezadams]

314. It has taken $1 billion per year, every year

election or no election - of rw corporate money to push the electorate to the right. The DLC is part and parcel of this indoctrination campaign, as a willing tool of the likes of the Bradleys and Olins.

BTW, thos $1 billion/year spent on thinktanks, PR, etc. - do not include campaign funds.

[emanymton]

247. On The Money!! You Said It Best!!

[Greyhound]

233. No, we don't need a fifth column constantly working against our best

interests and thwarting any progress toward an equitable system. We were here for generations before you and we'll survive much better without you, but thanks for stopping by.

[DemFromMem]

235. I agree

People here seem to forget that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were part of the DLC and the DLC was instrumental in getting them elected.

But here at DU, people demand ideological purity. So if your views don't fit exactly with the far left of the party, you'll be excorciated.

[Reckon]

236. That was before the DLC started selling out Democrats..

and revealed their true colors. The DLC is in fact the people demanding ideological purity by rejecting Ned Lamont. It's easy to see the neocon type spin!

It might be extreme but we demand the DLC UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION or get the hell out of the Democratic party!

Edit: Does Mr Ford have a problem doing that?

Another thing, Al Gore is not acting like the DLC in this video:
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter011606_gore.rm

No, in fact, he's saying Congress is failing miserably to do their job. He too would suggest we clean house of all the enablers of this administration.

[DemFromMem]

254. No, that was before the blogosphere

started allowing the liberal wing of the party to dramatically amplify its voice. The DLC was pro-war during the first Gulf War as well, you'll recall (and President Clinton supported it as well). But the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party was a lot less influential back then. It's the left that has changed. The DLC is pretty similar to what it always was. Actually, there has been a tension between the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party and the doves for over 40 years. But, like Vietnam, the longer this war drags on, the more powerful the doves become. The Internet allows that process to be accelerated.

[Seabiscuit]

245. No, us "Liberals" *don't* "need the DLC"

And no, we don't need to "compromise" our principles with anyone.

The DLC already lost too many elections to the Republicans. No one needs the DLC except the Neo-Cons.

[MysteryToMyself]

248. The DLC is ruining the Democrat's reputation

After this election,when the republicans finish destroying the New Deal and push through a unFAIR Tax, I want them to do it alone. I want them to have to defend their actions.

I don't want the DLC masquerading as Democrats voting with them and enabling them.

I don't want the Bush warmongering DLC ruining the Democrat's reputation of working for the ordinary person.

Your reputation goes ahead of you where ever you go. It follows you when you leave.

[paulk]

326. it's truly a mystery where you get your info from

While the DLC supported tax cuts for the middle class in 2001, they opposed the Bush tax cuts because they favored the wealthy. So I don't understand what your point is -


Well, actually I do understand what your point is - it's to come on here at DU and trash the DLC at every opportunity, using distortion and outright lies if you have to. What your motives are for doing this - I can only surmise...

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

Also - there's something you should think about in regards to your bit about "reputation" -

it applies to you, also.

[MysteryToMyself]

249. Maybe we could give the DLC the Democratic Party

Then we could start a populist party. AL Gore as president. John Edwards as vice president.

Think of the wonderful people they would appoint.

[wyldwolf]

277. heh!

headed up by two DLCers.

[SaveElmer]

282. Probably fellow-DLC'ers..

As they have both been part of that organization!!!

[MysteryToMyself]

250. The DLC always ask "What Would Judas Do?"

instead of What would Jesus do?

DLC=The betrayers of the middle class. :kick:

[Raydawg1234]

251. DLC motto: If we can't beat them, join them

Is the DLC part of a movement so that there is ONE political party in America?

If the DLC succeeds, then on election day will only have a choice between heads and tails. No real choice, just two sides of the same fucking coin!!

[MysteryToMyself]

259. The DLC disappear when Al Gore & John Edwards

are mentioned. It is like holding a crucifix up to the possessed or Satan. They can't stand it, it burns them and they flee.

Keep that in your box of intellectual war tools. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

278. mystery to everyone else.

[karynnj]

296. Why is that? Al Gore was the 1st Presidential

candidate they endorsed ( in 1988) and Edwards was DLC too.

[Q]

274. I can believe that too many Dems still haven't...

...caught on to what the DLC is all about.

They are to the Dem party what the Neocons are to the GOP. They have no rank and file support...and they don't want or need it. They work behind the scenes to influence elections and party platforms, purchase politicians and write legislation for those who finance them: international corporations. They use the RWing media to smear any and all opposition...even fellow Democrats.

They would rather see a Republican win than a 'liberal' that disagrees with their corporate agenda. This is why they encouraged Dems just to 'accept' Bush as prez after the 2000 coup.

The DLC is not a friend of the Democratic party. Do the research and find out for yourself.

[Totally Committed]

292. I have been saying this for a couple of years now:

I can believe that too many Dems still haven't caught on to what the DLC is all about.

They are to the Dem party what the Neocons are to the GOP.

And, I get poo-poohed all the time. It's absolutely true! And, look what happened to the Republican Party because they didn't stop it.

Very astute, Q.

TC

[JNelson6563]

281. From what I've seen

you're beyond a supporter, you're an active promoter. Let's at least be honest in this discussion, ok?

Julie

[MysteryToMyself]

284. DLC uses war strategy on the real Democrats

Together we stand and divided we fall. Every country Bushites invade they divide and conquer by taking the scum of the country and calling them the names of the original upstanding citizens. For instance in Iraq, those Iraqi in power were the Kurds who were devil worshipers and snake worshipers. They were the bottom feeders. Then Bushites call the real upstanding Iraqi citizens who rebel "Terrorists". Bushites are psychotic sociopaths who are greedy, love war and don't see the rest of humanity as human.

This is the war strategy that DLC have used. Just like Rove. They have taken the real democrat's name and call the real ones radical.

The reason that millions of people do not realize the DLC are DINOs is because the DINO's have the protection of most of the Media. Fox and it's ilk give equal time to both parties. They bash real Democrats 50% of the time and lie about how great Bushites are the other half of the time. They don't inform the people honestly.

They have DLC DINO as democratic strategists on the talk shows masquerading as Democrats. These DINOs don't say anything to help the Democrats and sometimes hurt the real Democrats. They have unwritten orders "never win" a debate.

During the last election many told me that there is no difference in the Democrats and Republicans except the Democrats want to take our guns, want gay marriage and abortion.

Our young are being brainwashed to think Social Security is not going to be there for them. The DLC have not went along with the Bushites yet, but they plan to compromise after the election. When Democrats compromise with the Bushites we lose. Read what Lieberman says about Social Security.

It has always been a given that the republicans will take care of businesses and the rich. The democrats always fought for the workers, the underdog and fought for rights and safety nets.

It took me a long time myself and I am a political junkie to realize what was happening. THE DLC were posing as Democrats but are republicans. It became crystal clear recently.

If a real Democrat speaks out against the Bushites the DLC take turns defending Bush and anything that Bush does that is illegal they help make it legal.

The DLC also take turns voting in Bush's bills. That is the only reason they don't have a 100% Bush record. They take turns. That gives Bushites cover. Some DINOs that are planning on running don't vote at all. ????

Bush's numbers dropped when he finally told how he would "fix" Social Security. Until then millions believed him when he said he would fix it. They thought that he would make it sound. He also called our Social Security Surplus Bonds worthless pieces of paper.

We probably all should invest in the stock market, too. But the ridiculous idea of gradually dismantling Social Security and throwing our children and grandchildren to stock market forces is a disastrous plan for many reasons. First the worker wouldn't stand a chance if they had a job at all. Second other countries will not accept the Bushite agenda of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer with no protection for joblessness, disability or old age. The worst thing is that for the market to keep going up so the investors can afford to retire the prices will have to keep going up, year after year. Imagine! That is why they are saying we will each have $300,000 out of pocket expenses after retirement even with all the Medicare insurances. It would make the value of Social Security worthless if Bushites get their way about changing the way it keeps pace with cost of living.

There is a lot more to it than that but I will post it in the Social Security section later.

We need to get the word out to the people. We could do small things like calling local radio shows. We could print out copies telling how the Democrats are being betrayed by the DLC. We could post on bulletin boards and leave them in shopping carts.in church pews and song books..lay them on benches..you get the picture.

We may have to give up 2006, not vote or vote republican and let the Bushites stew in their own juices. Then come back as a different party. I know, that is RADICAL! You got a better plan?

[AtomicKitten]

285. The problem with the incessant screed against the DLC

... is that it spills over into a pervasive cloud of negativism that renders people completely incapable of reasonable analysis. In short, a jihad is declared ... that in contrast to being willing to turning themselves inside-out using pretzel logic to defend others, the chosen ones who in their opinion can do no wrong. The disparity in that behavior is screaming, but I predict no insight will ensue in pointing it out.

I posted a thread about Donna Brazile working on getting fair elections, her focus on the rampant abuse of the system vis a vis supplying Democratic districts with inadequate voting paraphernalia, purging voting rolls, etc., etc. She and Dean (people forget her report was in conjunction with the latter) issued a report on Ohio 2004 that downplayed EVM fraud but meticulously documented the abuses of SOS Blackwell which BTW he has kicked up a notch in his race against Strickland.

Anyhoo, she has come out criticizing Lieberman as pointed out here on AMERICAblog:

Democratic pundit Donna Brazile criticizes Lieberman
http://americablog.blogspot.com/

What is good, and interesting, about this (captioned below) is that Brazile is yet another member of the Democratic establishment turning against Joe Lieberman. Even more interesting is that Brazile was Al Gore's campaign manager for his presidential bid in 2000 when Lieberman was the VP on the ticket. Even she is turning against Joe.

from the article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14450004 /

Democratic optimism

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager in 2000 when Lieberman was the vice-presidential nominee, says voters want someone to fight for their values in Washington and "stand up" to the GOP. "I still believe this election in Connecticut comes down to a choice between an incumbent senator who many believe no longer represents their views on certain issues and a newcomer who promises to steer, not just the party, but the country in a different direction," Brazile said.

snip

Brazile said that Lieberman's decision to run as an independent when Democratic voters had chosen Lamont put the party in a predicament. She adds that many candidates could choose to run as independents if they lose the Democratic nomination, but it doesn't mean they should. "If you lose, you lose," she said.

But I have no doubt that this as with her other good efforts will be summarily dismissed (at best).

I don't understand the tunnel vision when in comes to the chaos purposely perpetrated within the Democratic Party. I have never understood the rage that surpasses that felt for the GOP. But IMO it's a cancer that is hellbent on destroying the efforts to oust this administration and the GOP. I implore people to use caution in signing on to these in-party jihads.

[Totally Committed]

293. I liken it to cheating husbands...

Who do you despise more... the husband who's cheating on your next door neighbor, or the husband who's cheating on YOU?

They're both dogs, but the level of betrayal just isn't the same. A DLC/DINO is an affront to every political ideal I have ever held, every cause I ever worked for, everything I ever loved about this Party.

It isn't tunnel vision, it's 20/20 vision. I know what I'm looking at: BETRAYAL.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

295. I would suggest a different analogy.

I liken the DLC to siblings in a fractious family, each not afraid to lob their best shot at the other and to sharpen their elbows in all interactions.

I have a fundie Republican sister whom I disagree with on every issue I can think of and would just as soon back over with my car on most occasions than talk to her. But she is my sister, and I can imagine a doomsday scenario where that perhaps would matter. What I do acknowledge albeit reluctantly, however, is her standing in the family, a logistic beyond my control.

The tunnel vision that I reference is not being able to differentiate the above from the hostile opposition of the GOP as a genuine foe. In my mind, the disparity between the annoying and often just plain wrong DLC as opposed to the genuine threat of the GOP is a mile wide. But much of the focus of hostility and opposition here at DU is toward the former rather than the latter. I question that. And I question bloggers/pundits who prey on that and cultivate it using half-truths, and that being viewed as brilliant gospel.

I see clearly and never doubt the genuine enemy to my wellbeing and the oh so deserving recipient of my wrath ... the current GOP.

[Totally Committed]

344. This is a point you and I have always disagreed on.

I know how you feel. You know how I feel. I don't plan to change my mind about it any time soon, so we need to agree to disagree. OK?

TC

[AtomicKitten]

352. yep

respectfully

[oc2002]

286. I hate the DLC more then the RNC.

Anyone that feels otherwise is just a DINO.

The DLC is all about inside the beltway deals with corporations, not middle class everyday America.

[AtomicKitten]

287. correction

If you hate Democrats (DLC) more than Republicans (RNC), you are a DINO (at best), and the sad part is that you have zero insight into that.

It is precisely that twisted logic I refer to in the post above yours.

[MysteryToMyself]

289. But the DLC are Republicans

I despise the Republicans, too. DINOs love republicans.

Stop twisting words. That won't work any more.

[AtomicKitten]

290. that's simply not true

and those kind of accusations reek of paranoid ideations

[Totally Committed]

294. I disagree with you AK....

See post #293... the only thing different is the level of betrayal.

I hate the RNC enough not to want the mamby-pamby enabling collusion of the DLC to lose us any more elections. Period. I hate what they stand for. I hate their methods. I hate that they don't particularly respect the whole base of this Party.

F*ck 'em.

TC

[alvarezadams]

320. What riles me

is that somehow the DLC has become the basis and "non plus ultra" of "centrism" for many.

Who died and made the DLC the spokesman for "moderates"? Especially since the only thing "moderate" about the DLC is their manipulative rhetoric.

I'm sick to fucking death of those DLC supporters who echo the "purist" and "leftist litmus test" mantras. I know of nobody of the left that wants to kick out moderates or centrists... or even conservatives. From what I can see, the "leftists" want to kick out manipulators, extremists and those that are part and parcel of the corrupt machine that has perverted BOTH political parties.

To date I have seen no worthwhile argument from DLC supporters unless it is based on the red herring of the DLC somehow representing the "center". The defenders of the DLC seem to understand the "center" as being the average between extreme rw and moderate leftwing policies, which actually ends up as being solidly rightwing.

I beg that "moderates", "centrists" and "conservatives" stand up for themselves and not for a pressure group based on manipulative rhetoric. By all means stand for your beliefs - but learn to distinguish between fine words that support platidinous ideals and the actual means of achieving such purported goals.

I won't hold my breath.

[AtomicKitten]

327. strawman argument

Not that you care to comment on the real issue, but the point disputed was whether or not the DLC are Republicans. In point of fact, they are not. Disliking (hating) and disagreeing with (vehemently opposing) an entity does not entitle one to relabel them categorically and campaign to trash-talk (annihilate) them; that is so over the top.

Many here at DU confuse those like myself that are capable of critical analysis regarding the DLC and other issues for supporters/shills/apologists. It's lazy thinking to summarily dismiss those not on the jihad train by lobbing those accusations. It's a manipulative, bullying effort to shut down debate.

The DLC's alleged power is so inflated here it's ridiculous; that power pretty much ran its course in the 1990s. However, the DLC's elevation to loathed boogeyman status is a means to an end. It is the outlet de jour for the generally disgruntled to rail against windmills. It is a vehicle to distort and divide.

When reason at DU is met with such disdain and scorn, it's time to take a critical look at the source. I again warn DU'ers to think carefully before signing on to the in-party jihads. We have a formidable foe to meet in November and again in 2008, and that foe is unequivocally without doubt the GOP.

[alvarezadams]

333. Don't I?

I have been arguing the "real issue" ad nauseum.

The DLC runs on a series of platitudinous "progressive" talkingpoint issues of little import while pushing (surreptitiously) neoliberal economic practices and neoconservative foreign policies. To me and to any progressive that is moderately aware, these two traits are the cornerstone of today's GOP as well as today's DLC.

You speak of manipulative, bullying efforts to shut down debate - when those of your ilk are prone to echo the "litmus test liberals" and "purity" mantras at every turn. Never once do any of you address the above points regarding economic and foreign policies which means that YOU are not WILLING to debate.

I do not believe that the DLC's "power" is important. I believe that their INFLUENCE is important. And I most adamantly believe that it is of prime importance to mark a difference with the opposition in the two key areas of government... economics and foreign policy. The GOP was taken over in a virtual coup via similar tactics as the DLC's - and in favour of precisely the same people.

We indeed have a formidable foe in November and in 2008. It is the corporate-driven machine that has perverted our body politic, a corrupt cabal who's weapons of choice are the GOP and the DLC.

[AtomicKitten]

334. the point was whether or not the DLC are Republicans

... and, again, in point of fact, they are not. That was the point being discussed.

You are railing against a think tank. I would find that amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. Some of the DLC platform tenets are shared by some Dems, some are not. Most Dems here at DU including me do not agree with their economic or foreign policy proposals. So what? Most people are grown up enough to be able to process that reasonably.

The DLC's right to exist and to be heard within the Democratic Party body is as valid as yours, but you want to sharpen your elbows and shove them out of the way so they won't be heard. That, my foreign-dwelling DU'er, is bullying behavior any way you slice it.

You and your ilk tag-team ridicule people that don't share your opinion and post often off-topic strawman lofty screeds, employing the verbiage of blogs de jour, my personal favorite cognitive dissonance which is parroted here a hundred times a week, randomly, but always in the spirit of the pretense of lofty ideals, and always failing to impress those that see this charade of righteous indignation that has been carefully crafted to mimic a worthwhile cause for what it is. It is a strawman, propped up by and for you and your ilk to pretend to do battle with.

But, you know what? We get it. You hate the DLC. So what? I think your message is dishonest and manipulative. But DU is as big a tent as the Democratic Party, and until you come to terms with that and make an effort to muster a modicum of community, you will be simply blowing a lot of hot air.

I am not impressed.

[alvarezadams]

342. Listen to yourself

The Greeks were wise when they coined the phrase gnothi seuton - know one's self.
I am only partialy facetious when I say that there is no difference between the DLC and the GOP. There is a difference but it is ever so shallow, which is my point of contention.

Indeed I rail against a... in fact a litany... of thinktanks. Said thinktanks share a fundamental POV and indeed funders (the Scaifes, Olins and Bradleys) that have a very definitive and identifiable agenda. They stand for the institutionalized corruption that was well known in the "Gilded Age", of the interests of corporations and capital above the interests of the moiety of citizens. They are selfish, they are manipulative and they rely on emotional appeals to whatever psychological buttons that their experts can identify. Further experts specialize in framing.

Frankly the DLC would matter little or nothing to me if they did not purport to represent the "center".... and if so many "centrists" didn't identify themselves with it. You have admitted to not identifying yourself with the economic and foreign policy "ideals" of the DLC - yet you support it.

Since it is clear that the DLC does not support progressive ideals in these key ideological aspects, how can they pretend to represent the "center" or "moderates"? Their POV is clearly reactionary rw in these key areas and their only pretense to "progressiveness" are based on relatively unimportant,shallow or superficial issues that obviate and occlude the key issues.

Nobody died and named the DLC as the base of "moderates" or "centrists". They have unilaterally usurped such epithets and those that consider themselves "moderates" or "centrists" feel obliged to defend the DLC because of their unilateral declaration. Yet a modicum of sense would show that said "moderates" and "centrists" are being played like violins, especially as the majority of Democrats do not exclude centrists, moderates or indeed conservatives.

If you are a moderate, centrist or conservative, by all means express yourself. But please eschew a cabal that is manipulating our ideals for ulterior purposes.

When I used the term "your ilk", it wasn't with any negative connotations. The style and content of your posts identifies you with others with similar POV's and thus the epithet. What is worrying to me is that a purported "centrist", "moderate" or whatnot feels fit to make a stand in favour of a group that only sees you as a means to an end.

You are not impressed - no problem. I am sincerely disappointed. You see no problem with being manipulated - and are part of the problem.

Come to terms with what you represent before you identify yourself with a manipulative cabal. That's my last advice to you.

[AtomicKitten]

345. Read what you are responding to before pontificating.

"You have admitted to not identifying yourself with the economic and foreign policy "ideals" of the DLC - yet you support it."

Not once have I ever come out in support of the DLC. Ever.

I do, however, have a problem with your (and others) incessant efforts to silence other entities of the Democratic Party. That is undemocratic. I'm sorry you equate upholding the notion that all voices have a right to be heard with being manipulative. I would say that is being manipulative, but I disgress.

"If you are a moderate, centrist or conservative, by all means express yourself."

I am none of the above. If you insist on labeling me, I am a liberal. I know who I am and have no problem expressing myself.

It's a shame you are incapable of pinpointing your actual beef with the DLC and that is you are anti-corporatism. That would be like burning down a KFC because you don't like the taste of chicken. You would find with a less strident tone and rhetoric, many including me would be on board the real issue stuck in your craw, politicians in bed with corporations. I object to the dishonesty of making the DLC the strawman.

You will always have a fan club/cult following here at DU because many with weaker minds love to take up pitchforks and torches without really understanding the rationale. In my opinion, you are a purveyor of the kool-aid that sets off the flame wars. You would find a broader audience if you would focus that on real issue behind your jihad against the DLC and that is anti-corporatism.

Just a thought.

[alvarezadams]

348. Pardon me

This is one of the problems of extensive threads - one gets sidetracked and confuses posters with one another.

Nevertheless I have no desire whatsoever to SILENCE anyone from the DNC or any other party. My objective is to out the manipulators for what they are so that "centrists" and "moderates" and "conservatives" understand that the DLC does NOT represent them just because they CLAIM to represent them.

"It's a shame you are incapable of pinpointing your actual beef with the DLC and that is you are anti-corporatism. That would be like burning down a KFC because you don't like the taste of chicken. You would find with a less strident tone and rhetoric, many including me would be on board the real issue stuck in your craw, politicians in bed with corporations. I object to the dishonesty of making the DLC the strawman. "

I have posted many posts and in fact have initiated various threads with regards to the DLC. Time and time again I have pinpointed my "actual beef" but for your benefit I will reiterate:

1. The DLC, while purportedly "progressive", pushes neoliberal and neoconservative platforms. This is patently clear from their own web and from the continuing support of DLC & PPI for the Bush Doctrine.
2. The DLC repeatedly echos progressive objectives yet fails to tie them with their modus operandi: "affordable health" as an objective and "less government" and "private initiative" on the other hand can only be translated in one way: precisely what the GOP propounds. This is the apex of manipulativeness - painting radical rw tactics with a progressive brush.
3. The DLC is funded by the self-same groups behind the coup that turned the GOP from paleoconservative to neoconservative - and the tactics used by the DLC are virtually the same as those used by the Gingrich Gang. Unfortunately the results are also the same - many Dems, like many Repubs, see "party unity" and "electoral victory" more important than values.
4. One of the biggest problems with our body politic is indeed corporate influence (that's a euphemism). Today corporations are more important than citizens for our government and the DLC is the most egregious tool of corporations within the DLC.
5. The DLC has adopted the ridiculous idea, originally coined by rw thinktanks and applied by the GOP, that the DNC has moved to the left when it is patently clear that quite the opposite is the case. If a Dem politician today were to even SUGGEST what a FDR or a Truman once included as a basis in their political agendas the rw would die of apoplexy while screaming "communist".

I am unaware of any "fan club" on DU. Quite the opposite - I find my posts often countered with unthinking kneejerk one-liners. Any salient points I might occassionally make are invariably overlooked or suddenly forgotten by my antagonists as they repeat "litmus test" and "purity" mantras.

You suggest that I deflect my arguments from the DLC to corporatism - as if they are separate causes and as if I was incapable of following more than one idea. -I- suggest that you actually read what I have written, counter arguments that I have made, propose arguments of your own, and cease to personalize a political discussion that you, admittedly, cannot feel much passion for.

YOU disagree with DLC foreign and economic policies, claim not to defend the DLC - but always show up as an antagonist against the anti-DLC crowd.

[AtomicKitten]

349. here's were we differ

I do not believe the DLC is completely bereft of value, although overall their policies do mimic the very worst of the opposite side of the aisle. Their platform consists of proposals, and those candidates that are accused of being odious DLC-affiliated are very likely sucking up to be the recipient of their largess in campaigns. Until there is genuine campaign reform in this country, IMO one has to yield a tiny bit of idealism where that is concerned.

I have never defended the DLC per se; I simply defend their right to exist and be heard. I believe you are intelligent enough to process that not particularly nuanced difference even though you keep glossing over it as if you don't.

Seeking to silence others is a particular brand of fascism on this side of the aisle that really sticks in my craw. And the strident tone and rhetoric often heard here at DU is reminiscent of the GOP Wrecking Machine, and that too puts up a red flag for me. I believe as a whole we are smarter than that.

I am confident that there is enough support for a truly populist movement at this point in our history. I believe the notion of centrism has run its course and is no longer relevant. I believe America is ripe for genuine reform.

And I will gladly suffer being accused of being an antagonist for the anti-DLC crowd if it gives people pause to reconsider their scorched earth rhetoric and to focus on strategy to effect a better America. Because I still have hope realizing, of course, that that optimism annoys the crap out of some here.

Peace. :)

[alvarezadams]

370. IF

the DLC truly represented a constituency and not just a cabal of self-interested businesses and rw thinktanks, you'd have a point. And IF the DLC was straitforward with its agenda as opposed to manipulative you'd have another.

It's not an issue of trying to silence the DLC but to show it for what it is.

[AtomicKitten]

371. I think

you could learn to disagree more gracefully. My point is that your assessment of the DLC is over-the-top. It is a valid point whether or not you concur.

We will just have to agree to disagree, and it is much more pleasant for all if that is done respectfully.

[alvarezadams]

372. Gracefully?

Unfortunately my experience on boards is marked by a lengthy stance on "public" ones - where flaming is rife. I have admittedly lost patience but am quick to recognize open doors for debate.

You think that my assessment of the DLC is over the top. Spit it out - how so? Perhaps we can actually achieve a consensus.

[MysteryToMyself]

288. You are sooo right

We think alike, we must be twinkies :pals:

:kick:

We could just vote for the real Democrats and not vote for the DINOs or BUSHITES and let the DLC sink in their own immoral disguises into the political cesspool of those who betray.

[...of J.Temperance]

301. Thank you to ALL who voted and put my OP on the Greatest Page

I appreciate each and every one of you....let's go forward with our message and work for a Democratic majority and in 2008 a Democratic President in the WH :)

[alvarezadams]

315. I'd wager

that most of the votes come from those who would like to see the anti-DLC arguments more visibe. That's why -I- voted.

[Zodiak]

322. you put up some good posts on this thread, btw n/t

[alvarezadams]

324. Thanx a mil!

[Raksha]

336. I didn't vote, but I should have.

I didn't want anyone to think I endorsed the position of the OP. But I've enjoyed seeing the DLC get their ass handed to them, and you had a lot to with that!

[Raksha]

337. I didn't vote, but I should have.

I didn't want anyone to think I endorsed the position of the OP. But I've enjoyed seeing the DLC get their ass handed to them, and you had a lot to with that!

[SaveElmer]

353. Good Post...I was glad to recommend...

Nice to let folks know that not everyone at DU is in lockstep with the "DLC is the source of all evil" meme...

Took guts to post it...thanks!

[Hippo_Tron]

310. As soon as Tom Carper and Al From get behind Ned Lamont

Then I will say that, for the time being, I fully support the DLC. Right now they have some reluctant support from me in the interest of winning the majority.

[Zodiak]

321. If you look upthread,

you will see that Carper has endorsed Leiberman.

Not very smart because Carper is another DLC-heavy Democrat from a blue state.

One at a time.

[merh]

325. LOL - this supports everything I've ever said about your stance.

You are NO lefty. :rofl:

What I find so very comical, you have linked this "olive branch" OP, as you call it, to the site wherein you wear that "lefty" title . This is rich.

What is it with some folks, they need attention so badly that they pretend to be what they are not on one board while all along complaining about DUers and the folks they pretend to be like? I just don't get it.

Thanks again for proving me right. Both parties - the Republican and the Democratic - have a left and right, you are a rightie in the democratic party and mistakenly labeled as a leftie on that other site. That site is mistakenly divided, it is not right versus left, but republican versus democrat. I just love how your OP and your thread at that other site prove what I've been saying all along.

Oh, and what a very nice touch to link this thread in the Worst of the Worst forum over there. At least you know your place.

And to think, I got in trouble cause I said you weren't a lefty and now your OP proves me right. :rofl:

Tell the gang hello and be sure to whisper in the ear of the top guy while you are sitting in his protective lap that I said "told ya so". ;)

[merh]

373. At the risk of giving your silly thread new life,

I must ask that you be so kind as to include my entire signature line when your repost this post at that other site. Also, using the emoticons I have used would be a nice touch and a whole lot more honest. But honesty has always been an issue, hasn't it.

If you do happen to edit your post to properly quote my sig line and include the necessary emoticons, or if you should repost this post over there, I just want to add this quote:

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


Oh, let me also add "Hi ya nonk :hi: - I hope you are doing well. :pals:"

[UDenver20]

328. Cheers... Its a big tent... n/t

[Totally Committed]

347. A very astute DU-er (Name now escapes me... sorry!) said the following

about our "Big Tent": No one should be allowed in the tent when their intention is to burn it down. (paraphrased, but it was brilliant!)

In 1994, when Newt and his rabble took over the Republican Party, I'm sure no one in that Party minded, because they started winning elections. Talk to the REAL Republicans now... they'll tell you those corporate a**holes ruined their Party, the public discourse, and America's reputation in their name. You want that for the Democratic Party, too? No one made a move to stop Newt and his vermin, and look what happened. If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them.

The DLC does not speak for this Party, and they never should. Read John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, and it'll tell you his Party was hi-jacked and was never the same again.

Don't let that happen to this Party, is all I ask.

TC

[MysteryToMyself]

338. We need to rethink who is on our side

When you hear Bill O'Reilly defending Bill Clinton's bills that hurt the poor and middle class, you have to wonder.

When you hear Harold Ford on Imus saying he won't take sides but then he goes into reasons that Lieberman would be the best Senator.

You know you are dealing with DINOs. Dems in name only.

Here is a headline found on the DLC website:

New Dem of the Week: Rep. Harold Ford, Jr.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103

I am so tired of their tricks and tired of being "kicked in the mouth" by the New Democrats called the DLC. They are the ones that enable Bush.

The middle class and poor have no voice and we have no choice. Two republican parties are not a choice.

[Armstead]

374. The DLC has been far too dominant...andf tried to kill liberalism

I have no problems with a Big Tent Democratic Party that includes a wide spectrum of opinions and degrees of liberalism.

To me a moderate liberal and a more left progressive are pulling in the same direction. They may differ in degree, but they agree on the goals.

BUT that is not what the DLC tried to do. They have done theor best to impose a phony form of "centrism" that either glosses over or moves in the opposite direction, regarding core issues.

They have tried consistently for years to get rid of those terrible "leftists" and purge all vestiges of strong liberalism out of the Democratic Party.

If DLCers really believed in a Big tent, they would not have consistently pushed the Democratic party into the Corporate Embrace, and muddied its position on the real issues of Money and Power, and War.