Al From is really stepping into the fray now....telling us how it will go.

[madfloridian]

He appears to be advocating ignoring the grassroots, appears to be advocating privatization of services to keep a smaller government. Pretty strong op ed here.

He also points how Lieberman won over the screaming grassroots in spite of a high-profile effort to take him out.

He is getting pretty pushy here. I resent this on top of the Carville stuff. We won. Who would guess it from all the lectures and smackdowns.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061119/news_mz1e19from.html

And while Democrats benefited from an energized party base, the key to the victory was in the contested center of the electorate, among moderates, independents, middle-class voters and suburbanites. These voters could represent an expanded Democratic base, and keeping them in the Democratic camp is vital to building an enduring progressive majority.

That is why what comes next is so important. Democrats should view this election as a beginning, not as an end. As the dust settles from the election, Democrats will face many choices, but none greater than the choice about what kind of party we want to be.

That's an especially important message for the large number of potential Democratic presidential candidates. There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. The reality is that, unlike the Republicans who are a much more homogenous party, Democrats can only win with a broad coalition. An expanded party base depends on a spirit of inclusiveness; certainly the House Democratic caucus is more ideologically diverse than it was before Election Day. To remain in the majority, it will need to stay that way.

Uh, Al, Joe won because he got Republican votes, Republican money, and Republican support

And here is the part that reeks of privatizing. Usually they skirt the edges of it, but here he digs right in.

A final challenge for Democrats will be to exercise self-restraint in promoting new public-sector activism. Republican claims that Democrats would return Washington to old “tax-and-spend” habits didn't get much traction, given the fiscally ruinous record of the GOP Congress and administration. But surveys continue to show that a clear majority of Americans favor a government that is smaller and does less to one that is larger and does more. It won't be enough for Democrats to show they won't emulate Republicans by creating a government that is larger and does less.

Get that? He wants a government that is smaller and does less...the implication being taking care of its citizens who are ill, disabled, or in distress.

[sandnsea]

1. A government that's not corrupt

will consequently be able to tend to things Americans want done. Americans never said they didn't want government to help people after a flood or hurricane, they said they didn't want to spend millions of dollars and not have any help arrive. They said that when they through out Bush 1 in large part because of Andrew, they've said it again in 2006. I think there's 2 or 3 Democrats that get it.

What a putz.

[davidinalameda]

2. he is right on one point

people don't want a do-nothing goverment that sucks up tax money

the Democratics in Congress need to demonstrate some sort of fiscal restraint in the face of the spending by the Repukes

they need to make very strong arguments for their spending priorities and stick to them or else they'll give the Repukes ammo

we were shown how a majority party shot itself in the foot after being in power for 12 years; the Democrats need to learn from the Repukes' mistakes and not repeat them

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Then we need to shout from the rooftops that

the Iraq War is costing $250 million per day.

The average person's annual federal income tax pays for less than one second of the Iraq War.

All the non-military, non-debt parts of the general fund (the part of the federal budget funded by income taxes) amounted to only 15% of the total, the last time I heard, and the percentage may be even smaller with a war going on.

[roody]

3. Who is Al From?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Nobody. n/t

[acmejack]

9. !!

[CTLawGuy]

6. he's basically destroying our party

and he hates you and everyone who believes in grassroots activism and has no corporate money.

[Eric J in MN]

29. The head of the "Democratic Leadership Council" a pro-corporate

...pro-free trade, anti-grassroots-Democrats, organizaion.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. He's the head of the "Republican-Lite" wing of the Democratic Party.

The head of the "me too!" elite group within the Democratic Party that Howard Dean railed against during his Presidential campaign calling them "Republican-lite", and who's now being vilified by the DLC as "incompetent as head of the Democratic National Committee after his 50-State Strategy turned out to be the huge success Dean believed it would be.

Al From's DLCers are the Democrats that, when you don't know if they have a "D" in front of their names, you'd think they're Republics, the way they vote on big, key issues that affect most middle-class and working poor.

[Jim Sagle]

145. A piece of shit.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Wouldn't you know clueless DLC head Al From would concentrate on Lieberman and not VA's Jim Webb.

What tied the Democratic candidates together was economic justice for all. Give it up, Al! We will not accept your DLCer candidates for president--Clinton, Vilsack, and Bayh--without a fight!

[Zorra]

7. A corporate mole desperately trying to prevent the Democratic party

from taking control of the government away from his corporate masters and giving it back to the people.

How about a government that is smaller and does more? We could increase taxes on the wealthy, slightly decrease taxes for the middle class, get out of Iraq, and eliminate corporate pork.

[wyldwolf]

8. Not much here to disagree with

Point by point - from your snippets:

And while Democrats benefited from an energized party base, the key to the victory was in the contested center of the electorate, among moderates, independents, middle-class voters and suburbanites. These voters could represent an expanded Democratic base, and keeping them in the Democratic camp is vital to building an enduring progressive majority.

Absolutely correct - Pew Research, among others, confirms this.

There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

Again, correct, and history shows it to be so. George McGovern, who changed the rules to make it easier to pander to the "ideologically inflexible" lost an electoral landslide. Walter Mondale, who they say couldn't tie his shoes without checking in with every one-issue advocacy group, lose an electoral landslide. And who could forget the 1988 convention. Michael Dukakis was already doomed when Jesse Jackson made his infamous testimony to Democratic politics, comparing the patches on a quilt to each Democratic party "group," and admonishing them their patch was too small.

WCGreen, here at DU, wrote: "After the 1994 election, I went to a progressive convention in Detroit to find out how we could re-energize the Democratic Party. It was good idea, I thought, cathartic even. But after the initial bitch and moan session, they decided to break off into small working groups. The folks on stage, and this was a huge hall, about 1,500 people, started to count off the various caucuses and where they would meet. Gays over here, Lesbians over there, Pro-choice down in front, Hispanics over by the podium, you get the drift…. And they went on for a while and I it dawned on me right then and there why we had lost. I remember raising my hand, an out of place white guy in a suit, and the “facilitator” called on me and I said, in a half hearted attempt to bring a little humor to this wake, “Excuse me, where do the slightly pissed off white guys go?”

The three days were spent in workshops that were right out of a Newt Gingrich attack ad. A lot of feeling was discussed with little to no agenda developed.

It was then that I knew the Democratic Party was going to be in the wilderness for some time.

The people who were the backbone of the party were nudged out, the workers, the Catholics, the middle class were literally jettisoned in favor of lifestyle politics that was as foreign to them as America was to their immigrant ancestors."

And, as has already been pointed out, Americans DO want a smaller government. If you want to interpret that as a call to limit social programs, so be it. Consider it an invocation to FDR's belief that long term social programs were a "narcotic" and that the government must "quit this business of relief;" or Bobby Kennedy's belief that welfare should be a hand up not a hand out.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

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

[ulysses]

11. the smaller govt business - what's your take on Jim Webb on class?

Or is he now part of the liberal chattering nutroots too?

[wyldwolf]

15. Webb has done or said nothing that disputes the above

Can YOU dispute the above?

[ulysses]

21. he's taken on free trade

which, of course, is the essence of big government, but it's spun as the opposite by its pushers.

[wyldwolf]

23. He probably enjoys a good roast beef sandwich, too.

did I say anything in my post about free trade? Let's see.. I discussed Dem candidates pander to single-issue advocacy groups, and various historical Democratic figures resisting the liberal calls for expanding social programs. But, no, not free trade.

So, think Webb likes horseradish of mayo on that sandwich?

[ulysses]

26. fair traders aren't a "single-issue advocacy group"?

We must be coming up in the world!

[wyldwolf]

35. no.

There are many on the left and the right who would call themselves "fair traders" but with a myriad of ways and ideas that all won't agree with. I'm sure you don't consider yourself in league with Pat Buchanan on the ways to enact (extract?) fair trade. It isn't an issue as cut and dry as, say, reproductive rights, gay rights, etc.

[ulysses]

57. if an issue has to be cut and dried for its proponents to be considered

"single-issue advocates", then I would submit, based on the fact that even reproductive rights aren't cut and dried (start a thread to the effect that, while you're pro-choice, no one really likes abortion and see what happens), that the whole smear of single-issue advocacy is a crock.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. 2-1 americans support Universal Health Care

"In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

Your DLC heros keep ignoring what the people actually want, they know better.

[wyldwolf]

16. as does the DLC? Your point?

[OzarkDem]

22. DLC details are fuzzy

They seem to be very clear about using "market based" incentives to improve Medicare and support government subsidies for information technology in the health care industry (same ones Newt Gingrich touts, by the way).

How is building an information system for health care going to cover uninsured people who are sick? It isn't.

[wyldwolf]

24. crystal clear to anyone paying attention

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1032&kaid=111&subid=137

Just one of the many policy explorations undertaken by the DLC.

Universal healthcare isn't some magic formula, and we can't wave a magic wand to make it work.

[OzarkDem]

30. Where to begin?

First, this article is from 2000. Surely the DLC has something more current to work with, the big picture for health care has changed signficantly in the last 6 years.

Second, "Tax incentives to buy health insurance"? Is that the best you can come up with? When health insuranc for a family of 4 is now approaching $1,000 per month and many middle class families are maxed out on tax deductions, how does this help? For families of low income who can barely afford to meet basic expenses, how does a tax deduction help them? It doesn't.

There is no "free market" solution that will help middle class families afford health care. Under your proposal, the only way to lower the cost of health insurance is to cut benefits or raise out of pocket costs. That's the market system currently in place and it isn't working.

So other than some bad ideas from 2000, what else do you have?

[wyldwolf]

32. yes, where to begin?

First, this article is from 2000. Surely the DLC has something more current to work with, the big picture for health care has changed signficantly in the last 6 years.

Surely they do. Why not read the volumes of material on it at dlc.org and ppi.org?

Second, "Tax incentives to buy health insurance"? Is that the best you can come up with?

LOL! I wish I had come up with it. But answer this. What have YOU come up with? Where's you plan? How are you going to make it all work?

[TayTay]

52. Like this:

Last week, the chiefs of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler went to Washington to meet with the president, the vice president, and various administration officials about the auto industry's woes.

Among their complaints: The heavy healthcare costs they shoulder are hindering their ability to compete.

And what did they suggest by way of a solution? Something John Kerry proposed during his presidential campaign: a reinsurance arrangement to pay for chronic or catastrophic healthcare costs, thereby effectively taking those cases out of private health-insurance plans.

"One possibility they discussed conceptually was a pool to address the disproportionate costs associated with those who have chronic or serious illnesses," says Greg Martin, Washington spokesman for GM.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/24/a_healthcare_idea_with_mileage/

This is the type of partnership that business and government can enter into to affect positive change in the lives of people in this country who don't own stock, aren't friends with Wall Street tycoons and who have been on the short end of the stick from policies that people like From having been pushing on us.

Al From is a symbol of everything that went wrong with the Democratic Party in the 1990's. His type of principle and moral free politics is exactly why Democrats lost. He is part of the reason why people would scratch their heads and try and figure out exactly what it was Democrats stood for. (According to people like From, it's to make others rich and maybe some of that money will trickle down.)

From is a symbol of the cancer that affected the Democrats and that we have only begun to remove. His pathetic attempts to reinterpret the 2006 midterm elections as some sort of validation of his squishy, 'we stand for nothing' politics is laughable.

Al From and the do-nothing Democrats had their day. They were unable to deliver health care reform in the early 90's under Clinton, they lost the House and the Senate in 1994 and were unable to get it back until they renounced the politics of nothingness and actually stood for something in the 2006 midterms. The sooner we are rid of them, the sooner we will be able to sustain the Democratic gains made in 2006.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Here is the current crap from the DLC.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253775

It is the same as the old crap. Keeps the huge inefficiencies of the current system intact so that their corporate buddies can continue to milk the system and deliver costly and inadequate services. Same old story.

[nodular]

118. Two of the points sound pretty Progressive to me.

"2.) Give all Americans the health coverage members of Congress enjoy. The Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) gives federal workers a wide variety of excellent private health plans to choose from. The federal government should create a new partnership with states to universalize this approach, with Washington helping finance coverage for those without it, and the states setting up systems to make it available either through FEHB or a state-developed program with comparable features.

3.) Require shared responsibility for the cost of coverage. All Americans pay for the cost of medical treatment of people without health insurance. Government should pay for coverage for those who cannot afford insurance, but those who can afford it should be required to buy it."

Not that I'm claiming to be a Progressive myself (more of a centrist, like the hated DLC, I guess), these seem to shade that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. That is because it is carefully written to avoid

having people figure out that they are talking about an unfunded mandate requiring you to purchase private insurance, thus 'baking in' the entire absurd profit structure that makes our health care system both expensive and ineffective.

[nodular]

131. Sounds funded. How do you know it isn't?

"with Washington helping finance coverage for those without it,"

"Government should pay for coverage for those who cannot afford insurance,"

[OzarkDem]

140. Government shouldn't subsidize

the cost of forcing people to buy private health insurance. Its a scam, another way for private health insurance companies to bilk taxpayers.

[nodular]

163. Well, you can take that position if you want,

but I would suppose we can agree that this is not an unfunded proposal.

[OzarkDem]

138. Still unrealistic

"Shared responsibility for cost of coverage - those who can afford health insurance should be required to buy it"

A bad idea, which will soon be proven with many of the states experimenting with it, is requiring people to purchase private health insurance. Unless adequate systems for cost control and consumer protection are in place, consumers will end up getting ripped off, paying for health insurance that covers little, if anything.

The government and the public have no obligation to support bloated, costly and inefficient "for profit" health insurance companies.

[OzarkDem]

137. The most hilarious part of DLC plan

one that we heard touted by Gingrich, too, was to "offer financial incentives" to doctors and hospitals who perform well.

Excuse me, isn't that what all doctors pledge when they get their medical degrees and take the Hippocratic Oath? Since when do we need to offer them a financial incentive to do their job adequately? :wtf:

And if we punish the poorly performing hospitals by taking money way from them, how do we help the people who are stuck with having to go to those hospitals? :wtf:

Market incentives and quality health care don't mix, sorry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Not impressed at all

1. Tax credits: As a self-employed person, I can already deduct the full cost of my health insurance premiums from my federal income tax. This does not help with the high monthly premiums routinely levied on a middle-aged person, even the "preferred rates" that I qualify for as a healthy non-smoker who exercises regularly, or with the $5,000 deductible I have to assume in order to be able to afford said premiums. Yawn on that proposal. And health savings accounts are even less affordable. I've checked. They're great if you're affluent, ridiculously expensive if you're not.

2. Subsidies to help people afford insurance: In other words, welfare for some of the most money-grubbing, callous, inefficient, and infuriating corporations in the country (and that's saying a lot). Ask any doctor what he or she thinks of insurance companies and their self-proclaimed "commitment to high-quality health care."

3. Requirements to carry insurance: That's like trying to solve the problem of homelessness by requiring everyone to rent an apartment.

That website doesn't mention single-payer or extension of Medicare into lower age brackets or any other more inexpensive universal plan that works in other countries, not even to reject them. That's called "stacking the deck."

[wyldwolf]

42. no one is trying to impress you

Just propose a workable and affordable plan. Where is YOU plan and how will it work?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Affordable? Uh, no, as I know from experience, and I do have ideas

I'd allow anyone of any age to buy into Medicare on a sliding scale based on income, perhaps lowering the eligibility age bit by bit, because frankly, it's people over 50 who have the worst time finding affordable medical coverage. (This is a huge problem for every older self-employed person that I know.) Medicare has lower administrative costs than any private plan, and bringing younger, healthier, premium-paying people into the plan would contribute to its financial stability.

Either that or have a nationwide government insurance agency that would offer affordable coverage--because of no shareholders demanding dividends, civil servants instead of corporate greedheads in administrative positions, and the entire nation as its "pool"--to all comers. This would provide direct competition to the insurance companies, and they would either have to sweeten their deals through lower premiums, better coverage, or extra services, or die a well-deserved death.

[wyldwolf]

49. Affordable? Uh, yes. And how can you have experience with a plan..

...that has not been enacted?

WHERE is the "progressive" plan?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. I have experience with tax credits and with private insurance companies

That's enough to put me off any plan that leaves the corporate bloodsuckers in charge.

[wyldwolf]

61. uh.. so? We're discussing provisions of a proposal

I've had experience with relying on the government for things. Red tape galore!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. And two out of three of its proposals indicate

tax credits and relying on private insurance.

I've had experience with relying on the government for things. Red tape galore!

You channeling Ronald Reagan or something? And have you ever had to deal with a private insurance company as an individual with a claiml? If not, you don't know from bureaucracy.

[wyldwolf]

66. ..as opposed to relying on the Federal government

No, channeling FDR and Kennedy who both warned about too much government involvement in these matters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. "There you go again"

:evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

74. I do have a habit of quoting great Democrats like FDR and Kennedy

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. You totally missed the allusion!

:rofl:

I remember who else claimed to be in the tradition of FDR while opposing everything FDR stood for.

[wyldwolf]

78. No, I did not. But you totally missed the statement in the previous reply

My thoughts on big government stem from FDR and Kennedy, not Reagan.

:rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

99. Well then I have some bad news for you.

"Before his death in 1945, Franklin Roosevelt came out in favor of universal health care and in November, 1945, Harry Truman asked the Congress to enact a national insurance program "to assure the right to adequate medical care and protection from the economic fears of sickness.""

http://cthealth.server101.com/why_doesn't.htm

FDR, Truman, Kennedy. Kennedy? Oh wait, where exactly did Medicare come from? Why it was one of JFK's major initiatives, brought to fruition from that other great advocate of Liberalism, LBJ. You left him off your list too.

[wyldwolf]

126. Well then I have even worse news for you

You quoted neither FDR or Truman. While both supported a form of Universal Healthcare, both of their plans stopped short of advocating a single payer system. Further, Truman's plan was a series of economic incentives designed to reduce financial barriers to mdeical care, and it promised doctors higher incomes and no organizational reform (Starr 281). TTruman plan had five major proposals: (1) Federal grants-in-aid for hospitals and other health facilities throughout the Nation; (2) Federal grants-in-aid to expand public health services and maternal and child health services; (3) Federal grants for medical education and medical research; (4) A Nation-wide system of health insurance; and (5) Compensation for wage loss due to non-industrial disability.

Altmeyer, Arthur J. "How Can We Assure Adequate Health Service for all the People?" Speech at the First Annual Conference of Presidents and Other Officers of State Medical Societies, Chicago, Ill. December 2, 1945.

FDR and Truman's plans were many things, but a pure European-style single payer plan they were not.

[OzarkDem]

143. What happened to the last two of Truman's proposals?

(4) A Nation-wide system of health insurance; and (5) Compensation for wage loss due to non-industrial disability.

Seems like we fell down on the job there.

Harry T didn't say anything about a nation-wide system of private health insurance.

[OzarkDem]

141. She just gave it to you

and it is workable. The federal government is already doing it with Medicare and Medicaid, and at a lower cost than private insurance companies.

[Solon]

82. Hey Wolf, didn't I already cover this in another post, a LONG time ago?

Don't tell me you actually think the DLC plan is a GOOD one? I thought I put that damned thing to rest, you want me to dig up that conversation?

[wyldwolf]

85. yes, and just like then

There was no indication that "progressives" has adopted, developed, or otherwise claimed this plan as their own. I could go find an interesting proposal and claim it as that of any subset of the party I please, but it wouldn't make it so.

[Solon]

91. Does this count?

http://pdamerica.org/policy/health/index.php

Seriously, you cannot expect PDA or another group like Physicians for a National Health Program to use the DLC model for position papers, etc.

Actually, you should not, unlike the DLC's plan, the plan endorsed by both these groups mentioned above has ALREADY been implemented in other nations, we can use those as models, and adapt them for the United States, to meet our needs. The DLC plan requires so many pages just to list everything on it, mostly because they try to make everyone happy, but will please no one, that's just a fact. PDA, and PNHP don't need to do this, seriously, most major points can be covered in a single paragraph, and funding can come by cutting some pork out of the budget, single payer systems are extremely efficient and will be much cheaper than either the current system or the DLC plan.

[wyldwolf]

92. it is the same as before

There is NO policy proposal and plan being endorsed by this group. They tell us what they want without explaining how to achieve it. Their plan is clearly marked "Not Ratified."

[Solon]

101. For some reason the Congressional Progressive Caucus website is down right now...

You can check yourself if you wish. They did gain some members lately, I just hope they get a good web designer who knows how to run databases! So the best I can do at the moment is list the wikipedia entry for them, which briefly lists House members and also a brief snippet of their positions.

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

Look especially at who is affiliated with them, a LOT of groups, from PDA to DSA, to many others. Also, another note, they are now the largest caucus in the House, as stated here:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139093

In addition, there was a bill introduced by Kucinich and Conyers late last year, not perfect, but better than what we have now, maybe by 2008, when we control 2 branches of the Government, at least, we could actually pass it:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c1093Roolq:e1090:

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Yeah how complicated is 'extend medicare to everyone'?

It isn't exactly rocket science, and the model works well in just about every other modern industrial democracy, and in fact works better than our current system in both cost and measurable health statistics.

[Solon]

102. I know, at least we know the plan works elsewhere, just adapt it to work here...

Unlike the DLC plan, which is not exactly what I would call "tried and true".

[TankLV]

121. The only "affordable" plan is TAXPAYER FUNDED, GOVERNMENT PROVIDED National Health Care for

everyone, cradle to grave, including free nursing home care that is carefully monitored BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Only if we can get the devesitating cost of Health Care off the backs of every American, can this country progress...

Tax credits and health "savings accounts" are laughable at best - these RICH people who propose this have no clue: YOU CAN'T SAVE OR GET CREDITS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BEGIN WITH!

Why is this such a hard concept to comprehend? Tax credits and savings accounts are USELESS to the MAJORITY of Americans!

And if you're self-employed - forget it - it costs over a THOUSAND dollars per month, and NO dental care, NO prescription drugs, NO regular doctor visits - unless you want to pay a couple THOUSAND more per month - if it's available at all!

[Debs]

125. How about the plan

The rest of the industrial world has? Nationalized healthcare. The last time I saw a statistic if WE had the same healthcare as Canada it would have cost about 14 billion LESS.

[Donna Zen]

133. Universal healthcare

as long as the money is going to their favorite corporations.

[nodular]

115. Well, it would solve part of the problem by reducing the cost of healthcare.

"How is building an information system for health care going to cover uninsured people who are sick? It isn't."

A significant part of the cost of healthcare comes from administrative overhead---which has becoming huge. I believe building an information system would reduce the administrative tangle. This would cut costs and make health care less expensive---bringing more of the into the range of more people (but obviously, still leaving some people out.)

[Warren Stupidity]

37. No they do not.

They favor mandating coverage - requiring everyone to buy private health insurance. They love the Romney plan. The DLC insists that HealthCo and Big Pharma keep their cut of the action. At least know your own programs.

Here:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=253775

[wyldwolf]

38. yes, they do

"Universal healthcare" doesn't necessarily mean "government pays for everything" healthcare. So where is the "progressive" plan?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. The progressive plan is to extend medicare to everyone.

But I'm glad that you agree that the corrupt corporate shills over at the DLC are pushing Romeny Care in order to keep their Big Pharma and HealthCo buddie's monopoly on vital services intact. You can call it UHC if you insist, I call it yet another unfunded and corrupt government mandate.

[wyldwolf]

47. Really? Where?

Who says? Where is the detailed plan?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Here

http://www.pnhp.org/

Divised by doctors, no less. A whole website outlining a plan for universal health coverage.

[wyldwolf]

63. Great plan. But where has it been developed/endorsed by "progressives?"

Simply put, it isn't YOUR plan. Who in congress has proposed this legislation?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Members of the Progressive Caucus, but I'm unable to access their

website to find the details. Dennis Kucinich and Jim McDermott are the only two that I can remember off the top of my head, but there are others, at least those who aren't bought and paid for by the health insurance industry.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Note that our DLC friend is attempting to get away

from the DLC 'plan'. It ain't UHC, its mandated graft into the pockets of the corporate backers of the DLC.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Standard means of weaseling out of an argument

that one can't win on facts.

Certain political figures and media pundits use it all the time, if you get my drift.

[Solon]

84. You know, a while ago, I did a point by point refutation of the DLC "plan"...

and Debated Wyldwolf on it, the fact that he brings it up yet again just shows that the so called "center" is just as ideological and inflexible as the "loony leftists".

[wyldwolf]

87. like you're doing now?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. No, more consistently

:-)

[wyldwolf]

90. yes, you have been more consistent in the past

[wyldwolf]

86. note that I'm asking you to show something of substance you're side had proposed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. Here

http://www.pnhp.org /

Divised by doctors, no less. A whole website outlining a plan for universal health coverage.

(If you can repeat yourself, so can I.)

[wyldwolf]

128. again, where has it been developed/endorsed by "progressives?"

I don't see any mention at PDA of it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. They used to have it on their website; I don't know what happened

But as I said in another post, members of the Progressive Caucus, i.e. real live Congresscritters, are in favor of it.

[Bjorn Against]

135. If the plan is not broke why should we fix it?

We don't need to develop a new plan, because the doctors who wrote this plan put forward a vision that we can agree completely with. I don't know why you are so insistant that we don't have a plan when we keep putting this one in front of your face, you seem to be in denial trying to come up with any possible excuse to hold on to your talking point that we have no plan.

This is our plan. Now debate the content of the plan rather than trying to falsely claim it is not our plan. Just because we didn't write it does not mean we can not endorse it. You did not write the DLC plan either, so we could use the same false argument against you saying you don't have a plan because you did not personally come up with the idea but that would be dishonest. It is just as dishonest for you to claim we do not have a plan when we put one right in front of your face.

[madfloridian]

94. Progressive Caucus is the largest now. From The Nation.

The website is down, though. I will try again in a minute.

However, I found this by John Nichols. ...deserves a post of its own.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=139093

"What will be the largest of the ideological caucuses in the new House Democratic majority?

Why, of course, it must be the "centrists" affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council's "New Democrat Coalition." Yes, that's got to be the case because all the commentators at the Wall Street Journal keep saying that centrists were the big winners on Tuesday.

Er, no.

Well, then, it must be the more conservative Democrats who identify themselves as "Blue Dogs." Surely, that's the answer because all the folks on Fox News keeping talking about them.

Nope.

The largest ideological caucus in the new House Democratic majority will be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, with a membership that includes New York's Charles Rangel, Michigan's John Conyers, Massachusetts' Barney Frank and at least half the incoming chairs of House standing committees.

The caucus currently has 64 members -- up 14 since last year -- and its co-chairs, California Democrats Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, say they expect that as many as eight incoming House Democrats will join the CPC. The number could actually go higher, as several candidates in undecided House races ran with strong progressive support. (The CPC worked with labor and progressive groups to assist a number of candidates in targeted races around the country this year, reflecting the more aggressive approach it has taken since the caucus was reorganized under the leadership of Lee and Woolsey and hired veteran labor and political organizer Bill Goold as a full-time staffer.)"

Good article.

[madfloridian]

97. Here's a link for the CPC, when it gets back up and running.

http://cpc.lee.house.gov

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. And the Dem establishment will ignore this development at their peril

The voters voted the Republicans out and the Democrats in, but they can just as easily reverse the process if the Dems do not PROVE to them that they can create a real difference in the life of the average American.

The Democratic Party leadership must never forget that voters DO have an alternative to voting Democratic or Republican, should the Democrats fail to win their loyalty, and that alternative is to join the more than half of all adults who never vote at all.

[madfloridian]

117. Here are the website links, but down now.

Congressional Progressive Caucus:
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/

Democratic Working Women's Group:
http://democraticleader.house.gov/dwwg/

Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues:
http://www.womenspolicy.org/caucus/

[Bjorn Against]

123. It is our plan

just because we didn't write it does not mean we can not endorse it and say this is what we want.

I am guessing you did not personally write the DLC plan either so I don't see how you can criticize us for embracing a plan we did not personally write.

[TankLV]

124. It's either the government pays for everything or it's USELESS!

Universal Healthcare SHOULD mean GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR EVERYTHING

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!

We all have "access" to health care NOW - if you have YOUR OWN MONEY and are willing to go without food or shelter...

[OzarkDem]

20. Agree, its not a "special interest" priority

Its coming from everyone.

[nodular]

114. Next sentece:

"That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments."

[Warren Stupidity]

122. Well sure if you make it a push poll

you can get a different result. I bet if they asked "what if they only used unsterilized surgical equipment and you had to see a clerk from the DMV instead of a doctor" the support would drop to 1 in 10.

People overwhelmingly support a good national healthcare plan, not a shitty one.

[creeksneakers2]

13. Everybody wants a smaller government

We all pay taxes so if the government could accomplish the same things with less money everybody would love it. The idea that only Republicans wants smaller government is just GOP propaganda. Republicans have always known its a con job.

When it comes down to which parts of government the public wants to do without, keeping big government becomes very popular. The GOP could not significantly reduce the size of government and have any hope of holding on to power. That's why they didn't do it.

If Democrats want to balance the budget they could get most of the money by cutting the military. The war in Iraq costs over $100 billion a year and when that's gone we'll save that $100 billion a year.

The DLC types promote a future military that will run on a science fiction style high tech zap anything on the planet in an instant attack system. In the works are plans for things like global air supremacy and space weapons. The 2007 proposed defense budget has more money for research, $71 billion, than they have for weapons procurement, $70 billion. And the procurement includes a ton of stuff we don't need.

To match the promotion of this high tech future the DLC and the Neocons advocate an American world role as a globo-robocop. That idea is extremely unpopular. Americans prefer internationalism over unilateralism 71% to 11%. With the public soured on war from Iraq, It would be easy to win the issue of what America's future role ought to be. The public wants America to play a lead role in an international effort to protect the world, not unilaterally police the world.

Change the mission of the military and we could cut the military drastically. We could save an easy $70 billion there. Add that to the $100 billion saved by leaving Iraq and we have $170 billion of a $250 billion deficit solved.

Nobody wants anybody to be on public assistance if they don't truly need it. If there is a way to cut the roles without endangering the truly needy I think even the far left would stand behind it. I don't think its necessary to give up our party's commitment to the poor when there is so much being wasted on the military.

[wyldwolf]

18. Little of this reply speaks to the topic at the thread

FYI - what you describe above describes the history, post Wilson, of the Democratic party - a full 56 years before the DLC.

[OzarkDem]

19. Its a "divide and conquer" strategy

Its absolutely a myth that grassroots Dem voters have had a significant, let alone disproportionate, impact on Dem public policy.

Corporations held far more influence during the Clinton years, as they have during the Bush years. The result has been a shrinking middle class that is under greater pressure than ever, with a bleak future for those facing retirement.

Bringing grassroots voters into the policy mix is essential for our economic future. To use the bogeyman of special interest groups (whose only impact appears in "wedge issue" public policy) is dishonest and predictable at the same time.

[wyldwolf]

25. interesting

Its absolutely a myth that grassroots Dem voters have had a significant, let alone disproportionate, impact on Dem public policy... To use the bogeyman of special interest groups (whose only impact appears in "wedge issue" public policy) is dishonest and predictable at the same time.

No one has said that "that grassroots Dem voters have had a significant, let alone disproportionate, impact on Dem public policy." Where did you derive that from? But pandering to such has given the impression that Dem public policy would be impacted by such. And it has been the wedge issues of the one-issue advocacy groups that have shaped election over the last 25 years or so.

[OzarkDem]

151. Again, you're confused

Grassroots Dems (and Independent) voters are not merely a collection of special interest groups. They are quite distinct and separate from special interest groups. The fact that you know so little about who average Dem voters are merely reinforces the belief that DLC'ers are out of touch with voters.

[Donna Zen]

83. Obviously From has never met the base

We are middle class, upper class and lower class. I am Catholic. My ancestors came to this country to get away from people like Al From with his dismissive authoritarianism. From's last go at smaller government saved money to slide to his cronies in the millionaires for bush club. That was our tax money, and our health care hope that From and bush gave away.

There is no hand up in America. From is too busy shoving us into the ditch with phony trade deals. And don't give me that worn out lie about how it increased jobs. The jobs created by those trade deals do not pay what Americans once made. I'd dig out the numbers, but watch any of the economic shows on TV. The Middle Class is disappearing. And we want change. That is why we're part of the grassroots movement.

The reason Lieberman is around to go on Hannity and stab Dems in back, is not a failure of the roots, it is a failure of DLC Dems to play by the rules. You know: Party unity.

[Greyhound]

98. And now, a word from our sponsor...

DU's own corporate lapdog once again and forever, leaping to the defense of the indefensible. Desperately trying to convince the rest of the party that night is day and what is good for GM is good for America (just lay back and enjoy it, your corporate masters only want what is good for you).

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

[Bjorn Against]

147. No Al From is wrong

Point by point - from your snippets:

And while Democrats benefited from an energized party base, the key to the victory was in the contested center of the electorate, among moderates, independents, middle-class voters and suburbanites. These voters could represent an expanded Democratic base, and keeping them in the Democratic camp is vital to building an enduring progressive majority.

Absolutely correct - Pew Research, among others, confirms this.

Look at the polls, and you will see that a huge number of voters voted Democratic out of opposition to the Iraq war, who seeded that opposition? I can tell you it was certainly not the DLC which supported the war from day one.

Sure that Pew poll may say that "moderate" voters were key, but it does not define what moderate means. To automatically assume that everyone who calls themselves moderate agrees with the DLC is dead wrong. It is far more accurate to look at stances on individual issues than it is at labels, because a person who calls themselves moderate may actually be considered quite liberal by many measures. The polls show Americans tend to oppose the war in Iraq, they want health care for all Americans even if that means raising taxes, and they want stronger environmental protections even if it does cost the big corporations a lot of money.

There's a perception in some media and political circles that Democratic White House wannabes, like their Republican counterparts, must systematically bend the knee to ideologically inflexible and noisy party activists to have any prayer of nomination or election. They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party.

Again, correct, and history shows it to be so. George McGovern, who changed the rules to make it easier to pander to the "ideologically inflexible" lost an electoral landslide. Walter Mondale, who they say couldn't tie his shoes without checking in with every one-issue advocacy group, lose an electoral landslide. And who could forget the 1988 convention. Michael Dukakis was already doomed when Jesse Jackson made his infamous testimony to Democratic politics, comparing the patches on a quilt to each Democratic party "group," and admonishing them their patch was too small.

WCGreen, here at DU, wrote: "After the 1994 election, I went to a progressive convention in Detroit to find out how we could re-energize the Democratic Party. It was good idea, I thought, cathartic even. But after the initial bitch and moan session, they decided to break off into small working groups. The folks on stage, and this was a huge hall, about 1,500 people, started to count off the various caucuses and where they would meet. Gays over here, Lesbians over there, Pro-choice down in front, Hispanics over by the podium, you get the drift…. And they went on for a while and I it dawned on me right then and there why we had lost. I remember raising my hand, an out of place white guy in a suit, and the “facilitator” called on me and I said, in a half hearted attempt to bring a little humor to this wake, “Excuse me, where do the slightly pissed off white guys go?”

The three days were spent in workshops that were right out of a Newt Gingrich attack ad. A lot of feeling was discussed with little to no agenda developed.

It was then that I knew the Democratic Party was going to be in the wilderness for some time.

The people who were the backbone of the party were nudged out, the workers, the Catholics, the middle class were literally jettisoned in favor of lifestyle politics that was as foreign to them as America was to their immigrant ancestors."

And, as has already been pointed out, Americans DO want a smaller government. If you want to interpret that as a call to limit social programs, so be it. Consider it an invocation to FDR's belief that long term social programs were a "narcotic" and that the government must "quit this business of relief;" or Bobby Kennedy's belief that welfare should be a hand up not a hand out.

First of all I must point out that Bernie Sanders a SOCIALIST won by a landslide. When a socialist wins by a landslide it definately does not suggest a big win for centrism. Sherrod Brown also won by a very comfortable margin against a Republican incumbent. Lieberman won because virtually all the Republicans in the state supported him. He could not have won if he did not get Republican backing. If Lieberman had not completely rejected the Democratic process by ignoring the primary results he would have lost. Because there were a few Democrats who stayed with him along with most the Republicans he held his seat, but he only did so by rejecting the will of the primary voters and setting a very bad precident that is sure to be repeated in the future resulting in who knows how many elections lost because of a divided party.

And as far as smaller government goes, tapping peoples phones without warrants and torturing people does not exactly equal small government. My point is that the Republican vision of "small government" is fraudulent and when people say they want a smaller government they often mean a LESS INTRUSIVE government, a vision which is much more progressive than it is conservative.

[Hippo_Tron]

162. Somebody's taxes are going to have to be raised

It seems that when From says we can't revert back to "Tax and Spend", I don't see how we can fix anything without taxing and spending. We have to pay off the debt from this war and there are problems that need fixing.

You can correct me if I'm wrong with this, but it seems like From is proposing that we accept all of the spending cuts on good social programs that Bush has done and all of the tax cuts for the rich that he has passed. If these programs were working, I really don't see why we shouldn't tax and spend to restore them. I'm not saying that we need to create new government programs, I'm saying that we need to restore many of the old ones that were doing just fine until the GOP got their hands on the budget. In order to do this we have to "tax and spend", there's simply no other way.

From's argument might make sense if somebody handed us the government after Lyndon Johnson's presidency and said "fix this". We could then find the programs that don't work and try to fix them or cut them while expanding the ones that are effective. But Bush has spent the last 6 years slashing social programs that do work. I don't see any reason not to restore their proper funding.

[ProudDad]

168. More Flamebait

[Guaranteed]

14. We won because our left flank blew the Repuke's right flank

out of the water over the past two years on the issues.

[OzarkDem]

17. There's a lot at stake over who controls our economic policy

Corporations are worried that grassroots Dems are going to upset the apple cart by pushing for a more activist economic policy, one that addresses the needs of middle class voters as well as corporations.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2985803

[madfloridian]

27. Al From and the other leaders of the DLC think tank. Important picture.

I was feeling hope for the first time in 6 years after November 7. Then it started. First the fight to get any credit for the wins for our grassroots groups and for the DNC....I did not expect it to happen so quickly.

Then Carville...enough said.

Then the calls to reach across the aisle and not be partisan. How we could hurt our country by investigating and being critical. Oh, really? Does that mean some of our Dems are going to roll over and play dead in the future? Or is it only a few getting media coverage.

And then this column by Al From, founder of the DLC, one of the heads of the Third Way, part of the PPI...saying don't pay attention to the people of the party or we might not win in 08. Implying don't let the government provide for those who are elderly and needy, let it be done privately. He is openly touting privatization.

This picture is worth a thousand words, and if Al From continues on this course it will affect our decision on 08.



From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

[Pithy Cherub]

28. The incredibly shrinking Al From bolsters his irrelevance

with sincere stupidity. The soporific DLC has lost stature to an embarrassing point this past year. The DLC establishment corporate candidates lost to Webb in Virgina, lost to Akaka in Hawai'i, lost to Culver in Iowa, lost to Angelides in California, lost to Tester in Montana, lost to a bigger republican in Tennessee and was reduced to begging and bribing for republican votes and dollars in Connecticut. In many instances the DLC, notes its only success is the return of a sanctimonious imperfect Iraq war hawk as their singular "success" this election cycle. Carville launched an acidic attack that forced the DLC'ers back under their rock to hatch plans for a takeover that caused everyone to yawn. The agenda is being shaped right now and the DLC has fewer seats at the table and those are rapidly diminishing because economic populism strikes at the core of what the corporatists, including Biden who is not DLC, believe.

The sophistry of From is meant for the 60,000 readers of the dying TNR, not the millions who voted for a complete and utter change from the moral corruptness of enabling the bush administration with their known idiocy in foreign affairs. The DLC'ers voted for the Iraq war travesty and the next year will continue their mea culpas and "new" ways of rearranging their vapor deck chairs on the DLC Titanic. The DLC hit that grassroots/netroots iceberg at full tilt and believe their ship of state foolishness and folly will stay afloat because they said so. Rahm Emanuel had to bend his knee to Dean after a public toddler tantrum and the disastrous effect it was having on all his puff pieces in the mainstream media.

The ascendant netroots/grassroots has received publicly the accolades of Howard Dean, Charles Schumer, Ned Lamont, Charlie Cook, Chuck Todd, Harry Reid, Jon Tester, James Webb, Shea in New Hampshire among many, many others. The netroots/grassroots is in its 50 state expansion and rapid growth phase with a variety of skills, cash and talents at its disposal. The DLC has money but no longer shapes the message singularly or with great authority because it is being diluted by new media while they have a pathological need for old media that is also descendant. What do people want to be associated with a sputtering relic of the 1990's with an out of touch Corporations are King From or part of something vibrant and hopeful and future oriented?

[madfloridian]

31. Good post, and I will add a thought from MyDD along the same lines.

It is about Thomas Edsall not Al From, but the thoughts and the ideas and ideals are the same.

It is called Democrats Won. We won. Get it?
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/25/101754/40

Edsall had said:

"To stay in the fight, Democratic leaders will have to acknowledge political realities affirmed by the electorate in 1994 and 2006. Many Democratic constituencies -- organized labor, minority advocacy organizations, reproductive- and sexual-rights proponents -- are reliving battles of a decade or more ago, not the more subtle disputes of today. Public sector unions, for example, at a time of wide distrust of government, are consistently pressing to enlarge the state. For these players, adapting to a re-emergent center will be costly...."

The Democratic Party can secure its 2006 gains, but to do so will require abandoning a decades-long willingness to indulge pressure groups on the left that no longer command broad popular allegiance."

Sounds pretty much like what Al From just said, doesn't it?

Amd here is what Matt Stoller says to Edsall:

"This is one of the Old Wise Men of Washington, or a Very Serious Person, as Atrios would say. After that, I would sometimes read his work in the Washington Post and think 'who is this silly man?' His sources are obviously heavily stacked towards neoliberal insiders on the Democratic side, and he dismisses progressive activists and voters alike. Even though voters rejected an anti-labor anti-choice political party, the lesson for Edsall is that voters embraced an attack on labor and more restrictive abortion laws. It's not hard to figure out why Edsall believes this - peer pressure. Edsall's crowd is that of Harold Ickes, Rahm Emanuel, and Steny Hoyer, people who live in a rarefied world of Democratic elitism. On the Republican side I assume his sources are equally DC establishment; that's where he lives and that's what he knows. I remember his reporting on subjects I know a little bit about, like Democratic data infrastructure, were informed by people who knew nothing about the actual tools being developed."

And Matt ends with this:

"I suppose in Edsall's world, corporate media barons are part of the coalition of 'dominant', and unions are not. So even though the Republican Party was soundly repudiated at the polls in favor of a strongly populist Democratic Party backed by labor, and a touchstone abortion ban was popularly rejected in one of the reddest states in the country, Democrats have no choice but to reject unions and pro-choice groups, or they will face judgment at the polls.

Ok, then."

Amen, Matt.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. On a rare Saturday post, kos just wrote

his thoughts on Edsall. Bullshit was involved. :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

36. yet the DLC picks up16, mayber 19, new members in the House. Go figure!

And since the board at the DLC actively meet on who become members, I'm sure he relevancy is the foremost thing on his mind.

[Pithy Cherub]

41. Ah, the newbies

who are economic populists and blue dogs - they have to fight their own internal values and many of those relied on grassroots/netroots. Changing the diseased DLC from within. Yet, the more powerful upper body came home with a goose egg!

[wyldwolf]

45. LOL! Did you not say that Lieberman was their only electoral success?

But now you find caveats for their very real electoral success. Like a child, you make a claim, then pretend the refutation doesn't "really" count.

[Pithy Cherub]

48. But he's not elected as a Democrat! He's CFL. LOL!

Did you forget again! Holy Joe's there courtesy of republicans. :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

50. but did you not say that? Yes, you did!

..and then you made up excuses for why the 16 new DLC members aren't 'really' DLC. :rofl:

[madfloridian]

54. When did the DLC start being invitation only? Name the 16, please.

Are all of the 16 new folks? Or some of them also bound to the grassroots who supported them?

And who gets to vote on the new members? That's interesting. I guess they have so many clamoring for membership, they have to let only a few elite in.

[wyldwolf]

59. From day one. And here is your list

Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
- Joe Sestak (PA-07)
- Heath Shuler (NC-11)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Chris Carney (PA-10)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Jason Altmire (PA-04)
- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)
- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)}

And as I've reminded you countless times, the "grassroots" have ALWAYS worked locally for Democrats - WAAAY before Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

67. We will see about some of them.

I actually admire many of them. I do know that some were pressured not only not to speak out on Iraq but to distance themselves from Howard Dean. How do I know that? I communicated with a few of them.

We will see where their loyalties lie as time goes on. Many of them feel strongly about Iraq, but they were not assured of support if they talked about it.

Heath Shuler took months to decide whether to be an R or a D. Months. Rahm had to beg him every day.

Tim Mahoney, now there's a tale for you. He was recruited by Karen Thurman, Florida's chairman, and Rahm....he was a Republican when he was recruited and only switched later.

We have donated to 4 of the ones on that list through progressive groups.

You did not answer my question about why the DLC must be an exclusive club now? Why do they vote people in? Is Hillary involved in the voting? Is Vilsack. Hmmm....mm.. interesting.

[wyldwolf]

68. LOL! You're going to call the "progressive" police on them?

[madfloridian]

75. If Hillary and Vilsack et al vote them in...will they then be obligated

to support one of them as president? Is it a loyalty thing? You have always told me that anyone could be a member of the DLC and now you are saying they must be voted in.

So is it a loyalty thingy? We vote you in you support us later?

[wyldwolf]

77. Of course not

But I certainly wouldn't expect someone like Shuler to support Dennis Kucinich.

And as usual, you have it wrong. You must be elected then invited to join the House New Democrat Coalition. But YOU could join the DLC today.

[Cha]

111. Michael Arcuri is no dlcer.

I heard his victory speech and it's what I wanted in a Representative..not some dlc bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

127. he is now

[Cha]

130. We'll see about

that.

[Pithy Cherub]

134. Rememeber they badly wanted Obama too and he said NO!

and he had to demand they get him off the list. So the list is suspect until you hear your rep say it.

[Cha]

136. Exactly! My Rep campaigned

on Progressive issues and he's not going to turn his back on us.

[LittleClarkie]

148. Are you saying it might be a "wish list"

in light of Obama, you might be right.

[wyldwolf]

153. Sorry. Not a wish list

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca10_tauscher/NDCMEMBERSELECT.html

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

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

[LittleClarkie]

110. Joke was on them then, as he's caucusing with the Dems

Incumbents are hard to beat anyway.

[Pithy Cherub]

113. Especially when DLC'ers wouldn't support the Democrat.

Holy Joe hired the guy that refers to himself in the creepy third person as a republican mutinous animal as his "Communication Czar". Sanctimonious Holy Joe has eighteen months at most to prove himself in the Democratic Caucus as 2008 will render him a political refugee if he continues to rely upon the support/counsel of neocon republicans. Betcha he's not on the campaign trail in 2008 either unless its for a republican. Joementum would like the tepid timid to believe he is powerful right now, but the ongoing joke and irony continues to be on him and the rusted tool, Al From. All 6 new senators disagree with Joe's avid republican love of the Iraq War.

[LittleClarkie]

106. Serious question. How do you know how many members they picked up

when they don't publish their directory? Are you assuming every new centrist will be a DLCer. And if you know they picked up that many members, would you mind saying where you read that? Is it on the DLC website how many folks are joining the DLC?

[wyldwolf]

129. Press release at their website

[madfloridian]

51. Hillary, Carper, From, Vilsack....The people need to know. Picture

I hate to say it, but I am beginning to truly believe it will not end. I fear the only difference now is that there is a D after the name of the ones who will look out for corporate interests. We got a few in who are more populist, less big business...but the pressure is on them now.



From left to right: U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC; Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack is chair of the DLC; (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

My first feeling from the From column is that the Social Security private accounts are not yet dead, even though some Democrats declared them so. I also fear the changes will NOT be made to the Medicare D plan as promised. Seniors are getting overwhelmed with mails from the newly inspired HMO companies...making it sound like they MUST do something or lose their Medicare.

Do our Democrats know this? Do they care? Have any of them spoken out.

I was feeling hope again until Carville and From...they suck the air out of the room.

[wyldwolf]

53. don't forget this picture

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Ah yes, Bill Clinton, he of NAFTA, welfare reform, and bombing Iraq

I feel sorry for people who think that Bill Clinton is as good as it gets.

[wyldwolf]

65. and the only twice-elected Democrat in 50 years.

If Clinton isn't as good as it gets for Democrats, who is?

[madfloridian]

69. He was the only one...most lost,

We were totally out of power.

He is hanging around with the Bush family too much.

[wyldwolf]

70. well, that's pretty obvious, huh? Should we make a list?

[ulysses]

71. is your only criterion electability?

[LittleClarkie]

109. It was nice to have a twice elected Dem prez. If only he'd have left a stronger Dem Party

Bill and his team was good at electing Bill. And of course in the south they ain't bad. But we'll see if they can do another biggie like president again. It will be an uphill road to get Hillary elected.

[ulysses]

112. if only...

If only he hadn't pushed and signed welfare reform and NAFTA. If only he hadn't punted on UHC.

Don't get me started on Bill. :)

[LittleClarkie]

139. It wasn't even that. It's been said that the Dem Party at the local level atrophied

under his reign. I don't know if that happened because since we had a Dem in the WH people got soft, or if the national party and the chairman at the time made a decision to be stingy with funds in some areas. But it does seem from watching some people this election, that they wouldn't have bothered with the 50 state strategy.

[ulysses]

142. that's true.

I think a lot of folks, myself included, took a nap for a while.

[Jim Sagle]

150. Let's see - he sneaked in between two conservative geezers in 1992,

Then he promptly lost the House and Senate. Then he beat a senile, sour old crank in 1996. Quite impressive.

Not.

[nealmhughes]

62. Sour grapes because the people inside the party are turning on the DLC.

With Tester, Schweitzer, Clark, Kucinich et al. leading the charge. Sorry, boys and girls, the party is trying to get the little d in Democratic Party dominant again, and hobnobbing with Rupert doesn't count a hill of beans to us.

We reject NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and every other corporate-enabling pet of you lot.

The Progressive Caucus is the most numerous in the House now!

I've yet to see the DLC's position on universal health care adequately laid out. Perhaps they are waiting for the focus groups and health insurers to get into the drafting of the motion?

Go campaign for HRC, Al and whine on tv. Take Donna and Jimmy with you while you are at it.

I'm a proud Progressive Democrat, not a corporepublcrat.

http://pdamerica.org

[Warren Stupidity]

81. This thread should be renamed wyldwolf takes on DU. nt.

It is so predictable.

[wyldwolf]

88. yes it is.

Notice that no one addressed the points in my first post. So predictable.

[AtomicKitten]

95. It's the usual DU M.O.

Rather than dissecting and discussing actual information, too many here rely on spewing the same epithets to marginalize the target de jour. I think that's why I take an oppositional POV sometimes just to incite some substantive debate rather than participate in this pedestrian, mind-numbing, pitchforks and torches kind of activity. Feh.

[wyldwolf]

96. yes, imagine how much shorter the thread would be if my points in post 8...

...had not been ignored for more of the same ideologically-driven revolutionary blah blah.

[Bjorn Against]

149. Check out post 160...

You can no longer claim no one attempted to address your points.

[wyldwolf]

154. well, you certainly gave your opinion

You vs. Pew Research. Tough choice.

[Bjorn Against]

155. Show me where Pew defines what a moderate is

I did not question Pew's numbers I simply pointed out that no where in there poll does it define what a moderate is, and you would be commiting a huge logical fallacy if you said all the people who called themselves moderate agree with From on what a moderate is.

So it is not a question of whether you trust me more or Pew more, it is a question of whether you believe that everyone who calls themselves a moderate agrees with Al From.

So don't be so dismissive of me and explain yourself, what is a moderate? Good luck coming up with a definition that would be agreed on by everyone who called themselves a moderate in that poll.

[wyldwolf]

157. I never made a claim Pew defined moderate

But they did show that independent voters - who voted GOP in the last several election cycles - voted for Democrats this time.

[Bjorn Against]

158. And why is that?

As that very Pew poll you cited showed a large number of them turned against the war in Iraq.

It was the progressives who opposed the war from the beginning, while the DLC on the other hand was cheering for the war and attacked those of us who opposed it.

Many of those independents you cite were voting for an end to the Iraq war, that is a move in a progressive direction and a move AWAY from people like From.

[wyldwolf]

159. uh...so?

Do you honestly believe these voters who have growm disgusted with Iraq are suddenly "progressives?"

Wait. You probably do. It would be the only way to twist the results to your liking.

[Bjorn Against]

160. I did not say that, I said it was a move in a progressive direction

I am not twisting anything, people changing their minds on the war in Iraq IS a move in a progressive direction. It does not necessarilly mean they are progressives on every other issue however. If anyone is twisting anything it is you, because you are trying to claim that a poll that shows independents voting for Democrats in higher numbers justifies what Al From is saying despite the fact that your numbers also show that voters clearly DISAGREE with From's position on Iraq and that was in many cases the deciding factor in their vote.

[LittleClarkie]

108. Not the whole of DU, I'm sure. Just a faction of it.

The whole of DU isn't any one thing.

[IndianaGreen]

100. Al From wants Democratic Party to become a secular version of GOP

Al From hates the working class, preferring the investor class. Al From would have been more at home as a staffer for Nelson Rockefeller or Tom Dewey.

[Jack Rabbit]

104. It's long past time for Al From to sit down and shut up

The reality is that, unlike the Republicans who are a much more homogenous party, Democrats can only win with a broad coalition. An expanded party base depends on a spirit of inclusiveness.

I agree, Al. So have you and Bruce Reed been spending the last several years trying to read the base out of the Democratic Party?

Al, my friend, in democracy the people tell their elected representatives what they want. Al, you're not even an elected representative. You are a self-appointed . . . gee, what are you, anyway? You're irrelevant, that's what you are. You, the DLC and Terry McAulliffe snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Now don't tell us what's so.

[LittleClarkie]

107. Any word on how Dean and From get along?

Or has he stayed out of the fray, unlike Emanuel and Carville?

[madfloridian]

116. Last I heard...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

[TankLV]

120. Sounds like he wants more REPUKE idiotic "government"...

I totally dismiss his "ideas".

Nothing but a big load of BAD for the country...

[AX10]

144. Jon Tester and Jim Webb are populist/grassroots candidates...

who won in red states. They have obviously proven that Al From and Marshall Whitman are wrong again, as usual.

[OzarkDem]

146. Sherrod Brown also

in fact, it seems many of the DLC candidates struggled during the last election.

[DaveinMD]

152. who cares

He's just not that important. Even people that like the DLC don't like him.

[AtomicKitten]

156. best reply on this thread

well done :)

[Hippo_Tron]

161. I did a research paper on institutionalized centrism and its success in Britain and America

I should say its short term success in America because it the third way only yielded Democrats 8 years of power and part of that was with a GOP congress.

In Britain there might have been a case for the Labour party to move toward the center. But what From forgets is that America has never had a real "tax and spend" government. To give an idea of just how different we are, when Clinton was in office he wouldn't even propose socialized healthcare. In Britain when Margret Thatcher and the Conservatives wree in power, they refused to even touch the socialized healthcare system for fear of losing power.

Compare us to basically every other western nation and it's hard not to look at people like Al From and say "are you fucking kidding me?"

Bush has wasted to much of our money that we have to raise someone's taxes. From is an idiot if he doesn't realize that.

[Debs]

164. I cant believe this

They should pay attention to what happened in Connecticut on Nov. 7, where even in a strongly anti-war blue state, voters rejected a high-profile effort to exclude Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ah no, the Democrats decided they wanted someone else to represent them, that is not exclusion anymore than I am EXCLUDING my mechanic from society if I decide I want someone else to fix my car. did someone say he shouldnt be allowed to VOTE anymore? The voters overall decided they DID want him to represent them, that is most republicans ( who knew they would NEVER get a republican elected and Joe was the closest to that they had a chance at) and enough democrats who disagreed with the majority of dems banded together as a majority and re-elected him. In other words DEMOCRACY worked just like it should. That is not any message to Democrats in general, it has absolutly NO relevance outside of Connetticut. IF there is a message it is to JOe. IF he considers his base to be the democrats of Conneticutt he now knows a majority of them dont like his Bush butt kissing and demonization of war critics.

[Morgana LaFey]

165. Is he a manipulative ass, or just delusional?

I love your line here: "Uh, Al, Joe won because he got Republican votes, Republican money, and Republican support "

So true. But From and his ilk will take ANYthing and try to twist it to serve their own purposes. Anything. Any distortion, any untruth, any delusion, any lie.

Any.

People without any internal moral compass. They are not only a cancer on the Democratic party (the title of another thread I saw a few minutes ago), they are a cancer on the human race. I think Americans are tired of being lied to -- by anyone and everyone. No, few of them know this jerk, but they won't put up with him if/when they do. And they won't put up with his lies or the effects of his lies, either, just as they haven't in the past.

[wisteria]

166. He is full of shit. Wait until he realizes that the suburbanites and

the middle class are the grass roots.

[NV1962]

167. Lieberman is a bogus-argument

Joe Lieberman won in CT because he was the traditional GOP-voters' darling, and most decidedly not because the Democratic voters were overwhelmingly favoring him; to hold up Lieberman as a "counter-example" of sorts against the vital role and impact of grass-roots support is to deny, first of all, that CT is not representative of the national scene, and secondly, that Lieberman wouldn't be elected dog catcher in any other state.

Which proves that From is a clueless, dumb and tunnel-vision impaired hack.

Out with the trash, he.