is the Democratic Leadership Council necessary?

[ulysses]

If so, why? What are the crazy San Francisco liberals running the party proposing that is such anathema to conservative Dems?

What are their counterproposals on those issues?

[Dr.Phool]

1. Their counterproposals are usually

Support the Republics, and grab all the corporate cash you can.

[snowbear]

2. Big tent...

~~~~~~

[ulysses]

4. that's all well and good

but doesn't answer the question.

[leftofthedial]

3. it is necessary

for the corporations

[ulysses]

5. surely an uncharitable view

for the corporations :D

[LeftCoast]

6. I don't trust the DLC. They won't reveal who is funding it...

and I strongly suspect it's because they're funded at least in part by the rw noise machine.

[ulysses]

7. probably a fair suspicion

given their leanings.

[ulysses]

8. no one to defend the DLC?

Come now.

[snowbear]

9. He's not logged on right now...

Our sweet Nick in Maryland has a "DLC" logo for his avatar, so I'm assuming he supports them?

If I see him on here later, I'll direct him over to your post ~~

[DaveinMD]

13. he's a great guy

the DLC provides cover for Dems running in conservative areas. I think the pissing matches are stupid regardless who starts them.

[snowbear]

14. Nick is the B-E-S-T .....

And hot dayum cute too!!!

[Pyrzqxgl]

15. I'm not going to defend the DLC but I will defend their right to exist

they have the money and the power to elect a lot of Democrats. Granted they aren't the kind of Democrats a lot of us are pulling for, but any kind of Democrat in office means power, and if our party has the power than we who work in it have the kind of power to make it the kind of party we want it to be. It's better to be inside the Big Tent than outside in a bunch of teepees with the Republicans inside a Big Tent of their own.

[paulk]

10. necessary to who?

themselves?

[HereSince1628]

11. The DLC thinks it's necessary

I submit that that is sufficient for them to try to keep it going.

[longship]

12. Not at all.

The DLC people we need, just like all the rest of the Dems. We welcome everybody, apparently even turn-coat jerks like Lieberman. However, we do not need an strictly ideological organization within the party whose sole purpose seems to be to undermine other Democrats with whom they disagree. They operate outside the party and are entirely superfluous.

[wyldwolf]

16. of course not ...

... but then again, neither is Democratic Underground, Democracy For America, Progressive Democrats of America, The Congressional Black Caucus, The Progressive Caucus, McDonalds corporation, RCA Records, mud pies, and self serve dog washes.

The only "San Francisco Liberal" in a leadership position is Nancy Pelosi, and most of her platform is straight out of the DLC's playbook - a simplified "American Dream Intitiative" chopped up into easily digestable sound bites.

[ulysses]

20. then the question remains.

If Nancy Pelosi is pushing a DLC agenda, as you say, then is the organization even necessary?

[wyldwolf]

23. obviously...

SOMEONE has to develop policy. Up to the party leaders to follow it.

[ulysses]

24. like on Iraq?

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

25. has the DLC set any Democratic policy on Iraq?

ulysses, you've lost a step.

[ulysses]

26. haven't they?

If not, why not? I thought we were to look to them to set policy. :shrug:

[ulysses]

27. nice edit to your previous post, btw

:D

[wyldwolf]

29. ah, yes, the "conspiracy of edits" again.

:)

[ulysses]

30. oh, no conspiracy.

I'm just thankful again for the timestamp on edits. :D

[wyldwolf]

32. right. Now you can see when I correct some spelling or sentence structure.

[ulysses]

34. yeah. #23

before edit:
SOMEONE has to develop policy.

after edit:
SOMEONE has to develop policy. Up to the party leaders to follow it.

I'm not stupid, my friend, and I have a fine memory. I'll let DUers parse the importance.

[wyldwolf]

37. post #23?

Let's parse what you say I edited:

SOMEONE has to develop policy

Yes, they do.

SOMEONE has to develop policy. Up to the party leaders to follow it.

Yes it is.

:shrug:

[ulysses]

41. that would be the one.

Let's parse what you say I edited:

What the time stamp says you edited. Take it up with elad if you disagree.

[wyldwolf]

28. I asked you first

:shrug:

I don't recall the DNC leadership, nor the Senate and House leaders, conferring with the DLC on Iraq. Do you?

[ulysses]

31. you were the one who said the DLC was there to set strategy.

Or did you edit that post too? :D

[wyldwolf]

33. no I didn't

Perhaps you can show me a post (with a time stamp?) :rofl:

[ulysses]

35. my bad - "policy"

Same post, #23. You didn't edit that out. :D

[wyldwolf]

39. LOL! Read it again

...and tell me the difference between "setting" policy and "developing" policy. The DLC develops policies all day long. Only the party leaders can set policy for the party.

[ulysses]

44. having cake and eating it, too.

Upthread, you claim that Pelosi's agenda is DLC-lite. Is the DLC a policy setter or a policy developer? By your own statement, it can't be both - unless it's a party leader.

[wyldwolf]

58. no, knowing the difference between "setting" and "developing"

DLC develops policy. Democratic leaders can choose to adopt and "set" them.

[k_jerome]

17. the old "pump up my liberal street cred by questioning the...

shadowy motives of fellow Democrats." Charming and novel.

[wyldwolf]

18. not only that...

... but since the House Democrat's new plans - the ones they ran and won on - are very DLC-ish, I would say the DLC was very necessary to that end.

[k_jerome]

19. i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but i have yet to see...

moderate or so-called "conservative Democrats" calling to exclude others with differing views. Exclusion does not seem very progressive in my view.

[ulysses]

22. so the DLC *is* necessary?

I thought you just said they weren't.

[ulysses]

43. no answer to this?

[wyldwolf]

59. the same question as you're OP. You can ask it as many ways as you like

[ulysses]

21. right, because the DLC is singing Kumbayah with the left.

:rofl:

Believe me when I say that I'm not concerned with my "liberal street cred". :D

[k_jerome]

36. please supply links to your allegations then...

the proof of your vitriol is certainly here to see.

[ulysses]

38. which allegations?

Vitriol - well, yeah. I don't trust Al From as far as I can bodily throw him.

[k_jerome]

45. allegations that crazy San Francisco liberals are anathema ...

to conservative Democrats.

Please also supply your reasons for exclusion of moderate and conservative Democrats from the party.

Also, what proposals are you talking about?

[ulysses]

47. do you read what comes out of Al From's mouth?

What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

I'd be interested if you could find a comparable statement from a progressive Dem.

[k_jerome]

50. I read Al From, and agree with some things he says...

you still have not outlined the proposals you reference in the OP. Or referenced the San Francisco liberals anathema to conservative Democrats line. Did Al From say that?

[ulysses]

52. I asked about the proposals in question.

I'm not sure how I can outline proposals when I'm not even sure what the issues are.

:shrug:

[k_jerome]

54. you asked what their counterproposals were...

counterproposals to what?

never mind.

[ulysses]

56. when the DLC gives me a straightforward list of objections

I'll let you know.

[wyldwolf]

40. neither charming or novel. Just tired and played out

ant-DLC posts kick into overdrive when the DLC makes a little noise - like gaining 16 new House seats and the announcement that two of it's members have essentially declared for the presidency.

THIS OP is pretty bland, though. Lacks originality.

[ulysses]

42. so sorry to bore you.

Let me know when you're ready to discuss political goals - which is why I assume most of us are here in the first place.

[k_jerome]

46. you are not attempting to discuss...

just copycat another DLC bash thread.

[ulysses]

48. I'm always open to discussion!

Five years of experience, however, have taught me that DLC apologists are not. If you would like, please propose a line of discussion and we'll talk.

[k_jerome]

49. this thread is meant to bash Democrats you don't like, plain and simple...

and now you are open to dicussion? your own OP says otherwise. When will you post a thread asking if the Congressional Black Caucus is necessary?

[ulysses]

51. this thread is mean to question the need for the DLC,

and that's about it. If you would like to offer thoughts for discussion, you're more than welcome to do that. I'd welcome it, for one.

When will you post a thread asking if the Congressional Black Caucus is necessary?

I have no question regarding the necessity of the CBC - I believe that the existence of that organization is quite necessary, and beneficial. Others, of course, are free to ask as they see fit.

[k_jerome]

53. yeah sure. anything to stimulate debate. Lord knows...

there arene't any other bash the DLC threads out there.

Good luck in your crusade.

[ulysses]

55. your contributions to the debate are appreciated.

[wyldwolf]

60. let me know when you're ready to offer anything show anything of substance policy wise

... from the left.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Here's a better question, how many of the newly elected Senators are joining the DLC?