How the DLC Raises Funds:

[Jackpine Radical]

They begin by putting up such piss-poor opposition that the Republicans sweep into power Then they wait for the Puggies to get into so much trouble that the people rise in anger and sweep them out in numbers that all their crooked election strategies can't overcome.

Once in power, the DLC pols threaten the health care insurance industry with reform. They threaten the auto industry with new CAFE standards. They threaten the oil industry with windfall profit taxes and repeals of drilling incentives. They threaten international corporations with environmental regulations & fair labor standards.

Then they wait for the threatened companies to make huge contributions to their war chests.

Then they pass all the legislation they threatened to pass, but in such watered-down forms that none of it inconveniences their contributors.

And everybody's happy.

[Totally Committed]

1. Not EVERYBODY'S happy.... trust me.

I'm so angry I'm ready to spit nails. But, that's only me.

TC

[redqueen]

2. what? who's 'everybody' in that scenario? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

11. "Everybody"=everybody that matters:

The politicians, the big money interests, and enough inattentive voters to keep the game going.

[redqueen]

12. *sigh*

[wyldwolf]

3. wrong on so many levels... I'll pick it apart one of your points for you

They begin by putting up such piss-poor opposition that the Republicans sweep into power

Which is why Bill Clinton won twice, Al Gore got the popular vote, John Kerry garnered more votes than any Democrat in history, over half the new house seats won in 2006 were DLC, the Dems who won the Senate back in 1988 were either DLC or affiliated with them, the net house gains in '96 and '98 were mostly DLC, new Governors elected in the last several years are DLC, etc. And that's just for starters. Tell me if you want to discuss 1994.

[Totally Committed]

4. To what end?

What has been accomplished against the other side by the DLC candidates?

We have been sold down the river. They have had more allegience to their corporate sponsors than to their actual constituencies, and when the pedal went to the metal, they were all talk and no action.

We worked our a**es off electing anyone who had a (D) after their name in the last election, and what did it get us? Everything was immediately off the table. The "gang of fourteen" was again voting with the other side.

No offense (and I mean that), but this sh*t has got to stop! The DLC is a boulder in the road for this Party. We need to drive around it, and move on instead of wrecking ourselves repeatedly trying to drive over it.

TC

[wyldwolf]

7. just remember one thing

... as you claim electing DLC candidates have sold us down the river...

...at no time has the DLC been the majority in Congress so anything you think they've done wrong was certainly aided by non-DLCers. It wasn't the DLC who took things off the table.

What you need to be asking yourself at this point, after nearly 100 years of centrist Democratic rule in the party, what can the "progressive" movement do differently to complete their attempted hijacking of the Democratic party? You're certainly not good at organizing and running successful campaigns.

[Totally Committed]

9. I have four words for you:

THE

GANG

OF

FOURTEEN

They have voted with the Republicans on almost every significant vote. They are holding us hostage. That GANG OF FOURTEEN would not be possible without the DLC presence in Congress, and you know it.

TC

[wyldwolf]

10. not so

Two Democratic members of the "Gang of 14" (Daniel Inouye and Robert Byrd) have Senate careers that predate the DLC by decades. The DLC did not invent centrist Democrats.

The Gang of 14's actions were limited to matters of filibustering.

[Hart2008]

13. I'll pick apart one of yours: Dem's won the Senate back in '86 not '88.

The facts aren't important to you are they?

Funny, but no mention of the DLC here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1986

In fact the DLC was all of one and half years old at this time.

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

Why do you want to discuss Clinton losing the House for the first time in 40 years and never winning it back during his 2nd term as President?

[wyldwolf]

14. oh, excuse me. Hit the wrong key on the keyboard. Incredible, though...

...that THAT is what you picked out.

In fact the DLC was all of one and half years old at this time.

The 8 Democratic Senators elected and who gave the Senate back to the Democrats included moderates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC’s National Service Tour that year), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to “swallow their pride” and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle.

Why do you want to discuss Clinton losing the House for the first time in 40 years and never winning it back during his 2nd term as President?

Because it's always fun to pick apart that leftwing myth again.

[Hart2008]

15. Incredible that you call the loss of the House in '94 a myth! It was 9 new Dem Sens. elected in '86

"The U.S. House election, 1994 was an election for the United States House of Representatives on November 8, 1994, in the middle of President Bill Clinton's first term. As a result of a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans, the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954.
...The Republican Party..was able to capitalize on the perception that the House leadership was corrupt, as well as the dissatisfaction of conservative voters with President Clinton's actions (including a failed attempt at universal health care)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1994

Funny, but Clinton was the only Democratic president in the Twentieth Century not to have a majority in the Congress in his second term. He is also the only Democratic president in the Twentieth Century to be reelected without a majority of the popular. In short, Clinton, who never received majority of the popular vote in either the '92 or '96 election, had no mandate to govern.

The DLC in '86 was working on getting a Southerner elected president in '88:
"The DLC was founded in 1985 by Al From and other Democrats after Ronald Reagan's re-election. ... The organization started as a group of forty-three elected officials, and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall. Their original focus was on influencing internal Democratic politics so as to secure the 1988 presidential nomination for a Southern conservative such as Sam Nunn or Chuck Robb, both of whom were early DLC supporters. However, when the DLC's pet project, the Super Tuesday primary, turned out to be a boon for Reverend Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, the group began to shift toward attempting to influence the public debate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council#Founding_and_early_history

The DLC played no roll in the '86 elections, regardless of whether or not some of these Senators later joined the DLC. You provide no authority for your claim other than your own ipsa dixit, but you continue to have your facts wrong.

Sorry, but nine new Democratic Senators were elected in '86, not eight.

You failed to mention Senators Brock Adams in Washington, Wyche Fowler in Georgia, and Terry Sanford in North Carolina, Timothy Wirth in Colorado, and John Breaux in Louisiana.

[wyldwolf]

17. no, the myth is that the DLC had a role in it. Ready to discuss it or...

...do you want to keep running over to wikipedia for surface facts that most already know?

By the way, Timothy Wirth in Colorado was a former DLC House memeber... so, yeah, he was already DLC.

Of the forty-three acknowledged DLC members as of March 18, 1985, only three congressmen - Tim Wirth of Colorado... had one by less than 60 percent of the vote in 1984...

Reinventing Democrats - The Politics of Liberalism From Reagan To Clinton (Unabridged)(Kenneth S. Baer) P. 67

The DLC played no roll in the '86 elections, regardless of whether or not some of these Senators later joined the DLC. You provide no authority for your claim other than your own ipsa dixit, but you continue to have your facts wrong.

Indeed, the 1986 contest offered a political window of opportunity for the DLC to...prove the efficacy of it's electoral strategy... to help Democratic candidates, the DLC launched an "Issues Blitz" from October 14 to 16, 1986, which entailed flying to multiple states "to spur debate on national defense and economic policies." A chartered plane brought the DLC's political talent, wealthy backers, and fifteen members of the national media to help with the Senate campaigns of Wirth, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, and Bob Graham of Florida."

... every DLC member in the House who ran for reelection won... the DLC acquired impressive representation in the Senate... seven of the freshmen Senators were DLC members...

Reinventing Democrats - The Politics of Liberalism From Reagan To Clinton (Unabridged)(Kenneth S. Baer) P. 76
Thomas Brandt, "Even the Liberal Democrats Find DLC Plans On The Level" Washington Times, 21 October 1986.

[wyldwolf]

18. PS - there 10 new Dem senators, not 9 like you said.

[SoxFan]

5. This is false

This is absolute nonsense from someone who has no idea about how the DLC operates.

[Perky]

6. DLC war chest?

Got a link for any of this gibberish?

[firefox_fan]

8. That makes sense. That's exactly how they run their business.

[unkachuck]

16. yes sir, Mr. Radical....

....I agree with you 100%....and I think it's even more scripted....

....the corporate mission for the repugs is to govern; solely for the corporate interests....

....the mission for the DLC is to represent and control the corporate interest within the Democratic Party....

....the corporate mission for the corporate media is propaganda; to enable and facilitate the above....

....I see the corporate interests less subservient to the political parties, rather, the political parties are servants the corporate interests....corporate interest money is sloshing in all direction all the time....