A re-post on DLC infiltration - sorta relevant after today's sellout on MoveOn

[arendt]

Hey, apologists for the dem bums who betrayed us today. Eat this:

CoIntel-Joe
Posted by arendt in General Discussion: Politics
Mon Jun 12th 2006, 01:25 PM

….One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group
….that does all the wrong things. Why?

….1) The message doesn't get out.
….2) A lot of time is wasted
….3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
….4) Nothing good is accomplished.

….FBI and police informers and infiltrators will infest any group, and they
….have phony activist organizations established. It is the agent's job to keep
….the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
….In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:"You're
….dividing the movement."

….- "How to Spot a Spy"
….http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2...

I have stayed away from the DLC wars on DU because I didn’t have anything to contribute. But, when I read the quote above, it all just clicked for me.

Just check the points:

1) Message doesn’t get out - has the Democratic Party had any message discipline, or are some Democrats constantly sabotaging every attempt to tell the truth about Bush’s lies on the grounds that “we” can’t look “angry”?

2) Lot of time wasted - like six bloody years of the Neocons robbing us blind.

3) Activisits discouraged - yeah, like me.

4) Nothing good accomplished - no SC justices blocked (by Dems that is - just Harriet Myers, and she was probably part of some Rovian scheme.); no tax cuts for the rich blocked; no meaningful investigations of the Plame Leak, the WMD lies, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc;.

Finally, as progressives start to rebel against DLC mis-leadership, what do they tell us?
“You’re dividing the party.”

Proposition demonstrated, case closed. The DLC is a CoIntelPro-style effort to disrupt and neutralize the Democratic Party; and its most visible agent, Joe Lieberman, has all the hallmarks of a deep-cover provocateur. Call him CoIntel-Joe.

As with all provocateurs, he has a carefully prepared Curiculum Vitae, proving his bona fides. Except that, when push comes to shove, Joe is found shoving from the wrong side. For most Americans, Joe first showed up as the holier-than-thou, yarmulke-wearing VP candidate who torpedoed Al Gore in the Florida aftermath. Why did the DLC force this albatross on Al? See “How to Spot a Spy.”

Joe and the DLC have sabotaged all attempts to hold Bush to any kind of standards or accountability, be it economic, diplomatic, budgetary, or Constitutional. The Democrats couldn’t have done worse with a plan. Oh, wait, that was the DLC’s plan.

At this point, for me, the DLC is like global warming. Every reputable political scientist has said what’s happening; but the bought-and-paid-for media whores keep shilling for the phony political science.

Nuf said.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Oh gee, Steny is cross with the netroots. Our leaders are out of step with the peasant class. nt

[arendt]

2. That can be read either way. Care to clarify or do you just like ambiguity? n/t

[blm]

3. Waddya mean - Connecticut was LUCKY - it was a win/win for Dems

Bill Clinton told the world so right before that vote.

[Dr Fate]

28. If only the Clintons had campaigned for Lamont (D) as much as they did for Joe (I-3rd Party)

Am I mistaken when I say that the Clintons did more campaigning, appearnces and fundraising for Joe than they ever even thought of doing for Lamont (D)?

[blm]

29. They NEVER showed up in Connecticut for Lamont. Bill showed up on Larry King, though

right before the election and made his claim about those lucky Connecticut Democrats who can't lose no matter who they vote for.

[Dr Fate]

31. I see- so DU's DLCers are basically lying when they say "but-but-but- Clinton supported Lamont"

Using semantics tricks to lie, as usual.

[Fovea]

4. I could not agree more

if i had written it myself.

[Greyhound]

5. BINGO, Here's 6. n/t

[ms liberty]

6. I think you're on to something there. K&R n/t

[Totally Committed]

7. I think this about says it all -- 'a game plan to try to contain the populism.'

"... It was the DLC’s president, Al From, who in 2001 said that his goal was to give Democrats 'a game plan to try to contain the populism.' Populism, you may recall, is defined as 'supporting the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite.' Al From has made that vision a reality. The DLC—which has been funded by the likes of Chevron, Enron, Merck and Philip Morris—has, until recently, been extremely effective at pressuring Democrats to ignore the will of the public and capitulate to big business’s demands. The DLC has also made a public spectacle of itself by berating Democratic candidates who actually stand up for ordinary people."

Entire Article:

http://www.davidsirota.com/index.php/big-money-vs-grassroots/

TC

[robinlynne]

18. ok, how do we get RID of them? (not being sarcastic, dead serious.)

[Zodiak]

8. Wow.

A good read, and laid out so succinctly.

I tried to stay out of the DLC wars years ago, but then I went and did a little political exercise.....I scored all of the important votes for the Senate (not the namby-pamby amandments and resolutions). Know what I found out? That the DLC all fell out on the bottom, many of which wouldn't even vote with the Democrats 50% of the time. Some hardly at all.

I continued to do these calculations for a couple years, and the pattern only got more pronounced.

It was then that I became a staunch anti-DLCer. And I don't give a crap who doesn't like it, either, because I have the numbers to back it up.

To me, they are more dangerous than the Republicans because they rob us of our ability to oppose....disempowering us and redering us impotent. The Democrats are disrespected by millions of because of their impotence and their refusal to oppose. Wonder who is responsible for that?

I've seen their apologists in the netroots for many years, always counseling the worst strategy. Always demanding party fealty but no party principles. They are chattering gnats who dance around deafened ears.

[arendt]

9. Cool. Do you have your calculations available? Could you post them? n/t

[bvar22]

14. I've seen the analysis, and it is spot ON.

ZIronfist has posted them here.
They are in the archives.
ZI, if you're listening, please repost some here.

K&R for the OP. I agree 100%
The DLC was and is a calculated strategy to silence the voice of "We the People" in our government.
It has been very successful.

I've HAD IT with the CorpoDems!

BTW: Hillary IS DLC!

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253995&kaid=85&subid=108

[Zodiak]

16. Here are the scores:

Democratic Senator percentage

Harkin (Iowa) 82.75862069
Boxer (California) 82.75862069
Feingold (Wisconsin) 82.75862069
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 77.5862069
Corzine (New Jersey) now Gov. 76.66666667
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 75.86206897
Durbin (Illinois) 75.86206897
Akaka (Hawaii) 75.86206897
Sarbanes (Maryland) 72.4137931
Kerry (Massacheusetts) DLC 70.68965517
Leahy (Vermont) 70.68965517
Levin (Michigan) 68.96551724
Mikulski (Maryland) 68.96551724
Reed (Rhode Island) 68.96551724
Biden (Deleware) 67.24137931
Dodd (Connecticut) 65.51724138
Wyden (Oregon) 65.51724138
Dayton (Minnesota) 65.51724138
Obama (Illinois) 63.79310345
Bayh (Indiana) DLC 60.34482759
Murray (Washington) 60.34482759
Schumer (New York) DLC 58.62068966
Inouye (Hawaii) DLC 56.89655172
Bingaman (New Mexico) 56.89655172
Dorgan (North Dakota) DLC 55.17241379
Reid (Nevada) 55.17241379
Byrd (West Virginia) 55.17241379
Clinton (New York) DLC 53.44827586
Menendez (New Jersey) DLC 50
Cantwell (Washington) DLC 48.27586207
Stabenow (Michigan) DLC 46.55172414
Kohl (Wisconsin) DLC 44.82758621
Feinstein (California) DLC 44.82758621
Leiberman (Connecticut) DLC 44.82758621
Rockefeller (West Virginia) 41.37931034
Conrad (North Dakota) DLC 41.37931034
Baucus (Montana) DLC 39.65517241
Carper (Deleware) DLC 34.48275862
Johnson (South Dakota) DLC 31.03448276
Lincoln (Arkansas) DLC 31.03448276
Salazar (Colorado) DLC 24.13793103
Pryor (Arkansas) DLC 22.4137931
Nelson (Florida) DLC 20.68965517
Landrieu (Louisianna) DLC 17.24137931
Nelson (Nebraska) DLC 3.448275862


And here are the issues:

Condi confirm (nay)
Gonzales Confirm (nay)
class action law (nay)
bankruptcy bill (nay)
confirm negroponte (nay)
energy bill (nay)
CAFTA (nay)
CAFTA (2nd vote) (nay)
ohiovote (no to certification, 5 points for at least giving a speech)
firearm manufacturer immunity (nay)
confirmation of radical judges (gang of 14 = 5 pts, voting for one or more of these judges 0)
tax relief act of 2005 (tax cuts for rich) (nay)
deficit reconciliation act (spending cuts for poor) (nay)
Alito cloture (nay)
Alito nomination (nay)
Tax cut protection (favor the rich) (nay)
Extend Patriot Act (nay)
Raise limit on public debt (nay)
Flag burning Amendment (nay)
US-Oman FTA (nay)
Roberts Confirmation (nay)
Gates' confirmation (nay)
Atomic cooperation w/ India (nay)
Border Fence (nay)
Military Commissions act (nay)
Pension protection act (nay...not sure about this one, actually..Feingold and Boxer voted nay)
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (nay)
Child Insterstate Abortion Notification Act (nay)
Stem Cell Enhancement Act (yeah)


It is not a perfect analysis, but it suits me to know where my senators stand. This is the 109th Congress...I do not have any new numbers, but I will soon.

[robinlynne]

19. percentage of what? voting for or against us?

[Zodiak]

23. For us

The higher the #, the more progressive. Also, after the issue, I put how the
Senator should have voted to be considered "progressive" on the issue.

[Zodiak]

15. The last two or three installments are in my journal

there isn't much else there, so you will not have to navigate through anything

It has my methodology as well as the scores.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist

I haven't done it in a bit of time. I was waiting for there to be a number of votes before my sample size woud mean anything. After three quarters....that sounds like a good time to start scoring again. I hope to see better numbers than I did from the last Congress.

[robinlynne]

20. There is a website called openleft entirely dedicated to exposing "bush dogs".

I just found it and haven't posted anything, but they are compiling that kind of info, as you did.

[hootinholler]

13. Please do share that analysis!

I'd love to be able to quote those numbers.

-Hoot

[illinoisprogressive]

10. I've been reading Schlesinger's Age of Roosevelt.

in the Crisis of the old order, part 1, it talks about how in the 20s the party kept getting more divided.
By 1930, there were 2 dem parties. The progressive wing and the corporate, republican like wing.
FDR was taking the lead as the progressive wing's leader.
Imagined what would have happened if the people played it safe and went with more of the same and the corporate wing - their dlc wing - of the party.
thankfully the people had the wisdom to choose the progressive wing and the new deal came to be.

[arendt]

11. I didn't know that. Thank you.

It may explain the lasting emnity the rich have for FDR. They hate him, hate him, hate him.
It looks like the reason is that, the rich thought they had bought everyone; but he still
managed to beat them.

God Bless FDR. He gave us 70 years. But now we are back in the shit. If you don't think
we are headed for an engineered depression, I have a subprime mortgage to sell you.
This time, the rich figured out to hold the depression until after they got their pet
Democrat (HRC) into office.

There is going to have to be a whole lot of waking up to get out of this jam.

arendt

[hootinholler]

12. All I knew was it just weren't right.

Thanks for that reference point.

-Hoot

[nashville_brook]

17. thank you for the break-out. it's emblematic of how screwed we are, that it takes

thoughtful, cogent *analysis* in order to recognize that those "dems" aren't "on the bus."

we're either a *party* where we have each other's back, or we're not.


we're not.

[robinlynne]

21. I think we should be changing this place to progressive democratic underground.

[nashville_brook]

24. that's a matter of not letting the turkeys get us down

:evilgrin:

[Capn Sunshine]

22. Thanks

Great post; deserves more attention.
I want to see the blue dogs talk their way out of this one. I gave money to a lot of those SOBs.

[arendt]

26. Its interesting that no one attacks this attack on the DLC. n/t

[Dr Fate]

33. They would if they could find a semantics error.

My experience is that they attack semantics errors-even minor ones- when the facts against them are iron clad.

It's a good tactic to keep in mind when you are debating them- not to let them throw you off with this- make sure that even your semantics are 100% on point-dont exaggerate your accusations too much unless you are prepared to back it up with an example (not hard to find)...

[arendt]

34. Funny you should mention that. Just got that flack in my "War will make you free" thread...

No content to the objections, but a whole lot of attitude and insult
about how ignorant, sloppy, and "hysterical" I was.

Watch out. Hysterical may be a new code word for "conspiracy theorist",
which is anyone who doesn't buy the party line.

Sadly, fair-minded posters are at a disadvantage. One of these stealth
semantic-freaks shows up, and you are two exchanges into trying to be polite
before you realize that the intention is to disrupt.

The clue seems to be that the semantics-freak never responds to the original
topic, no matter how obvious it is what you meant to say, but keeps spinning
on the "inconsistencies" in your responses.

Michael Foucault lives. (correct me if I have the name of this deconstructionist wrong.)

arendt

[KoKo]

25. K&R

[Dr Fate]

27. The DLC's support for Joe Lieberman (I-3rd Party) is something we should never forget.

Many DLC type DUers openly supported this traitor- even after he threatened to go 3rd party if Lamont won. You would think with all of their hatred for Nader this would have driven them to support the REAL DEM- but noooooooooo- they had to support the pro-war 3rd party.

Many top DLCers, including Harold Ford, the leader of the DLC openly endorsed Lieberman (I-3rd party) AGAINST Lamont (D).

Many DLCers & "centrsits" at DU, at blogs and even on TV continued to defend Joe and his actions during and after the primaries.

[Mythsaje]

30. And, I notice, they call us crackpots when we call them on it...

Hmmm...

Makes you wonder.

[Dr Fate]

32. My experience is they play "Judas" and pretend they never supported Joe.

I've been told that the mods removed most of their pro-Joe posts as they were in violation of DU rules-yet a lookl at DLC blogs and a good google search tells a different story.