DLC to Progressives: Four legs good, two legs better

[arendt]

DLC to Progressives: Four legs good, two legs better
by arendt

"After thirty years of American imperial information warfare, everybody in the goddamn world understands counterinsurgency and political subversion. We all know how to do it now, we all know how to wreck the dominant paradigm. We're geniuses at screwing with ourselves and deconstructing all our institutions. We don't have a single institution left that works."

- Bruce Sterling, "Distraction" (1998)

Hey, all you progressives! Its official. You have been officially declared to be an "enabler of the enemy"."What?", you say. "The occupation of Iraq is still a corrupt, unstoppable hell-hole and financial sink hole. The HMOs are still screwing me and my doctors to the wall. But, I'm a bad guy for not signing off on more lies about Iraq from a crony general, disrespected by his own troops?"

In a word, "yes". Your movement, the history of your party for the last seventy years, has been deconstructed - trashed by the DLC. We have moved on to the "demonize" phase of the "Differentiate, Demonize, Destroy" politics that was so effective in bringing dictatorial power to the far right in America.

American politics has been a "winner take all" game from day one. So, no one should be surprised that the DLC has taken the game inside the Democratic Party. Just as the GOP majority in Congress took no input at all from the Democrats, the DLC, with its stranglehold on the party leadership, wants no input at all from the anti-war wing of the party. We just had three more examples of DLC Dems more willing to vote with the GOP than with the American people, as represented by 75% majorities in the opinion polls.

The "Truth" to the DLC is that the DLC is a "centrist" movement, and the Democratic Party will win in 2008 by putting forward a "centrist" (read corporatist) candidate, who will attract the mythical "swing voter". This is "false narrative-lite" from the GOP-lite gang inside the Democratic Party. After seven years of the deconstruction of America, there are no swing voters left. You either want Bush and his entire gang of mobsters impeached, tried, and imprisoned; or you worship Bush and want anyone who speaks against him disappeared, tortured, and fed to the fish.

The false narrative from the DLC and the media is all about getting people to focus on the cult of personality instead of the issues. To focus on who can win, instead of what we want from government - when just about anyone with a "D" after their name could win by saying they would bring the troops home now. The false narrative is about loyalty oaths for followers, but not for party leaders.

Why would anyone who can remember the last fifteen years want anything to do with the policies we would get from a DLC candidate. The only one of them who ever won an important election was that charming rascal, Bill Clinton. And other than slow down the slide to theocracy a bit, what did the Democratic base get from his time in office? We got a few years of trickle down income growth and budget balancing from the insane dot.com bubble; but that was a one-time, cash-out- your-pension payment (which the toothless Dems promptly gave back, pre-911, without a fight, the minute W demanded tax cuts). Other than that, he spent a lot of time leaving liberal allies twisting in the wind and triangulating away long-held progressive ideas for tactical political gains. The major changes he pushed through, over the opposition of the traditional labor wing of the Democratic Party, were devastating.

His DLC policies single-handedly made NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO job-destroying realities. These treaties marked the beginning of the official corporate extra-territoriality that has rapidly mutated into the disaster capitalism of today. His Wall Street advisor, Robert Rubin, had no problem with the repeal of the New Deal Glass-Stegall banking act, which opened the floodgates for all the financial scandals we have seen and will continue to see as long as finance is effectively deregulated. And, he passed the Telecommunications Act of 1997, which allowed a handful of corporations, such as Clear Channel, to monopolize the media.

Basically, the man took the party base out for a nice dinner, while burglars ransacked our home, and con-artists drained our bank accounts. But we still love him. He is a Gentleman Jimmy Walker for our time.

And Clinton was the only DLCer with an ounce of charisma or competence. The rest were just business lobbyists sucking at the corporate teat, like Terry McCauliff. Or worse, like Joe Lie-berman, who ACTIVELY undermined Al Gore in the Florida 2000 debacle.

So, without naming a single candidate for 2008: I ask you, do you really want the policies that the media are telling us are "realistic", "centrist", and "responsible"? Do you want us to stay in Iraq for two to six more years? Do you want us to threaten and probably bomb Iran? Is government-mandated corporate health insurance going to change the corrupt 30% rakeoff and service denial that we are experiencing today? Do you really want all progressive dissent censured by Congress?

----

If not, the only chance you have is to fight the DLC by voting against their candidates (and any local politicos who support them) in the primaries. The vote is the one thing they can't spin or buy. They are trying to declare a winner long before a single vote has been cast. And, with their usual deep-pockets redundancy, they have front-loaded the primaries and have subverted the DNC control of the primary process with bogus challenges to primary scheduling, all in order to give more power to the media and less to the voters.

The way out of the DLC trap is very difficult. As the saying goes, "you can't beat a horse with no horse." The progressives have "no horse". They respect Kucinich, but the man has liabilities in today's toxic media environment. He is exactly the kind of personality that they can tear to shreds with one hand tied behind their backs. (In fact, they already have.) Also, IMHO they shouldn't run someone pushing his military background. First, Kerry tried that and lost. Second, it only reinforces the authoritarianism meme that is growing larger all the time - the meme that only people with military experience are allowed to speak truth to power. The only tactic I have heard that can't be spun by the media is Lou Dobb's idea of registering as Independent, but still voting Democratic. It sends an unmistakable message.

I would love to hear some ideas. Like, maybe, targeting all the local politico DLC supporters. That would be copying the strategy by which the far right took over the GOP.

But, I will not engage in any discussion of candidates, only of policies. Please don't waste your time trying to drag this thread into yet another juvenille "my candidate is better than yours" school yard fight.

[pinto]

1. I whole heartedly agree with voting on stated policy not personality, nor for that matter

on media spin of a candidate's position, from whatever quarter the spin originates.

I don't think Democrats need to register as Independents to make a difference.

The point could be made that the most effective means of change, politically, is to work within the majority party to broaden its scope and strengthen its ability to enact - and implement - more progressive legislation.

Democrats need to cast their votes for the candidate(s) that most closely supports their POV on policy, *independent* of the talking heads, as intended in the electoral process.

That said, personality has always been a part of American politics, and probably politics the world over. Yet, buried in the media chatter are the *actual* words and positions of our candidates.

I look there first and last. And encourage others to do likewise.

[arendt]

4. Registering I is a media stunt. I agree it doesn't make a diff; but it is visible. n/t

[papau]

132. I agree - well said - one's personal view of past actions may not be the OP's-use your own judgement

To me the Clinton years were great - and the OP is part of the "media chatter" to spin away the truth - and of course others may disagree.

But that is the point of having primaries - to get different views on past and future into the debate and to support someone that reflects your variation of the view of the past, and the actions needed for the future.

And as you say, "buried in the media chatter" - in this case the chatter of the OP's post, indeed generally in any post on DU, are thoughts that should be part of the debate.

For the record:

NAFTA was signed by George H. W. Bush - not by Bill Clinton (but I agree that that old fashioned "free trade" wins for all idea that was not refuted until 2004 needs to be replaced by "fair trade" - and that the 93 Congressional action was pushed by Clinton under the idea that it would create more jobs for everyone - the win-win idea that we now know to be untrue, but which was the belief among just about all economists back then - the labor objections back then being about disruption to individual lives and not a belief that net net the US would lose jobs).

The WTO is the continuation of prior treaties - it just added a better dispute resolution system - not new rules (but I agree those current rules suck).job-destroying realities.

In my opinion oil company control of world politics and economy dates back to at least Ike and the 50's and our CIA becoming an instrument of keeping "American" companies healthy. So disaster capitalism pre-dates Clinton. Indeed corporate "extra-territoriality" agreements pre-date Clinton - but NAFTA was a major such agreement that was used to defeat good local environmental and labor laws - or at least the corporations are trying to use it to defeat those laws - and while this was not the intent, the corporate attempts to use NAFTA in this manner certainly occurred.

Saying the "repeal of the New Deal Glass-Stegall banking act opened the floodgates for all the financial scandals we have seen" is to forget the S&L problems under Reagan/Bush41. Indeed I know of no financial problem directly related to that repeal.

Likewise the Telecommunications Act of 1997, needed for the digital age and structured to increase media competition, did indeed fail to stop media consolidation - the handful of corporations running the media when Reagan took office numbered about 50 for 90+% of the audience, and Reagan's deregulation caused that to drop to 10 in 1996 - a number that has now dropped to 5 or 6 last year (I forget wich number - Wiki should give it to you if you need it exactly). Clear Channel is now being taken over by the rich via a purchase by a "private equity" firm, but how this is Clinton's fault or a DLC plan is not obvious to me.

[arendt]

133. I most certainly disagree, for reasons cited in my original post and by others...

Clinton forwarded the institutionalization of anti-middle class policies and organizations.
As a poster down-thread remarked, if Clinton hadn't put all of that in place, W would have
had to waste time doing it. Instead, he could start in where his dad and Clinton left off.

To call this "chatter" is to demean the victims of these policies and to give his DLC policies
a free pass.

I do appreciate the civil tone of your post and would be happy to discuss the impact of Bill
Clinton's actions on the middle class. (Unfortunately, I have to go to work.)

arendt

[papau]

135. :-) we will have a good discussion later as I also need to go work - at least

for a few more weeks until my last contact runs out at the end of the year. :-)

I edited in a few things to my prior post (sorry - I thought I could do so before there was a response - but I am getting slower at this).

I look forward to the future discussion. :-)

[HereSince1628]

2. Is there really such a thing as local DLC support?

Membership is conferred from above. The DLC's interest in having a "base" of "new Democrats" is pretty strictly limited to getting votes.

Eliminating "supporters" is like trying to put out a grass fire by shooting a squirt gun at individual blades of grass. The DLC needs to be caught in a backfire, that is to say, there needs to be a more organized confrontation.

Two ideas of what I think are equal importance:

--Cut the DLC off from undue influence within the party. Eliminate the practice of giving "superdelagates" voting power. Put the reins of the party back in the hands of the people. The DLC is a by-invitation only organization. It only invites folks who have been 'successfully elected or demonstrated success in civil leadership' consequently the DLC is heavily composed of SUPERDELAGATES.

--Take control of our own lives. The DLC holds independent conventions. It's time that Progressive Democrats did the same, and did them with much higher profile and used them to identify democrats who support progressive agendas and who would be identified by progressives as electable.

[arendt]

3. Thanks for a lot of info that is new to me...

Given what you said, it is long past time for a Progressive Dem convention.

Also, are there any by-laws of the Democratic Party that address the idea of
"by invitation only" sub-groups? That sounds really un-democratic (small d)
to me. This is the Democratic Party, its supposed to be "if you can't take the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

----

There may be some confusion. When I said local supporters, I meant elected politician
supporters. E.g., my State Senator endorsed Hillary months ago. Why is a State
Senator wasting his time like that, half a year before the first primary? Because
he is a pro-DLC hack; and I want him out.

My thinking is that if we oppose all the state level DLC politicos, it will take
some of the zip out of their "DLC is inevitable" campaign. It will identify the
DLC to voters with a local face.

What do you think?

arendt

[HereSince1628]

6. Your state senator is probably a convention delagate

Getting the parties nomination is about winning enough votes from delagates at the national convention. Because the superdelagates are already identified Hillary and every other candidate trys to work them and get a huge head-start on that process.

[arendt]

7. So, you are saying that all these "early announcers" are locked in VOTES...

not just endorsements.

Silly me. I thought primaries were for electing delegates. My mind must be back
in 1972, when all that party-hack crap got thrown out.

Since there is no election for State Senate between now and the convention,
it seems like there is nothing I can do.

You know, that is really depressing. Can you tell me what percentage/how many
of these non-primary-decided delegates there are? And how many of them have
already announced?

arendt

[HereSince1628]

10. Maybe not all of them, but the majority of them. yes.

Google super-delagates and you will find a lot of information.

It's a legacy of the smoke-filled rooms where only the party's elite power brokers made decisions. The DLC is indeed a good old boy system still trying to wield that sort of influence.

[HereSince1628]

12. Here's a link that can get you started on this aspect of campaigning

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/


MSNBC
Updated: 5:58 a.m. CT April 26, 2007


Tom Curry
National affairs writer

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

• Profile
• E-mail


WASHINGTON - It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

<snip>

[arendt]

14. When you see that 15% = 30% of needed to nominate; that is a big handicap...

And, this article says it is now up to "nearly 40%".

Thanks for the info. I will be packing for exile. :-(

arendt

[defendandprotect]

103. The "superdelegates' are the monied delegates as I recall this game . . .. ????

[arendt]

13. It looks like ~15% are super, but the intent is they vote as the primary voters did...

This is from Kos:

July 29, 2003

Delegate counts, super delegates

I have seen periodic questions about the delegate allotments for the Democratic National Convention. Here they are. "Pledged Delegates" are selected 75% from district results, 25% at-large, plus a 15% "add-on" consisting of local party leaders and elected officials pledged to specific candidates.

Super Delegates are considered "Unpledged Delegates", and consist of Democratic National Committee Members, Democratic Members of Congress, Democratic Governors, Distinguished Party Leaders, and "Add-on Unpledged votes based on DNC member votes" (whatever that means).

Note that these numbers are slightly off -- as mentioned, super delegates include all members of Congress, and these totals are pre-2002 elections.

State: Pledged Delegates | Super Delegates >> Total

AL: 54 | 9 >> 63
(big list deleted)

Total: 4,325
3,520 pledged delegates
805 unpledged delegates (super delegates)

The allocation of each state's delegates to each candidate is a bit murky, but in general it's apportioned by a complex series of formulas that kick in once a candidate crosses the 15% threshhold. For example, this is how North Dakota allocates its delegates:

Here's how we compute the delegate count:

....A candidate must receive 15% or more of the total popular vote to qualify for delegates.
....Discard those votes cast for candidates who do not qualify.

....Allocate Congressional District delegates from the qualified vote in each district. Allocate
....Pledged PLEO and At-Large delegates using the statewide qualified vote.

....In each jurisdiction:
........Total qualified vote = total votes cast for the qualifying candidates in the jurisdiction.
........Allocation = (delegates for the jurisdiction) x (candidate's popular vote) ÷ (total qualified vote).
........Assign each candidate the WHOLE NUMBER of delegates.
........If delegates remain, allocate each of the remaining delegates to those candidates with the LARGEST REMAINDERS.

If you can figure out what that formula means then you're a smarter person than me.

Super Delegates can vote for whomever they want, but they generally vote with the winner of the popular vote. It would be highly undemocratic and a breach of faith to subvert the will of the voters and push an alternate candidate itself. Now if we were to face a brokered convention, then all bets would obviously be off. But the chances of that happening, as exciting as it would be for political junkies like us, is practically nill.

Disclaimer: I took these numbers from a DNC handout at the California Democratic Party Convention. I didn't check the math or otherwise verify the accuracy of the information.

So, maybe the strategy is to start right now to call on the DLC superdelegates to respect the popular vote?

arendt

[HereSince1628]

19. They don't actually honor the popular vote. The DLC was constructed in

the mid-late 1980's take advantage of this change in the party in the early 80s.

The DLC superdelegates are quite supportive of DLC'ers. Although it sounds quite conspiratorial and tin-foilly, the entire point of the DLC's existance is to organize and channel this sort of power.

[FredStembottom]

46. Thanks HereSince........

This answers my "Why do they exist?" question (or desperate cry?) below.

:thumbsup:

[arendt]

53. Geez, they really shut down the 70s quickly, and quietly. I never realized. Thanks. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

99. The DLC is our cross to bear and we must bear it but it is time

to relegate it to where it belongs.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. I like what you're saying-taking control of our own lives and Progressive conventions

K&R to this thread.

[HereSince1628]

8. Yeah, it'd be great to have organizations in evey county that

could come together regionally and nationally periodically. Both to identify important issues and as a show of force within the base.

The pundits take notice of DU with its quite small membership (compared to the US population). Imagine what a progressive national convention with for-the-media events and 3K delagates from all 50 states and 40K roaring suppporters in the seats of, say, Soldiers' Field would do for the cause.

[robinlynne]

77. absolutely. congress! The DLC fights against the good candidates. with their money

and their media. But we do have people power in numbers. Clint Curtis, among many others, democrats who bring the REAL democratic message. Christine Jennings in Florida who stands up against election fraud and where is the "party"? Her race is an easy one to prove. 18000 congressional votes just missing from one district. We absolutely must work for local progressives with all our might. The DLC only gives money to any candidate who already has 250,000, thereby eliminating the grassroots candidates. Those are the people we must work for.
with everything we have.

[antigop]

9. Take a look at the Progressive Democrats of America organization

http://www.pdamerica.org/policy/priorities.php

<edit> changed link to pdamerica website

[arendt]

11. Thanks for the link. I will check it out. n/t

[nvme]

112. pdamerica

thanks for the link i needed to hookup with the liberal elements within the party this might help

[IndianaJones]

15. thank god for moderates. nt.

[arendt]

16. Moderate doesn't mean moderate anymore, it means spineless.

The term "moderate" has been as re-engineered as pork.

We have been sold down the river by "moderates", "centrists"...

arendt

[IndianaJones]

17. its been demonized by the left. we still set direction for the Democratic party. nt.

[arendt]

18. It's been deconstructed. The right has been moving the goalposts for 20 years...

How nice of you to pick up a right wing talking point that the left are the bad guys.

arendt

[IndianaJones]

20. all the whining done by the left makes me glad to be in the center.

of course, the whining is someone else's fault too, I am sure.

[arendt]

21. You don't want a discussion. You just want to lob grenades like "whining". n/t

[IndianaJones]

22. Yeah, the thousands of posts demonizing the moderates and center that make up...

the majority of the party are calls for discussion. ha.

[arendt]

23. Classic frame shift. Talk about THIS thread. n/t

[arendt]

24. So far, you have said bupkus about THIS thread. Save the boilerplate until you do. n/t

[IndianaJones]

25. you mean the DLC screed? I did....its losers whining. nt.

[arendt]

26. Thank you for displaying the "winner take all" mentality I described..

you are actively proud of selling America down the river.

arendt

[IndianaJones]

28. I am actively proud to not be on the irrelevant left. nt.

[arendt]

34. You are a veritable tutorial in "catapulting the propaganda". watch closely, class. n/t

[IndianaJones]

36. this in a DLC bashing thread. lol. nt.

[arendt]

38. It is a DLC-POLICY bashing thread. There is a difference. n/t

[arendt]

40. It is fine to have a debate about POLICY. You don't do it by calling people "losers". n/t

[IndianaJones]

42. uh huh. nt.

[arendt]

48. You really have nothing but talking points, do you? n/t

[IndianaJones]

73. as you snipe from the anti-DLC bandwagon. nt.

[arendt]

75. Ah, "snipe" another pejorative with overtones of cowardice. Give up these cheap shots. n/t

[IndianaJones]

76. as you whine from the fringes because the party runs well from the center. nt.

[arendt]

84. If you got nothing to contribute but "snipe", "whine", etc., I'm not responding anymore n/t

[Desertrose]

146. Oh yes, look how well the party has done to date.

We have all those nice "center dems" just going along with Bush.

Give me a break.


We are not "whining"...we are speaking very clearly that something is not right within the dems anymore. You just don't want to hear it cause maybe you like the way things are now?

[lyonn]

72. Can someone post a list of DLC members?

Last nite checked out their site and didn't find it. Makes one wonder why it is so difficult to know their membership. Shows the officers.

[defendandprotect]

104. Yes . . . PLEASE .. .. including the candidates for prez . . ..

Presumably it's only Kucinich and Edwards who aren't DLC -- ????

And presumably there may be some who aren't "official" but who still will work with DLC?

[arendt]

29. And thank you for demonstrating how the left has been deconstructed (i.e., losers) n/t

[IndianaJones]

31. whiny losers. important distinction. nt.

[arendt]

33. You truly got bupkus. n/t

[IndianaJones]

35. I got wins and the lead too. nt.

[arendt]

37. "He who dies with the most toys wins." Unbelievably shallow. n/t

[IndianaJones]

41. whining is the last refuge for those used to losing. nt.

[arendt]

44. If the smear doesn't stick, repeat. Pathetic. n/t

[Forkboy]

80. Don't feed them.

You're wasting your energy.

[arendt]

86. I understand. But the guy is making my point for me. His stuff is pathetic. n/t

[YOY]

95. He tried to defend himself by saying he was a "minority" with me the other day

as if to insinuate that I was attacking someone for the sole purpose that he is a "minority" and that being a "minority" gives him a better position.

This was in a thread and topic that had nothing to do with racism nor to do with anything that would allow a "minority" a remotely better inside know on the situation.

Before that he called DU a pit of racism, homophobia, elitism.... This place had some of the most accepting folks I've ever seen in American forums.

Don't feed the troll. It seems to like to attack the left...as if the left has had any goddamn power to make any changes in the past 27 years.

[defendandprotect]

105. Do you know how many Democrats have had NO idea that there was a right-wing in the Democratic Party?

When does the press talk about this -- ???

I had no idea until somewhere in Clinton's presidency -- !!!!

In fact, I think we need to have DLC'ers come out and profess openly so that we can deal with their positions and get them to understand our feelings on this ---

[HereSince1628]

55. You've got "winners" because of cherry picking, the winners haven't delievered many wins

on the most important issue of the day--ending American military involvement in the Iraq civil chaos.


DLC membership can only be had by DLC defined "Winners" so the whole notion of your having winners is a meaningless tautology.

[D23MIURG23]

96. When is a win not a win?

When it doesn't make the needed impact on policy. Politics isn't basketball.

[motocicleta]

102. You got shit and you think it's pie.

What have your wins brung ya? Nothin. Are you proud of what your wins have gotten you in the last ten months?

You got no soul and yer proud of it. I say you got no idea what time it is.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. And if this were a sports contest that would be great.

What you will get from your winning leader is more of the same. Hope you are happy with it.

[FredStembottom]

50. Wait, IndianaJones! You forgot to add this important argument:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

You're Welcome.

[earth mom]

67. Who said the "majority of the party is in the center"? The media & talking heads of course!

That's the way THEY want things. Gotta keep brain washing the masses!

I have no doubt that the majority of people in this country are way further left than what is being dictated and promoted by the powers that be. :grr:

[bvar22]

87. Here are some numbers that confirm your observation.

The DLC, funded by Corporate CEOs and hosting "invitation only" fundraisers, do NOT represent average Americans, though they have employed their Media outlets and Madison Avenue "Image" professionals to catapult the myth of "Centrism".

Where is "The REAL Center"?
Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. Over 63% oppose the War on the Iraqi People.

9. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

The above numbers are two years old.
Current surveys would place the "Center" even further to the left of the far right wing DLC.
The DLC has absolutely NO interest in common people who WORK for a Living.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[arendt]

88. Thanks for the interesting statistics. n/t

[earth mom]

158. Awesome post that deserves a thread of it's own!

:thumbsup:

[lyonn]

70. It seems the Dem moderates and centrist now days are

voting with the repubs much too often. Dem no votes are precious few since Bush took over. That seems to be what I am observing. When a Dem votes for threatening Iran with military action, for instance, then that looks more than a moderate vote. When a Dem allows more time to "decide" how to handle Iraq, that is worrisome. Four years to think about Iraq's failure is plenty of time if someone really cares. Not filibustering Alito, in particular, and Robert, makes me wonder what that Dem really stands for.

In other words, most the Dem politicians are meekly protesting against Bush plans, or not at all. Hell, I thought I was a middle of the roader until the last 7 years. Now I'm a damned Yellow Dog Dem.

It looks like after the repubs started taking over the presidency and Congress, the Dems turned into cowardly dogs playing "me too" politics.

[ProudDad]

121. Put the troll on ignore

I just did and it feels WONDERFUL... :hi:

[Johnny Noshoes]

127. So did I

and yes it does. It seems like most of the people on my list are DLC types. Now normally I'm the sort of person who'll listen to someone's point of view and think about it even if I disagree but these DLC'ers just piss me off too much to bother anymore.

[cascadiance]

27. The "center" or "moderates" on middle class salaries are JUST as screwed by the bankruptcy bill...

... as the rest of us are. It is these so-called "centrist" or "moderate" bills that the DLC puts through that are anything BUT centrist or moderate, or left. They are truthfully serving the corporatist reins of this part of the party that has the elites gain who head up companies or who profit from these elites' success.

I'm tired of hearing the DLC also label themselves as "bipartisan" too. They've warped that term too.

Bipartisan in my book is trying to balance the interests of two different groups of people with something that hopefully addresses the bigger concerns of both, but minimizes the damage to both by trying to not make it a zero sum game.

Bipartisan for the DLC is trying to balance the agenda of what the people want with what their corporate sponsors want, which is NOT the same thing. Usually the people wind up the losers, and the DLC people try to hind behind the veneer of doing "nothing", when in fact what they do behind the scenes (either through omissions by not even talking about things such as public campaign financing or late night trade bills, etc.) work against the will of the people and more for their corporate sponsors.

[arendt]

32. Wow. Somebody else who has "put on the glasses" ('They Live' reference)...

I had forgotten about "bipartisan", another synonym for moderate, which today is a synonym for "sellout".

Its nice to talk to someone who uses the true meaning of words instead of playing post-modern deconstructionist
games with them.

The Bankruptcy Bill (thanks, Joe Biden, Senator from MBNA) is another thing we have the DLC to thank for.
Loan shark level interest rates, draconian penalties and late fees, and no place for Joe Sixpack to hide.

But, it was a MODERATE, BIPATISAN :sarcasm: bill.

arendt

[cascadiance]

51. Ah yes... "They live"

This picture could just as easily be made to describe a DLCer as it does Bush here...

[arendt]

52. Great picture. Thanks. n/t

[cascadiance]

57. Here's another... Photoshop is fun at times!

[stimbox]

90. Nice pic of Rahm.

:rofl:

[cascadiance]

113. And YOU can "Obey Hillary" too!

Here's an interesting Cafe Press site...



http://www.cafepress.com/jimdandy/3507355

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Excellent reply. The OP is so right on and

there have been some good contributions and then a meaningless string of pro-DLC posts. I hope your post means the thread is back on track.

[arendt]

61. They were meaningless, but I couldn't have gotten a better foil to illustrate my thesis. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

118. So "the left" is anyone who disagrees with you?

because last time I checked the national polls, progressive values polled pretty high compared to pro corporate governance.

And I used to run a bank operation and a hedge fund, pal. I'm pretty corporate. I know the score.

I used to be DLC until they went off the rails with this "us vs the left" crap.

It's all a dodge to maintain a broker position between corporate money and the Dem Party.
With the usual fees and percentages off the top.

[HereSince1628]

30. Indiana is a right-leaning state, IJ's comment isn't unexpected.

The way to change minds is to provide a better idea to believe in.

I've gotten no where pointing out DLC short-comings such as the The DLC has stolen the term "moderate" just like they absconded with the term "Democratic Leadership."

It seems to me I won't get any where pointing out thaat the DLC has also done a great job of exploiting the baby-boomers notion of "moderation" as an epithet that described Jimmy Carter's intellectual style.
And although, unfortunately, the US hasn't got a moderate intellectually curious majority in the middle anymore, popular notions are hard to suppress. That's especially true when there is an advocacy group like the DLC pressing to exploit them.


It is one of my great failings that I cannot see how it is that "Electability" is more important than moving the great Progressive causes of Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All. To me they seem to ring loudly on their own, but somehow fail to stimulate the cochleae of so-called 'moderates' and 'DLCers.'

[DemBones DemBones]

63. We shouldn't blame Indiana for a poster called Indiana Jones.

I doubt s/he's from Indiana, probably just using a movie hero's name, and if s/he is actually a Hoosier, "Indiana Green" is a progressive counterpoint to "Indiana Jones."

Sorry to quibble, just like to point out that there are progressives in red states. Like me! All states are really shades of purple when you look at the votes instead of just who won. On to the topic under discussion. . .

You wrote:

"It is one of my great failings that I cannot see how it is that "Electability" is more important than moving the great Progressive causes of Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All. To me they seem to ring loudly on their own, but somehow fail to stimulate the cochleae of so-called 'moderates' and 'DLCers.'"

I do not think it is a failing at all. If it is, I have the same failing.

I also don't understand people wanting to vote for someone who is a "regular guy" as opposed to someone who is well-educated and intelligent. I don't particularly want to drink beer with a president, I very much want him to be an intelligent leader, and preferably have some progressive ideas, ideally be a progressive.

Of course, the media are responsible for pushing the "electability" meme just as they pushed the "regular guy" meme in the past two elections.

We need to have the Fairness Doctrine restored, along with the Anti-Trust Act, habeas corpus, and all the other liberties we've lost. The lack of the Fairness Doctrine along with allowing media monopolies (thank you, Ronald Reagan) plays a very large role in our situation today.

[arendt]

65. I agree, keep handles out of the discussion. Re: your "not understanding"...

> I also don't understand people wanting to vote for someone who is a "regular guy" as opposed to
> someone who is well-educated and intelligent. I don't particularly want to drink beer with a president,
> I very much want him to be an intelligent leader, and preferably have some progressive ideas, ideally
> be a progressive.

People do it because the same media monopoly has spent decades trashing intelligence and
dumbing people down. Even the "science" shows on TV are crap anymore - shows about building
better motorcycles.

How can you forget the "sushi-drinking, latte-eating, Volvo-driving..." slam of the Howard Dean
campaign?

Basically, the media has managed to convince the average person to blame "pointy-headed intellectuals"
for all the damage done by brutal neocon appartchik intellectuals. Oh, and only liberals are intellectuals.
Not serial-ideologists like David Horowitz.

Anyway, hope this helps your puzzlement. Deep sociological propaganda works. The New Anti-Intellectualism
works.

[DemBones DemBones]

82. Imagine, once Americans would go to hear

political speeches that lasted two hours or more, and listen to them discussing the Gold Standard. They read Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde, and went out to hear them speak, too. Wilde made a very successful tour of the United States. They went to Chautauqua meetings.

And in the Thirties they listened to Senator Huey Long (D-LA). Long was a radical populist. I just decided to read about him a few months ago and was surprised at what I read, having always heard he was just a crook and a demagogue (see the meme?)

But without him, we might not have Social Security, Veterans Benefits, College Financial Aid, Works Progress Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, Graduated Income Tax and Inheritance Tax. (Of course, the Bush administration has gotten rid of the Inheritance Tax and decreased Veterans Benefits, College Financial Aid and probably more, plus making tax cuts that favor the rich.)

Those were all based on ideas he proposed, and some were adopted by FDR, who knew Long would probably challenge him for the presidency. FDR's Second New Deal of 1935, which included Social Security and the WPA (Works Progress Administration) was based on Long's ideas, kind of a pre-emptive strike against his candidacy. So most of what we credit FDR for might not have come about without Huey Long.

Here's some info from hueylong.com:

"In a national radio address in February 1934, Huey Long unveiled a plan called “Share Our Wealth”, a program designed to provide a decent standard of living to all Americans by spreading the nation’s wealth among the people. Long proposed capping personal fortunes at $50 million through a restructured federal tax code and sharing the resulting revenue with the public through government benefits."

"Share Our Wealth Proposal

Limit annual income to one million dollars each (equivalent to about $12 million today)
Limit inheritances to five million dollars each (or $60 million today)
Guarantee every family an annual income of $2,000 (or one-third the national average)
Free college education and vocational training
Old-age pensions for all persons over 60
Veterans benefits and healthcare
A 30 hour work week
A four week vacation for every worker
Long advocated free higher education and vocational training, pensions for the elderly, veterans benefits and health care, and a yearly stipend for all families earning less than one-third the national average income – enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences. Long also proposed shortening the workweek and giving employees a month vacation to boost employment, along with greater government regulation of economic activity and production controls."

Radical, huh? Like Europeans! Or Canadians, Scandinavians, the UK.

"Long charged that the nation’s economic collapse was the result of the vast disparity between the super-rich and everyone else. A recovery was impossible while 95% of the nation’s wealth was held by only 15% of the population. In Long’s view, this concentration of money among a handful of wealthy bankers and industrialists restricted its availability for average citizens, who were already struggling with debt and the effects of a shrinking economy. Because no one could afford to buy goods and services, businesses were forced to cut their workforces, thus deepening the economic crisis through a devastating ripple effect."

Sound familiar? He thought that capitalism had run amok and was a threat to democracy. When accused of socialism he said he based his plan on the Bible and the Constitution. Anyone who's read the Bible knows it talks about providing for those in need

Long asked for grassroots participation by encouraging people to write to him and to form local Share Our Wealth clubs. He was receiving an average of 60,000 letters a week in his Senate office by April, 1935.

"By the summer of 1935, there were more than 27,000 Share Our Wealth clubs with a membership of more than 7.5 million. Loyal followers met every week to discuss Long’s ideas and spread the message. There were no dues, just fellowship and discussion, and membership was open to all races. White supremacists charged that Long was attempting to organize blacks to vote. Long countered that Share Our Wealth was meant to help all poor people, and black people were welcome to participate since they were the poorest people in the country – a radical inclusion for a deeply segregated society."

Imagine that: 7.5 million people in 27,000 local groups. Imagine getting that many people involved in political groups today. People then, I think, realized that it was a lie that anyone could get rich and didn't believe they might be rich someday. Supposedly, that's why people put up with the huge tax cuts for the very rich today; they believe that they could end up in that income bracket. They might if they win a powerball lottery, I suppose, but I'm not sure that even the biggest lottery winnings would put a person in the top tax bracket.

The lottery and television are two things Huey Long didn't have to work against. Would people go out to political meetings today the way they did then? I've seen officers end club meetings early so they wouldn't miss "Survivor." And they were college-educated people and could well afford VCRs. Unbelievable!

Still, maybe it's a possibility. The Dean Meet-Ups were something like that, though I don't think they had 27,000 groups or 7.5 million people or Howard would be in the White House, not running the DNC. His campaign made good use of the internet and got people to get together locally as well as going to the website and donating.

Who could lead a progressive movement? Would it have to be led by a well-known politician?

And would it be safe?

Huey Long was, of course, assassinated. There had been death threats and a drive-by shooting at his home. He increased his security but was shot in the State Capitol on September 8, 1935, and died two days later. More than 100,000 people came to his funeral, also in the Capitol in Baton Rouge.

After JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK, how many people want to make waves?

[FredStembottom]

140. here it is Monday morning, and I am back at this thread!

One of the best in a while at DU! Thanks arendt for getting it going.

DemBones, I have only a sketchy knowledge of Long. And that knowledge begins with the meme "Oh... the Louisiana Crook". It figures that there is soooooo much more to the story.

I think there is a Ken Burns documentary about him. I'm gonna check Netflix for it today.

About 2 weeks ago, I saw some kind of promo about a new Naomi Klein book and/or article that has to do with what you have written above. Unfortunately, it sounds like Klein has fleshed out a thought I only allowed myself on my worst days: that economic justice is the enemy that the elites of America have been at constant battle with for generations.

I better find this new Klein thing before I go further.

Ennaways, nice to see real discussion around here! :hi:

[juno jones]

144. Hmm, where are all of our 'Mandelas'? n/t

[HereSince1628]

69. The poster's profile identifies Indiana, and my point is Indiana

really is a right leaning state. It has been for as long as I can remember. So it isn't really surprising that a person from Indiana would have opinions that are typical of the population in the state.


The bullshit that the DLC feeds us must not be eaten without criticism. THere are plenty of unpleasant menus items and bitter pills to be swallowed. That doesn't mean we must like the taste of any of them.

In my mind it's time to realize that the Democratic base is NOT encumbered to support the dining habits of a self-proclaimed elite and it's corporate sponsors. They can pick up their own tabs and realize that the Corporations have MONEY, but Corporations HAVE NO VOTES.

I personally believe that it's way past time to the Democratic Party back to democracy and taking care of citizens, I also believe that by doing that the votes and money will take care of themselves.

[FredStembottom]

141. Thanks, HereSince.........

I have struggled with that same idea since the 80's. Obviously, a plan that brings jobs and prosperity to multi-millions would engender multi-millions of enthusiastic voters for the party that accomplished that (watch the films of the millions of people who lined the railroad tracks to mourn FDR as his funeral train passed - hundreds of miles of ordinary people!). Nevermind how much money is spent on campaigns!

So I had to ask myself, then, why don't my modern day Democrats ever put forward such plans (and sweep to victory)? Because the party has been co-opted by people who don't want the millions to prosper. Winning elections is now just for show, apparently. The real agenda is to preserve over-privilege for a few - at any cost.

I didn't used to think like this. But the explanation fits.

[juno jones]

142. I agree

One of the things currently worrying me is a certain lack of dialogue regarding using a possible pres+Congress majority to repeal these draconian security acts and restore our constitutional liberties. So far, from what I have observed, there has been no real acknowledgment of the problem, mostly 'business' as usual politics.

[Jim Sagle]

81. Psssst.....he's not "picking up" that talking point, he's spreading it.

[bettyellen]

45. would you mind explaining the "direction" or principles a moderate stands for?

i never ever see his adequately explained with any substance or deatil. pls, help me understand.

[Mythsaje]

124. Straight into the jaws of the monster...

Great direction, btw.

[Donna Zen]

62. Not fair to call them spineless

The DLC can get all fired up when it comes to getting the corporations what they want. The spineless connotation derives from the DLC's habit of wishy-washy mumbling when it comes time to protect the people and the Constitution.

[arendt]

64. Your point is taken. However I said the word "moderate" had become a "synonym for spineless"

you wouldn't believe how paranoid I have gotten about people shifting things slightly
and then beating me up.

I know you meant no offense. But DU has become a real hardball kind of place.

You could say that the DLC takes the position of a "moderate corporaion". I find that
inserting the word "corporation" decodes a lot of the toxic political language. Like
the GOP defending (corporate) freedom.

arendt

[Ken Burch]

101. I wouldn't go blaming Yahweh for "centrists".

The Kahuna's made some mistakes, but THAT one is down to free will.

You can't be moderate about peace, justice, dignity or hope.

And you can't be moderate between the rich and the poor, because that ends up putting you on the side of the rich in the end anyway.

[FredStembottom]

39. I'll go to my grave trying to puzzle out Clinton-love among the Dem grassroots

The devastation wrought by the weird-science global trade theories that Bill made into his legacy is around us everywhere!

Come spend a day in the air-freight van with me some time. Even within the single zip code I service, I can show you a dozen empty factories that were still producing (and employing people) as recently as 15 years ago when I first began the route.

Or, at least I can point to the empty lot where they were torn down recently - or the condos they were turned into (now having 30% vacancy rates).

After lunch we'll focus on the dozens of Mortgage and Title Search office complexes that now comprise about 50% of my route - oh wait! Those are closing one-at-a-time now, too!

But first, we've got to deliver these shipments from China to the K-Mart and the Wal-Mart..... nevermind the K-mart stuff. The K-Mart is closing!

Bill Clinton turned the key that shut America down, baby. He's the anti-FDR. The Great Destroyer of the Middle Class.

Why, oh why do Democrats, with the walls closing in on them, revere this deeply misguided (corrupted?) man?

Why does the DLC exist? Why do they harm us so consistently?

[arendt]

43. He was very slick. There was so much distraction: Monica, Serbia, 98 East Asia meltdown...

It took me until after 911, when I was assessing how to fight back, that I realized he hadn't
done the Dems any good, and had done the working class a lot of harm.

The man was a master of keeping the focus away from what was really going on. He was
a soap opera, and the constant attacks from the right made us Dems rally round our guy,
never noticing that by doing so, all this nasty stuff was slipping under the radar.

I think people treat him like the 1950s - a moment when times were good in America,
a precious memory to think back to in our current torment.

You can't trash Bill because he is the rosary beads that people are praying to for salvation.

Just my opinion.

arendt

[FredStembottom]

56. My anti-Bill tendencies were in full swing during his term.

As a blue-collar worker, I got to see the wages of an entire swath of the American populace freeze or decline while watching the upper 1% party-hardy on the covers of every magazine in the grocery store.

It was like Clinton pushed a button. Click. And my wages were frozen for all of the 90's!
And changing jobs (within blue-collar world) meant further wage cuts as an entire class of people were given as sacrifices on the alter of Free Trade.

I think those who worship at the Church of Clinton could only, possibly be cubicle dwellers who A) still have their jobs or B) are just too new to the intractable wage declines of Globalism. Folks like me are 20 years into it and have NO illusions!

Arendt, I am intrigued by your idea that all the scandals may have actually benn useful to the Bill-ites. That may be a bit too diabolical to believe - but I sure will be thinking about your idea for awhile!

[DemBones DemBones]

83. You know, I can believe that the scandals

were deliberate. Look how Bill is palling around with Poppy Bush today. And Poppy wouldn't sign NAFTA! Barbara Bush calls Bill her other son.

Dems and Republicans socialize in D.C., too. It's all a game to most of them, perhaps. Where's Jimmy Stewart when we need him? ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington")

None of us really know if anything happened between Bill and Monica or between Bill and Gennifer Flowers or between Bill and Paula Jones and all the others he supposedly had affairs with or made passes at -- or raped.

It could have all been a ruse to let the right play moral outrage while the rest of us said "Yeah, it's wrong that he cheated on his wife but this is a problem between them, not something to impeach him for," and were pissed about the impeachment, while all sorts of things were happening that we weren't seeing, largely because Clinton's sex life was all the media yammered about for a year or two, and they still go back to it frequently.

It's hard to trust anyone in government or corporations anymore. What has been done with outsourcing and bringing in Indian workers to work for less than the Americans they replace, all of that, is just outrageous.

[FredStembottom]

143. You're pushing me towards arendts theory, DemBones!

:crazy: Afterall, one of the striking features of the Clinton impeachment is how feeble the response was. Impeachment for an extra-marital affair?????

The whole scandal could have been knocked down at a dozen different times before ever reaching a place where Clinton could be caught in a lie that had no relevance to anyone in the world - except Hillary.

I still feel that the Clintons lost too much money and respect for it all to have been on purpose - but so much is diversion these days. It's really all there is in American politics anymore. Diversion.

[DemBones DemBones]

147. You're correct that they lost money and respect BUT

they're in high cotton now. They've both made a ton of money off books, Bill gets very high fees for speaking, and Hillary is "the inevitable nominee/next president." Not too shabby a recovery. Imagine if all Americans had done that well, proportionately, in the past eight years?

It does seem that the presidency is just something the real leaders behind the scenes pass back and forth between parties to convince us we have a democracy and that our votes count. 2000 destroyed that illusion for me.

And all the while the media said that the SCOTUS choosing the president was an illustration of American democracy in action and how in other countries there would have been riots and tanks in the streets. I don't know why we didn't take to the streets to protest, not riot, except that we were in shock. I've often said here and elsewhere that 12/12/2000 was like 11/22/63 to me. Both times there was an intense shock and the feeling "This can't be happening here in the US."

[KoKo]

157. Dem Bones...we were so busy defending the Clintons we couldn't see what was going on

in the background all those years... now we know...

[Greyhound]

59. First and foremost, and this is coming from one who thinks he did more to hurt America

than even arbusto_®, he is without doubt, the most charismatic person I've ever met.

I never understood what the charisma of Hitler was that people talked about, having only grainy B & W films and bad recordings of a language I don't understand, until I saw Bill Clinton. If you've never been in a room with him, or maybe Jack Kennedy (again no real reference), you just can't know.

Second, he won. We hadn't been in the White House for 12 incredibly long years and I firmly believe it warped us. It's like when a junkie loads up his spike with what he knows is badly cut, possibly lethal, shit, it's all he has and at that moment, it is the best shit in the world.

Third, he is brilliant, and one of the smoothest salesmen on the planet, and like any good salesman, completely unhindered by a conscience. When he tells you that "he feels your pain", you just know that he wouldn't lie to you and you simply forget that he is the one turning the screw.

If only he had used his power for good.:dilemma:

[arendt]

60. Agreed. But having Rush, et al, attack him for being slick turned slick into a "no go" zone...

I remember the first thing I heard about him, early in the primaries was that "Slick Willie" taunt.
And, I fell for it. I never questioned the man's sincerity until it was way too late.

I have often referred to him as a "standover man" - Australian for a gangster who only robs
from other gangsters (because, are they going to call the cops?) I thought he just had blackmail
on Bush for all the Mena, AK stuff. But, then, it turned out that he robbed the middle class big
time.

Now, he and Bush Sr. are the best of friends. Says it all.

arendt

[arendt]

85. Ah. The ignores have arrived. Late, as usual. The thread must be over. n/t

[Greyhound]

126. I remember when he was elected, I had such high hopes. "Finally," I thought.

"we can start to get this country back on track toward a future wort living in".

It tool me over a year to figure out his game, he is very good at it.

[cali]

79. WTF????

Yes, I know you have me on ignore. This is for other people on this thread.

Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton (and I am not a huge BC fan) did more to hurt America than bushie, is just out of it.

Your inability to see the difference between bill clinton and bush, is nothing short of astounding.

Just wow.

[Greyhound]

119. Without Clinton finishing the work Raygun and 41 started shrub couldn't have done most of what he's

done. Decimating the working class, "welfare reform", GATT, NAFTA, WTO, IMF, T-Comm Act, corporate consolidation, permanent MFN status for China, H-1(b) and L-1 visas, and the rest, all of these were essential to shrub's coup and looting of the treasury.

Without Clinton, Shrub would have had to spend his time enacting these. Raygun, 41, Clinton, 16 years laying the groundwork made all we have seen and all that's to come possible.

[Greyhound]

120. I don't have anybody on ignore, I'm always interested in what people

have to say. It's better if they can back it up, but this is an anonymous message board so I take what I can get.

[ProudDad]

123. Actually, next to sandra day o'conner

I'd put Clinton on the short list of the major reasons bush was able to easily steal the electoral college in 2000.

His pro-corporate policies lost Gore the support of most of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party...

[Greyhound]

125. Another one I forgot to mention, but then there are so many, it is hard to remember them all. n/t

[Greyhound]

148. Apparently Cali isn't interested in debate or facts, big surprise? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

150. I don't have you on Ignore and

can't see any posts from you upthread so maybe arendt wasn't talking about you?

Just saying.

Clinton was a bridge between the two Bushes, signing NAFTA, supporting WTO, "ending welfare as we know it," maintaining sanctions against Iraq that hurt Iraqi children, not Saddam, etc. Later on, his Secretary of State said the deaths of those thousands of Iraqi children were "worth it."

Remind me of something good that Clinton did, besides give good speeches. Not being as bad as Bush is not much of an accomplishment.

[earth mom]

68. Great Post! It's no wonder "good ole" Bill is Poppy Bush's BFF now is it?

:puke:

And oh yeah, Bill is in now in charge of MILLIONS or is it BILLIONS? of charity funds! Heaven help those who really need that money! :grr:

[xchrom]

47. recommend

[Breeze54]

49. You have stated my position to a T!

Thank You for putting it into words so nicely!

I'm saving a copying this! ;)

K&R

[stimbox]

54. Totally recommended

Thanks for laying it out.

[LWolf]

66. K, R, and I'll check back in later when my chores are done! n/t

[pinto]

71. re: delegates, 'super delegates' and the Democratic Party convention process:

shameless reiteration from an OP I made in GD, but it may be pertinent here, for some brief history and current delegate representation in our nominating process. pinto

Some highlights of recent Democratic convention rules disputes

Although it did not have a formal set of rules before 1972, the Democratic Party operated with two controversial rules from its earliest conventions.

The UNIT RULE enabled the majority of a delegation to cast the entire vote of the delegation for one candidate or position. The unit rule was abolished by the 1968 convention.

The TWO-THIRDS NOMINATING RULE mandated candidates for president and vice president were required to win a
two-thirds majority vote (as opposed to a simple majority). The two-thirds nominating rule was abolished in 1936
because the rule produced seven multi-ballot conventions between the years of 1832 and 1932.

Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota was an unmitigated disaster as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972.
But he had a lasting impact on the party through his work as first chairman of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection. Because of the McGovern committee's work, it is no longer possible for small groups of state party officials to handpick convention delegates, tell them whom to vote for and, in effect, choose the party nominee without consulting the voters. (Hubert Humphrey was the last such candidate -- he received the 1968 nomination despite having won NO primaries or caucuses.)

Beginning with reforms proposed by the McGovern panel, the Democratic party "democratized" the presidential selection process through a succession of commissions between 1968 and 1992. This series of changes succeeded in

1) crafting rules to guarantee better representation for women, young people and minorities;

2) secured PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION of delegates, based on state primary or caucus results (eliminating winner-take-all allocation of delegates); and

3) gave convention votes to party leaders and elected officials (they are nicknamed SUPERDELEGATES and are allowed to remain uncommitted until the convention).

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/rules/index.shtml

***********************************************

Rules

On February 2, 2007, the Democratic Party published its Call for the Convention, which are the rules governing the convention. There will be 3,515 pledged delegates which will be selected by primary voters and caucus participants, and 852 unpledged delegates, colloquially known as superdelegates, which are DNC members, Democratic members of Congress and Governors, and other important figures in the party.

The pledged delegates are allocated among the states in rough proportion to the proportion of votes each state gave the Democratic candidate in the last three Presidential elections and the percentage of votes each state has in the Electoral College.

In addition, fixed numbers of delegates are allocated for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad.

Under the party's Delegate Selection Rules, delegates are awarded via proportional representation with a minimum threshold of 15% of votes in a state in order to receive delegates. In addition, the delegate population must reflect the state's ethnic distribution, and at least 50% of the delegates must be women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_National_Convention

[arendt]

74. Thanks for the pointer. We are going to have to do this by the book. This helps. n/t

[spag68]

100. DLC

I don't have much to say except I'm on your side arendt. At 65 I've sen much ,and this dlc is a throwback to the old smoke filled rooms but much worse.

[defendandprotect]

106. Wait a minute on those smoke filled rooms . . ..

We are now letting candidates totally self-select -- most do it based on knowing they can raise $ --
they aren't grassroots people --

While I understand your argument I remember someone saying that what we do now is like a corporation letting the public decide who their candidate for CEO will be --

Didn't Adlai Stevenson come out of those smoke filled rooms -- JFK --
and many others -- like FDR . . . ??

Again, I'm not totally arguing against what you are saying -- but not totally with it.

[Ken Burch]

111. The "Superdelegates" are not a result of the McGovern reforms, but a rollback of them

The DLC continues to hold to the myth that the Dems lost in '72 because the convention wasn't restricted enough to bitter, cynical, ideal-hating old white men.

The idea of superdelegates was to put a large bloc of conservative, antihope and anti-Rainbow hacks in position to stop a charismatic progressive candidate from being nominated.

This ended up having little effect, because unfortunately, we had repeated primary contests in which the blandest, lamest, most uninspiring candidate(Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry)was imposed on the whole party basically because New Hampshire and Iowa liked them.
We know what this led to.

The McGovern reforms weren't the cause of the 1972 train wreck: the Nixon dirty tricks and the sabotauge of the McGovern fall campaign by the party insiders were the cause. It's time for the lies to stop on this.

Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey would ALSO have lost 49 states that fall, especially after the Nixon China trip made electing a Democratic Cold Warrior a pointless idea.

[JTFrog]

78. FTDLC.

[GeorgeGist]

89. IMO: Ridicule is exactly what is needed ...

to confront the clusterphucking panderists; without mercy.

[bvar22]

91. Beware of the DSCC and the DCCC.

The DLC heads both organizations, and have turned them into well financed tools to manipulate Democratic Primaries in favor of DLC candidates.

In 2004, I personally witnessed the DCCC torpedo the locally financed campaign of a progressive grassroots supported candidate for the House. Representatives of the DCCC contacted donors and threatened them with economic retaliation if they continued to support the Progressive candidate. They also demanded matching contributions for the DLC approved candidate.

Please read this thread for details. The posts by scottymortensen are by the candidate .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207#14367

The DSCC was also a factor in the 2006 Senatorial campaign, using donations from Democrats and their establishment connections to influence the PRIMARY so that their DLC approved puppet won the Primary. Amy Klobuchar went on to win the Senate seat in 2006, and has joined with the Republicans on many important votes.

The point is, the DSCC and the DCCC are using Democratic donations and their National Democratic Party infrastructure to rig Democratic Primaries in favor of DLC candidates.
It is little wonder that on crucial, economic votes, there are enough DLC puppets who cross over and vote with the Republicans to ensure Corporate victory.
Our donations to the DCCC and DSCC helped pay for OUR defeat.

I have stopped donating directly to the DSCC and the DCCC. I send donations DIRECTLY to the candidates who best represent the ISSUES I support. I also continue supporting the DNC as long as Dean is in The Chair.


The DCCC and DSCC have NO BUSINESS interfering in local Democratic Primaries!!!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[janx]

93. The DCCC called me once, asking for money...

I gleefully told them that I'd donate if I could, but that I had just given whatever I could spare to the DNC!

:rofl:

[Dr.Phool]

97. I hear that.

I spent 18 months working for a friend, a progressive congressional candidate, and watched the DLC and DCCC torpedo us. They dried up all our fundraising. I know personally of at least 3 other candidates they did the same thing to. We tried to get John Edwards to record a robo call for us, but he said the request had to come through the DCCC. They never did it. Mas Cleland committed to record one, but said it had to come through the State Party Chair, and she drug her feet for weeks until the Friday before the election before she made the call.

And the DLC Congresswoman, who was in charge of "Turn Florida Blue" gave a damn near explicit endorsement of the incumbent repuke in the race.

[defendandprotect]

107. How does the DLC control ALL Democratic Party funds -- ??? Is that what you're saying????

And -- yes -- I always give directly to a candidate -- not to the organization --

[bvar22]

110. No. I said they (DLC) control the DCCC and DSCC,

and that they use the donations they solicit nationally to fund DLC candidates in some Democratic Primaries, and that they (DLC) use the "Party Aparatus" (Democratic Party Infrastructure) to manipulate Democratic Primaries to favor DLC Corporate Approved candidates.

These National Democratic fundraising organizations have absolutely NO Business interfering in local Democratic Primaries.

[defendandprotect]

114. Understand the manipulation, but not entirely the money hook --

They're soliciting NATIONALLY as what will appear to many to be the Democratic Party --
tho you make clear the distinction is DSCC and DCCC.
Is that correct? The appearance and confusion that may benefit them?

Those who contribute then are supporting the DLC and DLC candidates -- not all candidates.

Also, wouldn't it always be common for national parties to help local candidates?

[defendandprotect]

116. I've given to them without knowing they represent DLC/DLC candidates -- probably many do!!!

[cosmicdot]

92. we could use some serious campaign finance reform ...

we could use some serious campaign finance reform ...


which could open more participation in the process vs. just the well-to-do few


... but, getting that falls back into the getting out of the DLC trap ... the DLCers aren't leading any reform to end the current money game ... the amount of money and corporate influence pouring into 'Democrats' coffers would make Nixon jealous ... nor are the DLCers (and, in case of not being official DLC cardholders, 'centrists'/corporatists) leading to bring about paper ballots and hand counts ... the primaries will be held on the same equipment, with the same proprietary source code and software as those which help shift power in the Senate in 2002/2004 (helping to embolden and enable the Bu$h-Cheney agenda) and which re-selected Bu$h in 2004 as CEO ... and, of course, the corporate media continue its helping hand to prop up and boost the DLCers as our 'decision makers'.

Do we need individual candidates having their personal PAC treasuries? Those might be used to buy support ... via IOUs ... PACs could be seen as a form of 'think tank' whereby people contribute money (to as many think tank clones in existence) to help prop up and perpetuate their political power, influence and philosophy; and, help maintain TPTB's power and control ... personal PACs, in a way, could be seen as a new form of political machines ... who needs a state-ran machine boss when one can be their own, on a national scale, via a 'networking' scheme ... set up a PAC, collect contributions, dole them out to various campaigns ... sort of an IOU to collect later.

I had thought the party reforms brought about circa 1968 and 1972 had altered the Party to be a more democratic organization ... apparently, that has been nipped in the bud ... plus, we can't have dissent at the convention ... 'makes us look bad' ... no more exciting floor challenges ... no more lettuce boycotters ... no more platform challenges ... the conventions have been reduced to orchestrated infomercials ... doesn't help spark 'change'.

I see bvar22 brought up about the DSCC and the DCCC. Reported Marc Rich bud and DLC Rahm Emmanuel gets elected to Congress in 2002, begins serving in 2003, and catapults to 'head up' the DCCC in 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel#Election_in_2002. Do Congress members with more tenure feel at all slighted? Tenure doesn't matter in deciding House leadership? In a private sector job, don't most people feel slighted when a promotion passes them by after years of service and good performance? Maybe no one wanted the job, but, who knows.

[D23MIURG23]

94. Im a registered independant.

That is the only approach to partisanship that makes sense to me anyway. I vote for policies, not parties.

[defendandprotect]

108. What if we all registered with the Green Party?

By the way . . . . keep in mind that both Dems and Repugs work to keep third parties from getting on the ballot.

And that the Democrats have infiltrated and co-opted the Green Party which certainly effected the last go-around with no third party candidate having any influence on issues ---

THIRD PARTIES ARE IMPORTANT . . . . they are kind of like unions; they are a floor under wages.
Same with third parties -- they bring forth issues which the two parties have agreed, basically, NOT to discuss!!!

Third parties usually are representing and attracting the general public -- not the few.

Third parties also usually present more of an opportunity for candidates without wealthy friends to run for office.

IMO, third parties are important to our nation --
I'm always thrilled to hear them speak about issues that are never mentioned -- or taboo --
on Dem or Repug lips -- like legalizing drugs or taxing the churches!!!

Why then are Democrats and Republicans hampering third parties?

[D23MIURG23]

137. The Green Party (in my area at least) isn't such a hot option.

All they want to stump about around here is devestment from Israel. We actually had people running for city council on that platform!

Perhaps what we need is a "progressive party" that adopts the same sort of positions the Democrats used to before they sold thier souls to the corporate establishment. If enough people defected the Democrats would be forced to either deliver on the more popular issues, or be undermined electorally.

I don't feel very comfortable with any third parties currently in existance though.

[defendandprotect]

145. Registering ONLY is the concept . . . . not necessarily working with Greens ---

# of registrations counts for something . . . .
so you could be hurting Dems and Democratic future if you move your registration from Dems to Independent, for instance, or to Greens.

If a lot of people did it for a short period of time, might send a message?

We need a "progressive party" but I don't think we should turn the Democratic Party over to the DLC . . . I think we should take it back!!! THAT would be a lot easier, wouldn't it???

Israel, IMO, is under right-wing fanatical control and closely aligned with our neo-con fanatics . . . and both are armed with atomic weapons!!! Not good . . .

Israel used to be liberal . . . their liberals were overturned with the assassination of Rabin by religious fanatics there -- "Murder In The Name of God" . . .

Nixon armed right-wing fanatical Israel -- and here we are now -- their weapons manufacturing is so closely intertwined with America's that evidently you can't tell the difference between them!!!

[D23MIURG23]

149. just a couple points.

Concerning Israel and the Green party, I have my issues with the way Israel operates, its just that for me the conflict between Israel and Palistine is one peice of a larger picture, and I get the feeling that for a lot of Greens it is the ENTIRE picture. If I switched my registration to the Green party I feel that I would only send the message that I have an unhealthy obsession with (and a hardline stance on) one particular problem that needs dealing with.

The other piece is that the formation of a progressive party would really be the ploy to wrest control from the DLC types. My conjecture is that if the Democratic bigwigs saw thier party literally splitting in half, they would begin to see the need to move left and recapture votes they were loosing. In American history effective third parties have always either been absorbed by a major party or been the Republicans, who became a major party during the decline of the whigs.

[defendandprotect]

153. Eh . . . . . . let's try again on my post . . . .

Again -- I wasn't suggesting that anyone here work with the Green Party --
Just using the process of changing registration -- temporarily -- to try to send a message to the Dems . . .

Again -- there are reprecussions to changing registration -- it can negatively impact Dems -- something in the long run we may not want to do.

OK -- now . . . on to separate issue of Greens --
Greens have a very broad and liberal platform -- you should check it out sometime -- and Nader's platform was even better!!! These are dream platforms!!!

Israel is NOT the entire issue for Greens -- !!!
You can tap into one of their websites -- or even ask for e-mail from them -- and for a while you can see all the issues.

As for Israel, itself, we have let this get too far out of hand --
The sentiment for suffering Jews in the world was correct -- but we must remember that every people have a right wing. The GOP formula has long been to deal with the most fanatical of right-wingers around the world -- from Afghanistan to Israel. Nixon ARMED right-wing Israel bringing an end to liberal Israel. In Afghanistan, for instance, As Brz has told us . . . . "the US went into Afghanistan six months before the Russians ..... in order to bait Russia into Afghanistan .....
in hopes of giving them a Vietnam type experience." Keep in mind, we also created the Taliban/Al Qaeda thru Pakistan's ISI and our CIA -- our funding paid for it.
So the method is to use the most rabidly right-wing forces in order to destroy liberalism and any hope of democracy.

Back to "progressive party."
A "ploy" . . . ????
And, I don't think that the DLCers are half -- I think far, far less --
how would we check that????
Well, maybe you can start a thread with that idea and see what comes of it -- ?

I hope I understood all you were saying ---

PS: Also notice my post #109 which refers back to a very interesting comment by someone on a Progressive Convention -- I think it's a great idea!!

[illinoisprogressive]

98. Simply, people need to reject the DLC candidate that is running

[defendandprotect]

115. With the presidential candidates, how many do we have to "reject" as DLC -- ?????

[DemBones DemBones]

151. Everybody except Kucinich and

Gravel is my guess. I think the DLC would sponsor any of the others.

[defendandprotect]

109. Progressive Independent Convention -- Great idea!!!

QUOTE --Take control of our own lives. The DLC holds independent conventions. It's time that Progressive Democrats did the same, and did them with much higher profile and used them to identify democrats who support progressive agendas and who would be identified by progressives as electable.

[Desertrose]

117. Good post.....

So tired of front-loaded primaries.

[bjobotts]

122. Just look at who comprises the DLC. The comfortable corporate liberals

Diane Feinstein comes to mind...she broke with her own party in committee and allowed a far right wing Bush nominee to 4th district court of appeals (Just under the Supreme Crt) to come to the senate floor for a vote. Whose advice did she follow...Trent "run for your lives DC will be attacked by terrorists unless dems sing the new FISA bill" Lott. "He must know what he's talking about" she says after admitting she didn't even read his entire bio.

These are the same people who without fail have voted repeatedly to increase Bush's executive power, vote with repubs to condemn dissent without making it's condemnation bi-partisan. Patriot act, MCA, Protect America, Didn't even know what Caging was at the Goodling hearing when she mentioned it. Hell, Feinstein's husband is a war profiteer...a defense contractor.
Dem. Senator Nelson from Nebraska who voted against his own party to allow Hons von Spas.(sp.?) who was forced to resign from the DoJ civil rights division when he admitted to hiring loyal Bushies and was suppressing democratic voters with new ID laws etc to allow this Bush nominee out of committee and onto the senate floor for a vote to put him on the Federal Elections Commission for a six yr. term...what explanation could he possibly give for allowing that except that he was bribed or bought. This guy has made it his mission to suppress Democratic voters and he allows his nomination to go forward. Tie breaking vote to side with the repubs. ??
The DLC are the comfortable dems who are well rewarded with campaign contributions and family contracts to not push for any legislation that isn't "safe" calling themselves bi-partisan when the real word is phoney.

I resent you suggesting that anyone can get rid of Kucinich with "one arm tied behind their back" as I've seen the man in action and nobody can do that to Dennis Kucinich...the only real change Democrats are offering. The DLC just wants to pretend he doesn't exist, and mounds of polls and press literally try to 'cut him out of the picture'...but the numbers are lies and he is the only real representative of the progressive Democratic party.
The press is just throwing everybody else at us hoping we will forget...it's called name recognition...the press doesn't want us to hear his name...they know he is the only one they can't buy and it scares hell out of them.
The press want us to believe the DLC is the 'way'...the strength but they are the cowards to most of us for funding the war and for ignoring impeachment. If we knew this is what these dems would do...we wouldn't have wasted our votes for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. "focus on who can win, instead of what we want from government"

Vote the damn issues! This is a great post. We have to turn the false noise machine off and use what is left of our critical facilities. Vote for the candidate who is actually promoting the issues you support.

[MethuenProgressive]

130. Dems split into 2 partys = GOP landslide.

Real progressives want Progress, and Progress means winning elections.

[arendt]

131. Sorry. Already outed this DLC meme. See my journal article on Co-IntelJoe...

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 didnít have anything to contribute. But, when I read the quote above, it all just clicked for me.

Just check the points:

1) Message doesnít get out - has the Democratic Party had any message discipline, or are some Democrats constantly sabotaging every attempt to tell the truth about Bushís lies on the grounds that ìweî canít look ìangryî?

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.

[MethuenProgressive]

134. Not "meme", it's just "math"

The head-in-the-sand wing of our party needs a calculator:
www.calculator.com
Now, go do the math.

[Desertrose]

139. I have seen this so often arendt, here & elsewhere...

Wow. Well put. So true.


Great post...am saving this for future references.


DR

[DemBones DemBones]

154. "CoIntel-Joe" LIEberman has been

called worse, and deserved it.

Great OP, arendt! I'm proud to say I was the first to recommend it. :D

Glad this has developed into such a good thread, instead of sinking as so many good OPs do. It's a hopeful sign.

[DemBones DemBones]

152. Winning elections is NOT progress unless

progressives are elected.

Clark/Richardson :eyes:

[rucky]

136. First of all, I would not count out a candidate solely on DLC membership.

Political types join all kinds of organizations - usually benign and meaningless - just to pad their resume. It is the first criteria.

The second criteria is to follow the money: major contributors. It's okay to take some corproate money - that how this unfortunate game is played, and untill the rules change...

The third is to follow the platform by asking the question: Who benefits? (it's okay to benefit commerce, but not at the expense of the people). When you have all the information, think it's pretty obvious when a candidate is going to sell us down the river or not.

I'm trying to ignore rhetoric from DU-ers and the candidates themselves and focus on their plans and motivations for their plans - unless they have no specific plans, but that counts them out for other reasons.

[natrat]

138. at this point though anyone who associates with a criminal group is questionable

[KoKo]

155. "...a lot of time leaving liberal allies twisting in the wind and triangulating away..."

The more that we know that comes out and what we see with our own eyes...the worse it gets.

An opportunity wasted which caused so much suffering. And, NOW we are asked to give a chance for a repeat...yet neither has said anything they did ...would they change. What a waste.

[sampsonblk]

156. DLC to liberals: call yourselves "progressives" during this cycle

[DearAbby]

159. We all know what that immovable object is in the middle

of the road, roadkill. Just maintain the status quo. that is what center means to me. You could go right and regress back into the middle ages, or you could go left and progress into the future, but the center isn't going anywhere, it just stays there. The immovable object.


It would be better if the two parties were distinctly different...yes?