Read what the DLC has to say about "Liberal Fundamentalism" & Joe

[bloom]

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | June 2, 2006

The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

Democrats are rightly enthusiastic about the opportunities afforded in this fall's midterm elections to recapture control of Congress and reverse the narrow Republican advantage of the last two electoral cycles. But there's an undertow that could undermine the potential Democratic tide: efforts by some Democratic activists and organizations to introduce ideological litmus tests for elected officials and intimidate or even purge those who do not meet a narrow definition of what makes a "real Democrat." These efforts not only threaten party unity and divert attention and resources from the broader goal of defeating Republicans; they also signal an intolerance toward dissent and diversity that can repel voters and make an enduring Democratic majority more difficult to achieve.

This phenomenon is best illustrated by the nationally driven campaign to deny re-nomination to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), with MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (an organization founded by DNC chairman Howard Dean and now run by his brother, Jim) playing an especially active role in recruiting money and volunteers for the challenger, Ned Lamont.

We deplore this purge effort because Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator. He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide -- as he did when he went to Mississippi to fight for civil rights in 1964. He is a man who always puts his country above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today's far too polarized politics. We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party.

Lieberman served as DLC chairman for six years, handing over the gavel to Sen. Evan Bayh after the 2000 presidential elections. But opposition to this kind of intra-party purge is also a matter of tradition for us: One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats and require adherence to litmus tests devised by interest groups and ideological advocates. The Democratic Party today is far more unified in its basic values and policy positions than it was two decades ago, and also urgently needs to expand its electoral and geographical base. There's less of an excuse than ever to indulge in liberal fundamentalism, litmus tests, intimidation of dissenters, and purges, and much more to lose from shrinking the party's big tent....

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253901&kaid=131&subid=192

Is the DLC going to finally just say that they are a different party - from the Democrats. I sure hope so. They have sure made it clear that they don't agree with us "Liberal Fundamentalists" and don't think that as politicians that they need to represent us.

[LiberalVoice]

1. And what have you done in the last 6 years Mr. and Mrs. DLC?

...Besides lose elections that is?

[Quantess]

20. touche'.

:toast:

[ixion]

2. The DLC: destroying the democratic party from the inside out

[Skidmore]

3. This monrning on the local NPR station, Vilsack was quoted as saying

that he didn't see Lieberman's loss as a referendum on anything.

[patdem]

4. Maybe they can join the 'new' party CT for Lieberman?

hey, it's a political party...let them join!

[elehhhhna]

5. "WE DEPLORE" our party's VOTERS? FVCK THE DLC!

[saracat]

6. This is old . I wonder what they will say now as the very people they

quote have endorsed Ned.

[bloom]

8. It's from June 2

as I included the date.

I just found it - but I think it's interesting considering the circumstances. And how Lieberman is reacting.

[elehhhhna]

7. RECD> THIS SHIT HAS GOT TO STOP. NOW.

Here's the lineup:



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

[HereSince1628]

9. An attempt at pre-emptive strike on anti-incumbents it's a futile

attempt to keep momentum from building. And in their lunacy don't realize that the oxymoron "Liberal Fundamentalism" is a rhetorical ploy that actually makes them sound like Bush. Whoops!

[GeorgeGist]

10. Dear DLC,

We regret to inform you but Connecticut Democrats don't recognize your leadership anymore.

Sincerely,

Friends of Lamont

[bloom]

11. If that's not bad enough - Cheney was talking about Dems "purging" Joe

So Cheney and the DLC are using the same talking points.

As the Mideast sits on the brink of regional war, Vice President Dick Cheney spent his time yesterday holding a teleconference to discuss the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut.

Cheney said that to “purge a man like Joe Lieberman” was “of concern, especially over the issue of Joe’s support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x228153

[calico1]

12. Dear DLC, this CT voter says...

Fuck you and go get a clue!!!:mad:

[readmoreoften]

13. I think we support every view except toadying up to Bush.

The DLCers just can't stop "reaching across the aisle" to work with fascists.

[Taoschick]

14. If

There were a litmus test, Cynthia McKinney would have won her primary based on her anti-war stance. I think the voters of Connecticut were just tired of Lieberman and like what they heard from Lamont.

[Reckon]

15. So the DLC coined the phrase "liberal fundamentalism"?

Are they really trying to help the Democrats!.. NOT with BS like that!

I'm glad Feingold spoke out about the DLC. A sea change is coming and the corporate ho's are worried!

[bloom]

17. It sounds like they are trying to tie "liberals" with "terrorists"

or something.

It makes no sense for any liberal person to think that the DLC is on their side. Does they DLC really think that there are so few liberals? Or that so few people were against the war - it's over 60% (of all Americans) now. Or that people are going to keep voting for people who do not represent them?

That writer (anonymously) arguing that Democrats should have supported Lieberman even though they disagreed with him. It makes no sense.

S/he even mentions something about Lieberman and the civil rights era "he went to Mississippi to fight for civil rights in 1964"- do we have to go back that far to find agreement? :crazy:

[Recursion]

16. DLC still doesn't get it

They think people voted for Clinton because he was "less liberal" than previous democrats. Wrong.

People voted for Clinton because they believed he knew what he was talking about, cared about what he was talking about, and had good solutions for the problems the country faced.

People think this is strange but I definitely believe it: Democrats moving to the right makes Republican voters like us less, not more. It makes us look opportunistic and spineless. I believe very strongly that more Republicans would have voted for Dean than voted for Kerry, because they respected the fact that Dean staked out a position and fought for it.

[Jacobin]

18. These people are the enemy

They are cravenly grasping to stay on the corporate money band wagon. They are the enemy. They are worse than republicans, because at least republicans don't (usually, except in the case of Joe) pretend that they are part of your organization or are 'there to help you'

[bloom]

19. 'there to help you'

It really shows that they had no argument to make to support him.

They argue that people should vote for people that they disagree with - that it is mean-spirited to vote against people you disagree with. And suggests that Lieberman is like one of us - because he dissents from what we are about.

It's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever read.


They are the enemy - and Lieberman is proving it by running against Lamont in the general election.

[mom cat]

41. The DLC has its litmus test too: How many digets go after the dollar sign,

I certainly do not pass their litmus test for inclusion.

[Iowa]

43. Yep, this organization is the enemy.

There's no one quite so destructive as an "insider" who employs subterfuge to weaken the organization to which he/she swears allegiance... all on behalf of the enemy and/or self-interest.

It really isn't so much a matter of differing views - it's a matter of honor, conviction, and integrity. And ALL parties should gladly purge those who would presume to lead while lacking these basic, requisite character traits - for the good of the party, the nation, and the people.

[mmonk]

45. The republicans are the obvious enemy in front us,

with the DLC, we have to watch our backs.

[originalpckelly]

21. The people are a bunch of ASSHOLES!!! WTF? Really?

Liberal Fundamentalism? You people are in some deep shit.

[ComerPerro]

22. we aren't fundimentalists. We are "values voters"

[bloom]

28. And Joe Lieberman has values

see - they said so - "He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles" - and people were supposed to vote for him just because he had "values" - even if his values were different values from our values. Since having values is all that matters. :sarcasm:

How dare we expect our politicians to have similar values to our own - it's supposed to be a big tent. Joe's tent has the Military Industrial Complex and Big Pharma and Enron and who knows who all - and we are being "Liberal Fundamentalists if we don't like it. And snooty to boot. At least that is what the DLCs rant sounded like to me.

[myrna minx]

23. Ah, so We the People should stay the hell out of politics.

We should just leave it to the "benevolent dictators" of the DLC? :puke: I mean, how dare the good people of Connecticut choose their own candidate to represent them?!?111 Won't someone think of the children?!?111

[Bretttido]

24. So this is what the DLC is about?

I was up in the air about what to think about you, but now you've shown the light DLC. You sound like a Republican talking-point. "Liberal Fundamentalism"? Is that what you've spent the last decade doing? Losing elections while you came up with a talking point that would seek to belittle your own constituents? I will never support a single member of the DLC and will do everything in my power to see it wither and die. Because you see, the DLC is not made up of voters. No, my friends, it is made up of long-time politicians who are too corrupt with power to understand who it is they are supposed to be representing. In this instance, they feel they are representatives of Joe Lieberman; a man who has the same mentality, a devotion to sustaining his own power over the will of the people he was once chosen to represent. If Joe was your candidate, then fine, talk him up all you want. But at the end of the day, the DEMOCRATIC voters voted, and your side lost. The only thing you deplore is losing power. And you just lost big time.

[MadHound]

25. In other words, what the DLC is saying

Is please don't hold them for reponsible for kissing Bush ass, promoting an illegal, immoral war despite the fact that the majority of Dems, not to mention the majority of Americans are against it, or demand that they actually represent the will of the people instead of the wishes of their corporate masters.

They took a look at the Lieberman debacle and started getting scared shitless. Good, about damn time that they started feeling the heat.

[Vincardog]

30. Good, about damn time that they started feeling the heat. AND quit chasing

the GD mythical middle. I want a politician to stand up on principals.

One who is FOR:
TAXING CORPORATE PROFITS NOT PERSONNEL WAGES
Government of oversight of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Equal rights for EVERYBODY
Full employment
Every worker working for a LIVING WAGE
Universal Single payer HEALTH CARE
Quality FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION Thur BS/BA level
OPEN FAIR ELECTIONS (Paper Ballots/Hand counts/random checks)
Respect for the environment
The END OF CORPORATE "PERSON HOOD"
Public financing of elections.

There are More what would you add?

[MadHound]

33. Oh you've covered quite a few of my favorites

Let me add

Get out, and stay out of these illegal, immoral wars for empire and oil
Start a crash program to promote clean, alternative, renewable energy sources so that within ten years we are no longer dependent on fossil fuels.
Tax the rich like FDR did!
I think you've got the rest covered:thumbsup: If I think of any more, I'll be back:hi:

[Vincardog]

34. Thanks for your support. WE are going to Kick a$$ in November

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. RFK Jr has said that 95% of the GOP congressmen and 75% of the Dems

are CORRUPT.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2999611

I think he's right. Oh, there are plenty who are sort of a dark grey instead of dead black, but the incentives of most of these people do not lean toward doing the right thing for the majority of their constituents. It's corporate power/money and hidden deals.

We have to either remove them from office, as with Lieberman, or force them to see that ignoring the public good to gorge at the trough and hobnob with the powerful is UNACCEPTABLE and that they must change their direction. I suspect that they will never change, just as Lieberman even now is insisting that in effect he has a right to that Senate seat and will stop at nothing to hang onto it. These are NOT "public servants" - they are the coddled tools of lobbyists and the enemies of healing change.

[bloom]

32. That does sound about right.

I can imagine a Republican thinking that the numbers are reversed and that is their reason for being a Republican.


One thing that gets me - with this DLC piece - they don't even think that they have to TRY to sound like they are for the things that the electorate are for. We're supposed to vote for these people whether we disagree with them or not. And they shouldn't be expected to represent us. Like we are just expecting too much.

[Nothing Without Hope]

53. I think it was Gore Vidal who said "There is only one party, the party of

property." (I may be slightly off on the wording, but this is the essence.) He clearly wasn't speaking about honest people like John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, and those who stand with them. But the rotten, lobbyist-bound DLC people who see progressive thought as a threat that must be vilified with a made-up name like "liberal fundamentalism" and eradicated, they are no better than the worst of the Republicans. In fact, they are just like the worst of the Republicans except they pretend harder. But now, looks like they feel it's almost to the point when they don't even have to bother to pretend. Very, very scary.

[shanti]

61. you are spot on!

watching loserman is like watching a cornered rat.

[Fovea]

27. another sickening moment

when I can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Onion without checking the URL.

Will Pitt, the terror plot skepticism from we tin foilers is not the only disconnect in town.
The disconnect is the natural fugue of a party finding a new center.

[bloom]

31. The DLC opinion piece makes no more sense than a joke

and less sense than a lot of jokes.

[CrushTheDLC]

29. DLC, get the message : WE DON'T NEED YOU. GET LOST!!

We never DID need you bastards, and your days of destroying this party, and by extention aiding the neocon destruction of this country, are DONE.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. From those swell guys who gave us the "not as bad" party.

And, the likes of Lieberman.

[Reckon]

36. This is the DLC..

Hitler's propaganda chief Herman Goerring: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[cali]

37. Fuck. Them.

This is disgusting, deplorable, intellectually bankrupt and more. The use of trigger words repeatedly to evoke a visceral emotional response is puke worthy.

[leftchick]

38. Don't forget: HILLARY IS THE DLC!

among many others currently in the house and senate.

[bloom]

48. That is too bad.

She seemed like a "Liberal Fundamentalist" at one time - if there ever was one.


Would she drop it - the DLC - if she thought the entire country was onto it - and there was a boycott against it?

So far - I think Hillary and others figure they are safe as long as the only alternative are Republicans. The primaries are best place to boycott these people.

[MissWaverly]

39. Start your own party, please leave us-DLC

If you don't want a party bound by the principles of liberal fundamentalism, that is what the
democratic party is all about, go start your own corporate whore party and leave us be.

[npincus]

40. the DLC can kiss my arse

'nuff said.

[bobbolink]

42. So, I guess they really *DO* want to "have it out" with the rest of the

Democratic party!

It's so much fun getting this kind of attack from the RW, then getting it again from... what part of the party is the DLC again?

:nuke:

[im10ashus]

44. Dear DLC:

Watch what you say. It may come back to bite you in your ass someday.

[mitchum]

46. Fuck the DLC and the elephant they rode in on

[leesa]

47. So CT "denied re-nomination". See, it was Joe's RIGHT to be

re-nominated and it was DENIED him...and here we thought it was a primary.

[Cascadian]

49. The DLC are the ones undermining party unity

DLC = Vichy Democrats


John

[mmonk]

50. Are they in a semantics contest with republicans

in coming up with new descriptions, words and/or phrases to attack dems with?

[MrBenchley]

51. They're correct too.....

Hell, the far left was drawing up purge lists even before the primary.....

[bloom]

52. It figures that you would agree with this. nt

[Moochy]

62. Hell he wrote it didnt he?

[bloom]

66. That's a good point.

It could have been him as easily as anybody - and more likely than most.

He should start signing them. Mr.Benchley.

[Oilwellian]

56. I'd love to know your definition of "far left"

And how is Lamont "far left?"

[Raksha]

54. Wow, the DLC just makes itself more irrelevant by the day...

I wonder if they realize just exactly how irrelevant they actually ARE.

[welshTerrier2]

55. mind boggling hypocrisy ...

it is truly remarkable that anyone would put the following two phrase together in the same essay ...

first, the author says: "This phenomenon is best illustrated by the nationally driven campaign to deny re-nomination to Sen. Joe Lieberman" ...

deny? ... deny?? ... deny???

did mr. lieberman win a lifetime guarantee the last time he ran ... what kind of undemocratic crap is the DLC peddling? how dare they say that any Democrat doesn't have every right to throw his hat in the ring and take his case to the people ... you might say the author is trying to "stifle dissent" ...

and then mr. hypocrite offers this: "One of the major reasons for the DLC's founding in 1985 was to resist what we called "liberal fundamentalism," a conformist tendency to stifle dissent among Democrats" ...

stifle dissent? ... stifle dissent?? ... stifle dissent???

is this guy for real??????????????

he calls a perfectly legitimate primary challenge a "purge" that is denying Holy Joe his god-given lifetime seat in the Senate and he dares to accuse Lamont and his supporters of "stifling dissent" ...

does this guy represent everyone who backs the DLC????? i certainly hope not ... this guy is worse than dangerous ...

[bloom]

60. It is mind boggling.

And it's interesting that nobody actually signed the thing.

I think if the DLC is going to post this garbage - that we should assume that this opinion piece represents what their group stands for.

[Marr]

57. Hey DLC- time to put aside your personal feelings and vote for the

only VIABLE candidate.

[PinkyisBlue]

58. The DLC says, " We need more, not fewer people, with Joe Lieberman's

character in the Democratic Party".

And we have them: DLC members who continue to undermine the beliefs and core values of those in the Democratic Party.

There are already too many people with Joe Lieberman's character and beliefs. These people are called Republicans.

[Zorra]

59. Fuck the DLC. Traitor Joe is their poster-boy. And Traitor Joe will

be responsible for getting a republican Senator elected in Connecticut.

And this is exactly what the DLC wants.

Traitor Joe is proving what most of us already knew: That the DLC is an organization that serves transnational corporations and the extremely wealthy "elite", and is dedicated to making the Democratic Party ineffective both as a political entity and a force for maintaining and improving our democracy.

The DLC would rather see a republican get elected than a genuine Democrat.

I repeat: Fuck the DLC

[Raksha]

65. In other words, the DLC is the neocon presence

within the Democratic Party, and supports neocon interests and goals. You're right--a lot of us have already figured that out. They have NO OTHER constituency within the Democratic party except the multinational corporations, and the fiction that they represent "centrists" is nothing but a fig leaf that covers less and less all the time.

Re >>Traitor Joe is proving what most of us already knew: That the DLC is an organization that serves transnational corporations and the extremely wealthy "elite", and is dedicated to making the Democratic Party ineffective both as a political entity and a force for maintaining and improving our democracy.<<

[Vidar]

63. Lieberman's being DLC chairman for six years makes me feel even

better about purging the bastard.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Who gives a shit what they think.

They can do exactly what we've been expected to do when their guy wins; get behind the party's candidate ("Unity", remember?) and shut the fuck up.

[annabanana]

67. some "litmus test". . Democrats should support

democratic ideals...

I mean, how radical is that?

[Jed Dilligan]

68. DLC = Denominator, Lowest Common nt