The DLC is the PROBLEM!!!!!

[boolean]

Good Lord can we finally all agree on that point? When have repuglicans ever eaten their own a week and a half after a sweeping VICTORY?

Down with the DLC. They are a bunch of conservatives. It's time for Liberals to take control of the Democratic party once and for all!

[BootinUp]

Who's we? lol.

Should I leave now?

Look, the only reason we took back both houses is because moderates that previously deserted are giving this party another chance. There is an article here you might be interested in:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/17/opinion/polls/main2192862.shtml

snip
Not only did moderates vote for Democrats last week, but perhaps just as importantly going forward, moderates Democrats outnumbered liberals among the party's voters by 51 percent to 38 percent, according to CBS News exit polls. (The same was true of Democrats in 2004, though this time their party is called on to govern.) That mix had a lot to do with the fact that the vaunted red-blue lines didn't define the results in this election. Senate control changed hands due to wins by moderate Democratic candidates in "red" states like Montana and Virginia, which President Bush won in 2004 by 20 and 9 points, respectively. In fact, four of the six Senate turnovers were in states Mr. Bush won in '04. In the House, Democrats owe their new majority primarily to turnovers in districts inside blue states, but scored many wins in red states like Indiana and Arizona, too.

As they typically do in general elections, self-described moderates (47 percent of the electorate) outdistanced both conservatives (32 percent) and liberals (20 percent) last week, and were a slightly higher proportion of the electorate than in 2004. Though the exit polls didn't measure strength of ideology, CBS News polls from earlier this year did, and strong ideologues were relatively uncommon: less than one in five Americans considers themselves to be one. That includes the one in 20 who call themselves "very liberal," and the one in ten who say they're "very conservative." Most who subscribe to an ideology describe themselves as only "somewhat" liberal or "somewhat" conservative.
snip

[DancingBear]

27. Sorry, but this just isn't true

"the only reason we took back both houses is because moderates that previously deserted are giving this party another chance"

Democrats took control because people detested Bush and the Democratic Party was THE ONLY OTHER CHOICE.

The only reason they are giving them another chance is because they have no other option.

Both parties made sure of that.

To delude oneself into believing that they liked their platform (aside from the low-hanging fruit strategy of minimum wage, etc.) is folly.

If the Democrats behave like I fully expect them to (and the coronation of Hoyer should be setting off fire alarms for anyone who still believes this party is going to even try and touch the word "progressive" with a ten foot pole) then the fair weather voters will leave, and any disenchanted progressives who for some reason are still around will open the doors.

The only thing that will keep them through 2008 is if Bush literally implodes, and the chances of that happening increase exponentially with each passing day.

[eridani]

36. In view of the 30 year sliming of the word "liberal"

--by conservatives and MSM, self-applied labels mean diddlysquat. What actual policies do all those people favor?

[BootinUp]

41. Its not that complicated

People can classify themselves based on politicians they identify with, or by how loyal they are to a party. I am not suggesting its a perfect number. But if you read the whole piece it becomes clear what kind of voters they are describing.

[eridani]

42. Yep, people who want fair trade, not "free" trade

--and who would like the minimum wage raised.

[rinsd]

1. Oh the irony. Stop the infighting...by calling for more infighting!

:eyes:

[mom cat]

14. Where there is power, theree is fighting for power. We the People should not

meekly go back to our hovels and shut up!

[rinsd]

22. Maybe the posers calling themselves the People should shut up

And stop calling for the ouster of Democrats that real PEOPLE elected.

[mom cat]

24. I am not calling for the ouster of any elected Dem I AM saying that

we should not roll over and let the DLC faction take over without a fight.

[Samantha]

31. You certainly won't get flamed by me--I have been complaining about

the DLC for years. Al Gore distanced himself from this organization years ago. It's basically controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it was that element of the Democratic Party which came out and publicly asked Al Gore not to run in 2004.

Remember Barney Frank, Al Gore should get out of Kerry's way ...

So when you make the list of people to thank for the condition this country is in today, remember to add the DLC. And don't let anyone persuade you differently.

If I wanted to be a Republican, I would register with that party. I came to the Democratic party to get away from the Republicans, not to be overtaken by them here. Stand your ground.

[earth mom]

40. Best post on this thread! Agree with you 100%!

:applause:

[mom cat]

43. The growing closeness of Bill to George the first and Hillary to

Murdock are worrysome indeed. We need to restore the Democratic Party to being the champion for the majority. It is going to be an uphill battle, but we can do it. We Must Do It!

[TAPat]

2. Oh, man, are you gonna get sooo flamed!

But, I'll go on record here: I agree with you 1000% :woohoo:

[bigtree]

3. Who are these liberals . . .

. . . and can they govern by themselves?

[ixion]

4. the DLC is no friend of the grassroots democratic party and progressives

IMO.

I base this on watching them continually try and push to the 'center' (center always moving right), which has effectively marginalized the party over the last three decades.

Way to go DLC...NOT! :eyes:

[HereSince1628]

7. The DLC is a by invitation club for political elitists, of course it's anti-grassroots

I haven't been to their website in years, but for years their website defined who could be a member of the DLC. It's a fundamental tenet of their organization that only previous winners of political contests know how to get it right and because of this they should lead. If nothing else that sort of approach emphasizes top-down selection of issues and encourages disengagement with voters.

[PassingFair]

29. "..a by invitation club" How DARE you say that! It's open to anyone ...

with the price of admission.

Or the willingness to trade for it.

:puke:

[BootinUp]

9. Just to provide a little counter opinion

One of the things I like to point out, is that politicians do not make people believe things all by themselves. Any movement in the electorate is a result of people reacting to what they already believe + what they hear from politicans. In addition people do change their minds based on recent events or on their understanding of events. Now I think many in the democratic party shoulder some blame for the past 30 years, but why should the liberal wing be excluded from the blame? I am sure I could spend an hour or two and make a very strong case for not excluding them. But the question is why would you deny that?

Now some on the left blame the media for most of our troubles. And while I certainly give them a chunk of blame I also realize that the media is made up of voters, humans, with their own opinions too. In order to be a successful party we need to reach out to a larger segment and tell a story that resonates with what they see and believe.

...to be continued.

[ixion]

16. to be sure, no one is blameless... however

purely based on who has more access/power/money, I think it's a difficult case to say that progressives are to blame more-so than the DLC, when progressives/liberals haven't had a true voice in politics since the 70's.

As well, this doesn't account for how the party has allowed that center to continue rightward, and has in fact been culpable in that swing. Clinton didn't stop the brutal madness of the so-called 'War on Drugs'. Nope. He advanced it. When the dems lost congress in '94, the DLC was right there to push the part further to the right.

As one who believes in individual Freedom and Liberty, I have a real problem with watching the country I was raised in becoming more and more like countries we were told were 'bad' (Russia, China, etc). I have a real problem giving up my civil liberties in the name of 'security'. I have a real problem with politicians of any stripe trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because I was raised to believe that those documents were what set us apart from the 'bad' countries.

So when I see the DLC'ers saying that we should move toward the center and embrace things like the unPATRIOTic Act and the so-called 'War on Terror' (as well as the WoD), well, at that point I have to call a duck a duck.

[HaggardsMethDealer]

5. The results of McAuliffe vs. Dean speak for themselves.

nt

[BootinUp]

10. changes in power such as what has just occurred

only happen every so often and are mostly a rejection of those in power.

[Guaranteed]

15. The people rejected the Bush Administration as a direct result

of the political climate that Howard Dean, more than anyone, was instrumental in creating.

[BootinUp]

17. Honest difference of opinion

Dean was a voice for people, but the climate was not created by him. If not Dean there would have been someone else to fill the void, not as interesting and skilled perhaps. You should know also that I am a Dean fan.

[Guaranteed]

18. That void was there for a long time. No one seemed to want

to fill it- especially those that already had jobs. It was a risky thing to do. But he took on that risk, knowing that it had to be done.

Someone else might have come along months, years later, and done what he did. But it takes time for these ideas to seep into our culture- a couple of years, in this case. If we had waited much longer, the climate may not have been ripe in time for 2006.

[BootinUp]

20. good points to consider..

I have to run! cya

[PassingFair]

30. ..and those who have positioned themselves...

AND the boots in the streets to take advantage of it.

[stepnw1f]

6. It's Already HAppening... a More Populist Representation

has swept through the country after this last election, and they KNOW it. They should have never picked this fight....

[Zodiak]

47. and the populists are the opposite of DLC

typical DLCer means free trade policies and corporate power with liberal-moderate social values. The exception are the ten or so DLCers who are at the most extreme conservative end of the Democratic Senate. They are free traders with conservative social ideology. But the unifying aspect of the DLC is pro-corporate.

typical Populist means pro-worker and pro middle-class and poor with conservative-moderate social values.

I think that a lot of DUers are beginning to realize that replacing the pro-corporate DLCers with Populists will at least unify the party on the issues of economic justice, which are winners in the heartland. A Populist would NEVER vote 60-100% with the Bush administration's policies, but there are about 10 DLCers who do it.

As a caveat, I am also thoroughly convinced that CERTAIN DLCers are not necessarily a detriment to the party. Kerry and Clinton come to mind, but there are a few others. The good thing is, I belive both are poltical opportunists who would drop this organization if they knew where the wind is blowing. Obama and Gore caught that wind, and have benefitted in the eyes of the People for it. The rest wil follow suit.

To me, a "moderate" would vote with Bush about 25-40% of the time. Remember, these are extreme right-wing, pro-corporate, anti-Constitution policies. I think I am allowing for quite a lot of "ideological impurity" here in that determination.

So how many are farther right than what I consider moderate? Too many.
And they make the party look weak, divided, and a smaller image of the Republicans. They either should be replaced or be made to change their voting pattern if the Democratic party is to have a clear, unified message for the American people. The populists would help accomplish that. The DLCers will continue to try to be gatekeepers to the microphone, and must be marginalized.

That's politics. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.

[mzmolly]

8. Problem? We just won major election victory's across the nation.

I must be missing something?

[Jim Sagle]

44. The problem is, the Democrats won.

Carville and the DLC are here to fix that problem.

[mzmolly]

52. LOL

It appears that way. We won without paying them shit, and they don't care for it apparently?

[Individualist]

11. You're upsetting the DLC rah rahs

I'll repeat what I've said before: The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler. DLC wants to change our party into a subservient branch of the GOP.

[texastoast]

12. Okay, so instead of "down with the DLC"

what is the liberal plan?

Tell me specifically how you plan to finance what we need to finance (education, health care, infrastructure), etc.) and get rid of the deficit Bush has placed on the backs of our children.

I want some liberal vision here.

[Fovea]

25. A few ideas

First, we nationalize all non-renewable energy extraction oil, gas, coal, etc.
That frees up a tremendous pool of dollars to research into reneables and
energy efficiency.

We tax the rich and uber rich in an uber progressive rate.We establish universal healthcare.
This frees up employers from the burden of being social service
providers. It strengthens the working class by stopping the economic failure of families following catastrophic illness.
This levels the playing field with the EU. And we can then use that platform
to encourage 3rd world competitors to raise standards and prevent the globalism that remains
from being an eternal race to a mythical bottom. We have two models to chose from, China or EU.
Our current paradigm for economic society sucks. Actually, to say it sucks is an insult to suckers everywhere.

A 75% drawdown in military forces and overseas deployment. Establish a mandatory service requirement for citizenship along with mandatory voting.
A complete rethink on America's military goals versus our diplomatic goals. Establish free life-long education, so that our working class is the most productive, and best able to be the type of citizen who can sustain a democracy.

We should abolish offshoring and constrain through tariff- outsourced labor.

We get off the freakin dime on stem cell research. We stop stifling science, before we wipe our selves off the planet for 10% more profit.
We need to build a national passenger rail system to 21st century standards using the highway ROW and infrastructure.

Yes, some of this is pure keynesian, but it is money spent to rebuild America. Remember how Japan and Europe leapt into pronimence in the 50's?
The did it with the new technologic edge that America did not start adopting until we remachined for the space/arms race of the sixties.

But the 21st century is going to be rocky, and we need to stop being the carbon whore of planet earth. Fixing that problem with not only take our best, but will create a new economy. Renewable energy is also more likely to be local energy. It is also more likely to be efficient energy. We need to use a greater percentage of our petroleum for feedstocks and less for energy.

There are opportunities in these changes, and profit to be made.

[Morgana LaFey]

34. what a ridiculous diversionary tactic

pure b.s.

[Jim Sagle]

45. "Stop being so negative. What's YOUR plan?"

(Isn't that what the Republican whore media asks us?)

[eridani]

37. We don't need more money for universal health care--

--we are already paying for it. We just aren't getting it.

[Zodiak]

51. Good point n/t

[Zodiak]

50. why must you frame it as a "liberal plan"?

I am not a true liberal, but I cannot stand the DLC.

How about a sensible plan?

Words choices mean something.

If you must know what someone like me thnks, we must return to the progressive income tax system and we must once against start taxing capital gains. We need to reign in the corporate welfare, outsourcing of American jobs, and end the Iraq war.

We need to relax our military spending by cutting all unnecessary corporate influence over our bidding system. We need to end fruitless projects that do not contribute to the peace. WE need to take care of our individual soldiers and their infrastructure and not worry so much about having the newest instrument of death on the block.

We also need to dismantle our prison state, which is a tremendous drain on resources and has a deterimental affect on certain subpopulations' participation in the system. A sensible policy on crime would eliminate much waste.

Now that we have stopped the leaking and have generated some money, we need to help out business by ending the health care crisis with socialized healthcare. That should allow us to become 20-30% more competitive and the People win, as well.

We need to rebuild our markets by bringing our wealth diparity back in line. It has gotten so out-of-hand in the last 30 years.

With a robust economy with a lot of turnover, plus the new tax system, the debt will start coming down. But make no mistake...it will not be easy. There are no free rides...it will take a lot more than a tweak here and there. Reversing 25 years of radical lassez-faire (sp?) policy will require some major resructuring.

But as long as the affluent and the moneyed are the gatekeepers, none of this will ever happen. That is not "liberal", it is Democratic. The affluent and the moneyed have their party; they should not be spoilers in ours.

That is my position.

[longship]

13. We need *everybody*.

However, I do agree with one issue. That's the DLC's general behavior in the past, and especially during the last week, is outright thuggish. They seem to think that their opinion is the only one worth hearing simply because an incorrect perception that to win one must only have moderate positions on all issues. They are unequivocally wrong.

The last twelve years shows us all what happens when a single ideological faction obtains power. The last six years shows what happens when an ideology is able to shut out all opposition. This is what we get. Unbridled corruption. Unconstitutional actions. A huge, chaotic mess.

This government was set up with checks and balances. I would suggest that the same checks and balances apply equally well to ideology. Only by providing everybody a seat at the table can we govern effectively.

DLC, progressives, and all other Democrats need to work together. We govern best not when a single ideology has power, but when a large menu of ideas and solutions are available. Recent words from the DLC indicate that they have not learned anything from the past decade.

[librechik]

19. yes --THEY are the ones out of touch with America

the arrogant a-holes are determined to push the idea that the huge majority of us regular center to left types are off the beam. Well, we AREN'T!!! It's time for a little liberalism to fix these stupid problems caused by the stinginess and stupidity of the Right--and all its copycats in the DLC.

[nealmhughes]

21. That is why we need to put the little "d" in Democrat as well. It is time for the people who do the

grass roots to set the agenda as well. I suggest a good place to start is at Progressive Democrats of America at http://www.pdamerica.org

[porphyrian]

23. They have a right to their opinion, but there strategy is a failing one.

Had they actually been in charge this time, it would be the fourth major election loss their strategy handed us. Luckily for us, the man they are currently trying to discredit led us to a landslide victory. Other than that, and their obnoxious corporate-pandering redefining of right-wing as "moderate," I don't really have a problem with them. People should realize that they are the minority, though, despite their attempts to pretend otherwise.

[bonito]

26. Any got some DLC history? nm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. So If You're Complaining That They're Trying To Eat You, Is It Then Helpful For You To Declare That

'we' should eat them?

Maybe just avoiding the divisiveness altogether while welcoming democrats of all kinds would be a better start.

[Mr_Spock]

49. I agree

The bitter irony of the O/P is laughable.

[Wiley50]

32. If You're talking about the DEMOCRATS who LOVE CORPORATIONS

Yeah

I agree

[DianeG5385]

33. Thanks and I agree

They seems to exist to disrupt the Democratic agenda. They just seem too republican for my taste. They have assumed they ARE the face of the democrats and can't stand losing power!!!

[mopinko]

35. hey! where's benchley?

did all the good news kill him?

[LittleClarkie]

38. Belly up in August during the Lamont/Lieberman brewhaha, near as I can tell.

Tombstoned for continuing to have a hissy fit about Lamont after he won the Dem primary, and Lieberman declared himself an Independant.

[mopinko]

39. every cloud has a silver lining

i guess.

[Jim Sagle]

46. Never fear, wyldwolf is here.

;-)

[Mr_Spock]

48. How fucking ironic

You are causing infighting by describing infighting, except that I don't even agree with your premise.