I've heard several times that the DLC is the Dem version of the

[napi21]

neocons. Do you think that could possibly be true? I always thought the DLC was more like the Pub version of the Dems.

[pocoloco]

1. AIPAC pulls their strings.....

if that tells you anything.

[backscatter712]

2. Yeah, they're the Dem branch that gave us Joe Lieberman.

As far as I'm concerned, they're GOP Lite.

[cali]

22. and Bill Clinton n/t

[Virginia Dare]

23. and Al Gore...n/t

[The Stranger]

44. who wanted to make Leibercon Vice President . . . which brings us full circle, now doesn't it?

[BrainGlutton]

48. But it DOES make a difference. If Gore had been POTUS, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

[The Stranger]

53. Who are you trying to convince of that? You or me?

Looking at how the Democrats have continued to fund the war crime machine, your prognostication about Gore is only a guess. He would have had a Vice President with strong Congressional ties and support shrieking for blood at every opportunity.

[loudsue]

56. Gore saw the light, and has since been dissed by the DLC because

he wouldn't buy into their corporatist hype. The original DLC was not nearly as far right as they are now, just like the republicans weren't nearly, in the old days, as far right as they are now.

Gore changed with the times, and is no longer supported by the DLC. I wish people on DU could understand how people change, and do some changing themselves.

:kick:

[jgraz]

3. Nope, it's just more of the same neocons

Just ask Holy Joementum.

[Jesse Hemingway]

4. Nothing good has came from their

I heard on an AAR interview last year Richard Perle claiming to be a democrat that is one big mother f$kkking tent.

[CoffeeCat]

5. I don't know when it happened...

...but sometime in the past couple of decades--a group of politicians decided that they
wanted all of the power, loads of money and they wanted to rule the world and ignore the
American people.

These people are Democrats and Republicans. They amassed power, consolidated media power
and have been bought and paid for by the corporations. They volley power and back
forth--giving the illusion of two parties with very different agendas. However, there
is only one agenda with these people--protecting their own power, interests and investments--which
are fueled by the corporations.

The right-wing hate machine fosters polarization and keeps libs and conservatives fighting it out
and despising each other. This creates an illusion of democracy and perpetuates the notion that there is
a functioning, diverse government. Does anyone actually think that Bush gives a rip about abortion or
family values? Not any more than Hillary cares about the environment or Biden cares about
our public schools. The social issues are red meat for the masses. They could care less.

They're all elitists and they've amassed power among each other. They cover for each other.
They keep each others' secrets. They're all corrupt. Very few are untainted.

The DLCer are blue neocons. The conservatives are red neocons. They control our country. Make
no mistake, the Dems in power are not wimps, wussies or incompetents. They barely even speak out
about illegal wiretapping, our eroding democracy or those unconstitutional signing statements. When
is the last time you heard a Democrat give a fiery speech about the demolition of our civil rights,
with as much passion as any DUer would? I'll tell you when...NEVER. They're in this game together.

They all voted to designate Iran's military as a terrorist organization. Bush doesn't even need to ask
permission to go to war. They all ready handed it to him. Anyone going to suggest that this was a mistake?

Our government that we knew growing up--is gone.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

6. TwoSparkles...Excellent post!!!

"Our government that we knew growing up--is gone."

...The AMERICA we knew growing up is gone. It's so sad it breaks my heart.

[Wilms]

7. I nominate that for an OP to be recommended. n/t

[me b zola]

8. Neo-Liberals

Are the same as neo-cons in that they are after the same goals. The neo-liberals, though, cloak the agenda in terms that Dems would embrace, even occasionally throwing a "progressive" type bone to the masses so that they can proclaim their "dedication" to Democratic values and issues.

Though neo-cons & neo-liberals use different marketing tacktics to woo their different "audiences", what drives them is the same (corporatism), and in the end their foreign & some of their domestic policies (think labor and telecomunications) are quite similar to each other--put more power into the hands of the already powerful.

[LWolf]

34. You said it before I got here, but that's my response.

Neoliberals and neocons are running the show.

[eridani]

37. The difference between the neocons and the neolibs--

--is that the latter is in favor of birth control and isn't into stopping women from getting abortions.

[Indenturedebtor]

10. Democracy has left the building

Indeed :( Whenever there's money involved it's not a conspiracy: it's a business plan.

[orleans]

12. ooh. i'm kicking this thread right here on your post! good one. n/t

[dbt]

13. Hear! Hear!

K & R!

[Rosemary2205]

19. THIS POST NEEDS IT'S OWN THREAD!

Thank you TwoSparkles.

[mudesi]

20. It happened with Reagan. (nm)

[druidity33]

26. check this out...

"Trifling with social issues evades our responsibility to face economic issues, diminishing the potential for economic issues to rally popular support. The basis of genuine reform is economic reform. We can solve economic problems if we refuse to be distracted. The failure is one of courage among reformers to attempt to mobilize popular support for basic economic issues, which challenge the economic interests of big business. The substitution of social issues in place of economic issues (far from offering an alternative route to progressive policies) trifles with people's problems, and offers false solutions such as integration of schools which are so bad that you wouldn't want your kids to go to the schools in any case."



my emphasis added.


wanna take a guess who said it?

hint: a current Pres candidate, circa 1977...

:)

[Clark2008]

52. Dennis.

No one else would dare say that of those currently running.

[defendandprotect]

27. Right -- Most Democrats didn't even know that the right-wing DLC existed -- !!!!

Who would have been guessing that we had a little-GOP set up in the Democratic Party -- ???

[leftchick]

55. and don't realize Hillary Is the DLC

:puke:

[LWolf]

35. 3rd suggestion: this needs it's own thread! n/t

[endarkenment]

51. That is it. Summed up perfectly..

The Kleptocratic Duopoly & War Party Inc. It is a fact. We all need to accept this analysis, as it correctly describes the reality of the situation we are in. We can then debate about what to do about it, but it is time for us to grow up and deal with the world as it is.

[hfojvt]

9. here's what they have for foreign policy

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450004

I did not read any of the three articles, but just looking at the first headline - "Engaging Political Islam to Promote Democracy"

It sounds like they have accepted what Bush claims as a goal. Which seems to me what they do too often on every issue - cede to the Republican goal or Republican talking point, and then argue about tactics. To me, the goals questions are far more important. If your goals are wrong, then tactics are a moot point.

[lvx35]

29. A telling resource!!

The greater danger, in fact, is that the United States, burned by its misadventures in Iraq, will sheathe its sword and step back from world leadership. If that happens, who else is going to confront rogue states, genocide, and other threats to international order? Unfortunately, the body created expressly for that purpose, the United Nations, is incapable of providing collective security.

Definitely carrying the interventionist torch forward.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. I think they're more worried about looking "weak" on foreign policy than anything

The Clinton Administration's foreign policy wasn't run by neocons. The neocons at PNAC sent them multiple letters complaining about how they needed to remove Saddam Hussein.

The DLC may be more right wing and more hawkish than you or I care for but the neocons are a very specific batshit insane group of people. The neocons are focused on created a Saudi dominated Middle East and so they think that the United States needs to remove the other major powers Iraq (used to be), Syria, and Iran. Never mind the fact that Iraq, Iran, and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda gets a good chunk of its financing from Saudi Arabia.

The neocons used 9/11 as an excuse to do what they wanted to do in the Middle East even if it had jack shit to do with 9/11. There's a reason that you hear Clinton and Obama are talking mostly about Pakistan and Bin Laden while Rudy McRomney are talking about Iran. Rudy McRomney subscribe to the neocon doctrine, while Clinton and Obama do not.

[Donna Zen]

25. Right or wrong

The Clinton administration instituted the policy of regime change regarding Iraq. I think so, but can't say for sure.

I've always thought of the DLC--who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq--as subtle imperialists vs the more overtly active neocons.

[eridani]

38. It's more smart vs stupid imperialists

That's why the real "far left" chooses neocons over neolibs--they figure the former will run US imperialism into the ground faster.

[Donna Zen]

41. heh?

I would not try and define the far left, and therefore, I can't speak to their choice on foreign policy. I do believe that 19th c. Great Game foreign policy didn't work out then nor does it work out now. There are better ideas out there.

The other day I was reading about change agents and those who get so stuck in the "I" that they cannot move on with the inevitable movement of change. We have many people in the foreign policy community, those who get to make policy, who are stuck in either Great Game or Cold War thinking. After all that is how they made their mark. Fortunately, we are also have thinkers who are better able grasp the times in which we live. That's what I'm looking for among the candidates.

A few weeks ago a friend stopped by for coffee. It turned out that she is related to Tony Lake who is at the center of Obama's team. Well, she made a few calls. While I didn't receive enough information upon which to base an opinion, what I heard was okay. I'll keep digging.

Our foreign policy, which hangs on the stragic framework, effects everything that will happen in the future. This quest to learn what the candidates are thinking is very important since foreign policy effects our domestic policy, and that will not change.

[eridani]

45. I'm talking about people who are so far left--

--that people who think that universal health care is "far left" are never likely to meet.

Unfortunately, all our candidates except Kucinich and possibly Gravel are fine with the notion of continuing to piss our money away on military domination of the rest of the world, even if they prefer trying diplomacy first.

[Hippo_Tron]

54. The Clinton Administration policy was containment of Saddam

And you can call it subtle imperialism if you want but I think that there's a huge difference between responding to the people that attacked us on 9/11 and using 9/11 as an excuse to try and invade Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

Shy of Joementum or Zell Miller I don't think any Democrat if they had been in the White House would have invaded Iraq. Al Gore with his strong ties to the DLC (or at least he had them in 2000) certainly would not have invaded Iraq as President. The fact that many DLCers voted for the war is a reflection of how the President is able to set the agenda especially during a crisis situation.

IMO, associating the DLC (at least by-in-large) with the neocons detracts from the focus of just what exactly the neocon agenda is and how batshit crazy it is.

[JTFrog]

14. At this point

I'd say that believing we have two parties that each represent half of our population is the biggest myth that has been perpetuated in the last decade or so. What we really have is two party's that represent 4% the people. The rest of us could rot in hell for all they care. As long as they keep all the money they'll keep perpetuating the myth.

[annabanana]

15. This thread needs recs.. . . .n/t

[mitchum]

16. It's the Dem version of the Vichy government

[w4rma]

17. The DLC is behind this whole Florida vs. Dean/DNC thing over the delegates.

The DLC has wholeheartedly supported the Iraq War throughout it's history. The DLC supports corporatism and 'free' trade.

[Cleita]

18. I agree with you.

To me the DLC stands for the same politics that my father, a Republican, did in the forties and fifties. These are basically real conservatives as contrary to the fascist, regressive neo-cons who dominate the GOP today. I think that is why they changed to the Democratic Party and now are trying to reshape it into a conservative party along the lines of the old GOP of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[bvar22]

21. K&R

:patriot:


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.

[Individualist]

24. DLC is a subversive organization

whose goal is to turn the democratic party into a submissive branch of the republican party. Their methods are spin, clichés, talking points, lies and smokescreens.

"This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

[defendandprotect]

28. AND . . .. What are we going to do about it -- ???? Imparticularly in supporting Dean -- ????

Obviously they want to get rid of Dean --
And I don't know that most of the time we know what the DLC is up to -- ??? Do we????

[Individualist]

31. The only thing I know to do is to educate people

about DLC's agenda. I'm doing that every time I have the opportunity.

[defendandprotect]

32. Great! -- and shouldn't we also be challenging the candidates about the DLC -- ????

[eridani]

39. We need to have backup for Dean

Also to get more non-DLC people as members of the DNC. That means getting involved in your local party structure.

[Link93]

30. I like some of the things the DLC has to say.

I don't have a problem with them as a group. I also don't have a problem with criticism of them.

[defendandprotect]

33. What might those "things" be -- ?????

[Link93]

36. Defense, trade,

education.

[eridani]

40. "Defense"??

Could you explain exactly what 1000 or so military bases all around the world actually has to do with defending American citizens?

[RB TexLa]

42. Defending American citizens? That's it?

Geopolitical stabilization doesn't matter? Because it's helping to prevent non-American citizens from dying in conflict? Who gives a shit about, that right? You think we owe nothing to the world? To our fellow human? I've supported the DLC since it's inception, far better than the NeoKnowNothing wing of the party that tends to agree with Pat Buchanan more on foreign policy.

[eridani]

46. When did you start thinking that domination = "stabilization"?

If we want to prevent non-Americans from dying in conflict, a world full of Swiss Armies working collectively can prevent that, provided that all have the sense to put their forces under the control of someone who intimately knows the local scene and has no dog in the fight, e.g General Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda.

What "stabilization" means to the DLC is making the world safe for dollar a day labor and stripmining every country with useable resources before any populist leader of same gets a chance to use them for the benefit of their populations. Disguising this crap as social work at gunpoint is a pile of steaming bullshit.

If we quit fighting for the rights of corporations to make profit at the expense of workers and the environment, most of the murderous conflict in the world would go away. The rest can be dealt with by birth control (Rwanda and Darfur, for example).

[endarkenment]

50. er, em, have you lost your grip on reality?

"it's helping to prevent non-American citizens from dying in conflict?" we are the proximate cause of many major conflicts and have been since WWII. Tell the Iraqis how much we are helping them not die in conflict.

[defendandprotect]

58. So you're a pro-war and pro-NAFTA DLC'er -------- ------- ?????

and WHAT of DLC agenda re education do you support -- ????

[smoogatz]

43. More like the Dem version of the Vichy regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France

[provis99]

47. DLC= twofaced corporate whores

They believe in the two party system: Republicans, and Republican-lite.

[endarkenment]

49. neocon neoliberal neo-kleptocrats

The DLC is there to make sure the Democratic Party doesn't 'pander' to working men and women.

[leaninglib]

57. You can call them whatever you want.

I call them winners. The last Democratic President was a DLC candidate.

[defendandprotect]

59. Hate to say this, but very likely Clinton won originally because of Perot --

and had a more liberal agenda been followed, presumably Clinton would have had a bigger win.