The DLC want to abolish primaries?

[Mairead]

I was at a private house party on August 2nd in Georgia with Senators Reid, Schumer and Pryor.

And the grand DLC plan is simple for 2006 - no DEM primaries. They plan to choose the DLC candidate and force all others out of the race. Just like they did in PA with Casey.

The exact Schumer (DSCC Chair) quote is:
"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ......this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable."

http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

[Lost4words]

1. I would like to abolish the DLC, I wont vote for a DLC candidate

I have said it many times here. If its DLC its not for me.

IMHO the DLC got us where we are now. I want my country back!

Let them do what they want, we will lose again.

[HereSince1628]

2. The DLC knows its Corpo program won't get support

so, they are abandoning their old idea of manipulating primary dates to leverage states where they have more support into more influential positions in the primary process.

And showing their true elitist colors _they_ will pick a candidate and force all others out of the process.

How do they rationalize that they should do this? Because they have all the answers, of course.

[WildClarySage]

4. they do have a point though about candidates attacking each other

which allows the real opponents to focus their energies elsewhere. We do need to stop doing their dirty work for them.

I'm no fan of DLC, and I don't like the idea that they know what's best for America. I'm just saying that our candidates need to be more positive in the primaries. Save the mud for the actual election.

[HereSince1628]

11. But this is sound bite bullshit their campaigns have been

just as guilty as others.

Be careful not to slip off on the tangent they conveniently placed to divert your attention. This elitist gang is suggesting to disenfranchise democratic voters of their right to choose who gets to run as their choice.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. What a "great" alternative! Let a small group of insiders pick our

candidate for us in smoke-filled back rooms like the good ole days. Now THAT'S democracy! (Dripping sarcasm)

[JHB]

23. Don't be so quick to knock it. It won.

And even at its most corrupt it wasn't nearly as expensive as what we have now. Yes it has plenty of problems, but something like it may be very useful.

However, I don't think this particular plan will be a winner, precisely becaue the people advancing it are the ones who've come out on top under the present campaign-funding-uber-alles system. Instead of reaching out and building an army to attack the Republicans, this smacks of building a castle to better keep the "peasants" of the party under control.

[JHB]

24. Dupe. Sorry.

:shrug:

[Hubert Flottz]

5. How else could Mrs Clinton or Jolly Joey LIEberman win?

Abolish rich lobbyists and crooked vote tabulation, if you want to do something for the country instead of yourselves for a change...

They are almost as bad as Bush!

[dmr]

6. Think they're afraid of us on the internet voicing OUR opinion?

It was proven last year, and it is proven today with Cindy, that we are a force like none they've ever seen before.

They can't let us pesky voters make any decisions now, can they? Especially when they read so many anti-DLC discussions.


Edit: very bad spelling!

[H2O Man]

7. Baloney.

How anyone could believe this nonsense is beyond me.

[Mairead]

8. Which nonsense? (nt)

[jobycom]

9. Where does that quote say anything like what the title says?

It says that Democrats are destroying each other in the primaries and the DLC plans to campaign for the strongest candidate in the primaries. I miss the part where it says they want to do away with primaries.

[Mairead]

12. You must be reading something else

When I read "this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable." it certainly sounds to me as though they don't like the knock-down-drag-out essence of primaries and plan to 'intervene' to stop it.

[jobycom]

19. I repeat. Show me where that says they want to do away with primaries

What it shows is that they, like everyone else, INCLUDING PEOPLE HERE AT DU, want their candidate to win and will do what they can to win. There is nothing about doing away with primaries--if anything, they are talking about becoming more involved in primaries, thus making them more relevant.

[Mairead]

27. I repeat: interpret the quoted bits. What does 'no more' mean?

[jobycom]

29. Interpret, yes. Make up shit, no.

You don't have to interpret, Schumer says exactly what he means: "We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable." That's as clear as it can be. He says "finding the best candidates" not "doing away with the primaries--" something which the DLC wouldn't have the power to do, anyway.

[cynatnite]

13. I'm reading they want to unify the party more

The doing away with primaries is misleading and I hate it when something like that's is done in order to garner more attention.

However, I do agree that candidates of the same party should quit attacking each other. I'd like to see a healthy respect and even friendship...it would send a far better message than having two democrats having a knock down while they're running.

[Mairead]

16. So how do you think the primaries should work, then?

Should the party cadre get together and make sure only the 'right' candidates enter the primaries?

Or let everyone enter but make sure that they're all very polite to one another and avoid disagreement?

How do you think primaries should work?

[cynatnite]

18. I wasn't speaking to the primaries in my post.

Disagreement, debate, discussion is fine. Too often nasty attacks during elections wind up turning off the voters. I believe this lowers us as a society.

I prefer to see a good election on the issues, but that hardly ever happens. It's also too bad that more people don't stand up and reject the way campaigns are conducted anyway. People I know don't care that much about the primaries and rarely take an interest until the major elections.

[jobycom]

21. I think they should work the same way the DLC thinks they should work

Candidates should try to win your vote on a positive message explaining what they can do and why they are best able to beat the Republicans. Not all this "He's DLC, he's left-wing extremist!" crap.

The DLC is not the party, they have no ability to control who enters the primary. They can choose to back one candidate or another, just like you, me, the pope, Robert Redford or Moe's Southwestern Grill. They want their candidate to win, just like you, me, the pope, et al.

The DLC is one faction of the party. They don't control the party. They don't tell everyone how to vote. They just campaign for their candidates. They may be better at raising money, mainly because they don't automatically hate anyone who has money, but they don't control how anyone votes. They are just one group whose support a candidate has to try for. Like the NAACP, various unions, the AFL-CIO, AARP. The DLC is a different type of group because their sole purpose is politics and because they won't back the Republican candidate. But their only power is what they earn.

They aren't the boogeyman, they aren't the power behind the party. They are a strong faction. People who claim they won't vote for a DLC candidate don't get it--the DLC doesn't create candidates, candidates court the DLC to get their votes. That's how you win--you unite as many factions as you can. The DLC is a powerful faction--no more, no less. A candidate who wants to win without courting them is not going to win. A candidate who does court them gets blasted by people who believe every damn rumor they read about the DLC. (By the way, who do you think starts these rumors? It's not in the best interest of Democrats, the DLC, or even leftists to split the Democratic Party. Who benefits?)

[Mairead]

25. You seem to have a very peculiar notion of "the way the DLC thinks"

It's hard for me to read the quotes from that transcript and come up with any conclusion other than that the DLC wants to own the selection process. What do you suppose 'We are no longer letting...', 'We are intervening...' 'No more (tossing the cards up and seeing where they land).' is meant to mean?

[jobycom]

31. Same thing it means when DUers use those words

Nothing. It means they are going to try to win. DLCers are always saying stuff like that: No more DLC. We will not let Bush get away with it. We will defeat the DLC. No More DLC candidates!

When we say things like that, are we talking about doing away with democracy? No, we are spouting rhetoric to influence democracy. Same as the DLC. They have no power to do away with primaries, so obviously they aren't talking about doing away with primaries. They are talking about winning, same as DUers do when we say such stuff.

Fight the real evil. Quit letting Gingrich and Rove turn you against the enemies of Bush. Bush is the enemy. The DLC is a distraction, at worst. At best, they are an allie we can use to defeat the bastards in power now. All this "DLC is Satan" crap overestimates the DLC and labels the wrong people as Satan.

[sybylla]

26. I don't see it either

Sounds to me like they are not getting rid of the primaries but getting rid of the philosophy of neutrality in the primary.

Of course, we all know how neutral the DLC was in the last presidential primary.

If the DLC starts endorsing Dems against other Dems in a primary, how is that not going to encourage the circular firing squad, one? And, two, how do they know it won't hurt the "best" candidate rather than help?

[charlie]

10. I despise the DLC

But of the 3 noted at the gathering, only Pryor is DLC. Schumer is speaking of DSCC strategy. A few minutes before the excerpt he was marvelling about how quickly MoveOn raised $800,000 for Democrats. The DLC, if they mentioned that at all, would do so with regret, since they consider MoveOn a commie albatross around the party's neck.

I don't much like this heavy handed top-down business of interfering early in primaries to ensure the chosen Democrat wins. But I don't see how you can hang this one on the DLC, since the DSCC is onboard and they'll be the enforcers.

[TomClash]

14. Very good

This piece is a little dubious. Chuck Schumer is DLC? Except perhaps for US policy towards Israel, I doubt it.

[Mairead]

15. "I don't see how you can hang this one on the DLC"

Well, the original title, you'll note, is 'Dems want to....'. I found it hard to believe that it could be 'the Dems' as a whole--slightly hard, anyhow--so I thought it must be the DLC. Reid and Schumer certainly seem more DLCish than FDRish, but perhaps I'm being unfair to the DLC. Do you think it's the Dems as a whole that want to get rid of primaries (or revert to the smoke-filled-rooms of yore, which I'd think more likely--gotta give people the illusion that we matter, after all)?

[charlie]

17. Hey, the author claimed it was a DLC initiative

"And the grand DLC plan..."

Yeah, it appears the thinking in the leadership is creeping back to the old party machine days. Which sucks, especially when I hear Schumer talk about the need to protect that idiot Ford against a Democratic (the HORROR!) challenger.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Hey, DLC! Howzabout

you give all candidates equal amounts of money, let them campaign for a while, then hold same day primaries using ranked voting ballots? Ax the frontloading issue and help people feel like they mattered when choosing a candidate they can rally around.

Howzabout that, huh?

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Seabiscuit]

22. Who the fuck do they think they are? Death to the DLC!!!

[Le Taz Hot]

28. It's becoming more obvious that these guys

will never get a clue. I didn't think it would be possible but they're actually trying to get even MORE autonomous. Hey DLC, how 'bout we let the people in Merced, CA or Gary, IN or St., MO decide who should best represent them? I'm pretty sure this is how it was supposed to work. Remember? Or haven't any of you ever actually read ANYTHING about WHY we actually HAD an American Revolution in the first place?

Oy vey! THIS, boys and girls, are why we continue to lose our collective asses.

[K-W]

30. That quote doesnt support that interpretation.

It could mean that... but it could also mean that they simply plan to intervene in the primaries in some way.

Its a very vague statement.

[Mairead]

33. It seems suspect, to me

I can't imagine what else their 'no more' could mean, can you? You mention 'intervene in some way'...but what way could that be? What are the possibilities?

[K-W]

35. OK, but its hardly enough to draw any kind of conclusion.

"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ......this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable."

No more is much much much much much more likely to mean that they will use thier money and influence to try and keep primary elections non-competitive. And while this is far from kosher, it is also far from new

[MattSWin]

32. That darn DLC...

Wanting Democrats to quit attacking each other during primaries and focus on defeating Republicans.

You just have to love all these far left absolutists thinking the DLC is betraying the Democratic party by coming up with ways for them to beat Republicans.

[chaumont58]

34. Primaries are contests, period. People sometimes say things...

against their opponents. It happens. The DLC, or anyone else, won't be able to stop it.
As far as the DLC being against primaries, I have a hard time believing that. I'm no fan of the DLC, but for them to come out against primaries, would be like the old adage from the VietNam War: It was necessary to destroy this village in order to save it. Or: We're for democracies, we just don't want to participate in one.

[Mairead]

36. "We're for democracies, we just don't want to participate in one."

Well, if you look at what they DO, that seems to sum up their position fairly well, don't you think? Especially if by 'we're for' you mean 'we're ready to give lip service to'.

If any of these elitist groups were actually in favor of democracy, they'd be ceaselessly beating the drum for things to be run much differently to the way they're run now. As in: concurrent primaries, money and press given even-handedly to all candidates who pass a certain initial threshold of support, preference voting, etc.

[chaumont58]

37. I think elist group is a good way to describe them

When some son of a bitch says it is all right to fight and die for my cause, but me, I have other priorities. That to me is an elitist. "I'm too important to fight and die."

[Moderator]

38. Locking...

Misleading subject line.