With all this anti-DLC vitriol, I've never gotten a solid answer to this..

[vi5]

Everyone keeps saying that the DLC and each of their candidates want to ignore "the base" or whatever tag you want to put on what I can only assume means traditionally democratic constituents and voters.

But if Unions support Gephardt because despite his other flaws he has been a tireless advocate for labor, does that make Unions DLC and no longer a part of the democratic base that we care about?

If jewish voters support Leiberman because he has worked to advocate causes or issues that they place high on their list of importance, does that mean that they are no longer part of the base?

If large groups of veterans would support Kerry if he were the nominee and want to see him get the nomination does that mean that we don't want them as part of the base simply because Kerry is DLC approved?

What about Edwards and lawyers?

My point is that most of these candidates in some part appeal to either a core democratic constituency and may or may not have their support in primary season and nomination. But when we throw around names and accusations against groups of our own or the candidates that they feel are best for their issues, and potentially alienate any one group amongst the many that support the democratic party and its candidates, members, and issues, is it really any better or worse than the DLC dismissing "activists"? I know primary season is for slugging it out and going over thing endlessly with a fine tooth comb....but with so much more at stake, this myopic hatred of particular groups is more than a little depressing.

[Warren Stuart]

1. What good is an opposition party that's not opposed to anything?

Absolutley Nothing.

When the DLC cautions Democrats not to bash Bush because it may "backfire" I know they don't speak for me.

Bush deserves bashing for multiple reasons, but the DLC won't hear of it.

[dolstein]

14. What good is a party that isn't FOR something????

Sorry, but the only way the Democrats are going to become the majority party again is if they can articulate a POSITIVE AGENDA. Attacking Bush 24/7 may get some of the core activists excited, but it won't help the party make inroads among moderate and independent voters who are the key to winning elections.

[Warren Stuart]

17. You got to fight fire with fire

If you don't, you leave yourself vulnerable. By using their tactics against them, you lessen the effectiveness of their tactics.

You say advocate for a positive agenda, what planet are you on?

People in this country will refuse to support a party that will not defend itself.

It's time to stop losing the good fight, and play to win damnit!

[KC21304]

2. Get off it vi5. You are being much too logical.

And sensible. Thanks for the thought provoking time out.

[Capn Sunshine]

It seems to be more about DU membership

and OUR collective idea WE are the base
every opinion on here starts from that assumption.

however in the real world this becomes painfully obvious we're not.
Like the real party, we are a wide range of ideas, including the DLC's.
Some poeple have more time to post about this and are quite articulate.
Some are just knee jerk reactionaries.
But we're all dems.

So, in the real world, where no one has HEARD of DU, what the base is depends on what part of the mountain you're on I suppose.

[Capn Sunshine]

3. It seems to be more about DU membership

and OUR collective idea WE are the base
every opinion on here starts from that assumption.

however in the real world this becomes painfully obvious we're not.
Like the real party, we are a wide range of ideas, including the DLC's.
Some poeple have more time to post about this and are quite articulate.
Some are just knee jerk reactionaries.
But we're all dems.

So, in the real world, where no one has HEARD of DU, what the base is depends on what part of the mountain you're on I suppose.

[CWebster]

6. No. fundamentally, before all things,

It is in the best interests of all sub-groups within the Democratic base--and for that matter, the country as well, to have leadership challenging rather than supporting, Bush.

[ryharrin]

4. All of those groups are the base.

And just because some DLC candidates can attract one of those groups each doesn't mean they're exciting the base. It means they're exciting one part of the base. That's the problem. We need the whole base, along with a bit of the center. It may go without saying, but I think Dean is the answer to that. He gets the whole base (which of his positions alienate democrats?) He gets some of the center (guns, israel) He even gets lots of greens (IRV, anti-media consolidation, somewhat anti-RIAA)

[w4rma]

5. Here's my major problem with the DLC

The DLC is pandering to the largest corporations in the country and is not looking at small buisnesses. The effects of this are seen in that it is becoming harder and harder to start up a successful buisness in this country while the huge entrenched buisnesses cannot do anything bad enough to go out of buisness (note Enron is still in buisness).

I do not see the DLC as supporting of buisness in general. I see the DLC as supportive of the specific mega-corps that are donating to the DLC (and also seem to be big donors to the Republican Party).

Also, I think that the DLC has been actively preventing the Democratic Party from taking positions that they need to take to get the small donations that Dean is receiving right now. I don't *think* that it is sabatoge, I think that it is just that they support these specific mega-corps first and the Democratic Party second.

The DLC knows how to fundraise from granting favors to big corporations.

Big corporations want regulations that protect the environment, consumers and their smaller competitors watered down or revoked. The DLC helps do this for campaign funds.

This is their version of moderation. They aren't taking the moderate voters' position, they are moderating between what the voters want and what their big buisness contributors want.

[w13rd0]

8. thanks for expressing...

...what I was thinking ;)

Indeed, the threat they see is one dealing with fundraising. They've no interest in Democratic voters doing anything other than stroking the jackass in the voting booth. They don't want us personally invested and involved in our political process, it would cut into their kickbacks...

[meegbear]

11. or culd it be ...

you're doing dean's bidding to "annoy the DLC".

[el_gato]

7. your trying to equate one thing to another

Why is it not okay to oppose the comments of someone like Al From?

Should we support a war just because the DLC types want us to?

Restoring our civil liberties seems like a high priority to me as well.

But I guess we should all just be quiet because the DLC would rather have us go along with the corporate agenda.

Standing up for what you believe in is a far cry from the exclusive behavior that you have described above. So your saying if you can't get in line and support the corporatist agenda then you are against everyone else.

So the message your sending is "whatever you do don't stand up for what you believe in." It's a zero-sum viewpoint you are pushing.

[Armstead]

9. No choice in philosophies

DLC Centrists are different from moderates. They have a whole different agenda than liberalism.

And they want to pre-empt the position of liberal and progressive politics. If they continue to play a dominant role, they are taking away the real choices between liberalism and conservatism.

Yeah I know. Bush sucks and all that. But Bush is just a symptom of a much larger problem, which the DLC does not want the Democratic Party to deal with.


It is no secret that the corporate sector of society has gained far too much power and influencer over the last 25 years. And that the nexus of power has gotten so far away from the grass roots that people feel helpless and frustrated. And people are aware of the growing chasm of wealth.

Being opposed to corporate conservatism and promoting liberal/progressive ideals again is not "radical." Corporate conservatism has robbed the population of any influence in power, has eorded the standard of living for a majority of people is destroying our environment and quality of life.

Conservatives blame liberals for their own helplessness. And the right wing makes people feel, that way by deflecting attention from the real problems and adding to the label of liberal gremlins.

Others have simply tuned it all out, and become apathetic and willfully uninformed.

The DLC is part of the machine that perpetuates this. The DLC has bought into the basic concept of corporate conservatism, and they are aiding the Republicans in demonizing liberalism and progressive "activism."

THat is not building a Big Tent. It is just the opposite. If the DLC continues to set the dominant tone of the Democratic Party with this centrist nonsense, then they will give more and more people reason to eitehr become Republicans (for the real thing) or turn to the Greens or some otehr alternative that reflects liberal and progresive values.

[vi5]

12. O.K. so nobody still answered my question....

You can hate the organization of the DLC all you like. I don't like them myself. But when people paint every single candidate who is liked by the DLC as being against the "base" or against the democratic party, thats when I think it crosses the line.

If you're a Dean supporter, fine. Then praise Dean and explain to all of these other groups why Dean is in their interests. But this relentless focus on the DLC and the possibility that if a candidate who is approved by the DLC wins that it is some kind of huge conspiracy is starting to seem really counterproductive to me.

I'm not gonna change any minds so it's all a moot point I guess.

[loyalsister]

27. Thank you!

You articulated something that I have thought for a long time much better than I have been able to.

[Classical_Liberal]

29. What is your question?

?

[lcordero]

10. I'm sorry but I don't find them suitable to my tastes

[ulysses]

13. but aren't unions, veterans, lawyers and the Jewish community

among the special interests and activist elites the DLC dislikes so?

[vi5]

15. But that's my point....we can dislike the DLC....

But to condemn with one big blanket the candidates who happen to be supported by the DLC is what I think is counterproductive.

[ulysses]

16. I can more or less agree with that

Not all DLCers are created from the same cloth. I think it becomes a kind of shorthand, though, particularly because those candidates least palatable to those of us who hate the DLC (as far as I can tell - ymmv) are the ones that adhere most closely to the official DLC line. Lieberman is the obvious example.

[salin]

19. My highly visible own DLCer

its chair, Evan Bayh, makes it real easy to "see" what kind of DLCer he is. That, I guess, is one thing to be appreciative of - we know what we have there. No surprises.

But I would agree, not all affiliated with the DLC necesarily consider it central to who they are as politicians.

[blm]

28. ewwwwww....

he's my LEAST favorite Dem. Dead even with Zell Miller.

[FubarFly]

22. Point taken

But it also counterproductive for the DLC to attack a rapidly growing and hugely successful grassroots movement in their own party. And the other DLC candidates, with the notable exception of Graham, are sticking rigidly to the DLC party line. If they spoke with their own voices more, and depended on the DLC a little less, I would be more than happy to at least listen.

[Trajan]

18. The DLC has decided of late to attack a certain segment of their own party

THEY seem to have drawn the line in the sand .....

Even as a moderate, Im appalled by thier sycophancy to the GOP ....

THEY need to BACK OFF: .. and let the party members work out which candidate will represent them ....

[tom_paine]

21. Thank you, Trajan. Well said and I completely agree

Seems like these gutless weenies are better at attacking "liberals" (funny how they use identical strategies, only a bit more toned down as befits their weakness) than they are at attacking Repugs.

I, too, am appalled and "sycophancy" is the right word for it.

I would also say that the DLC still represents the ever-shrinking segment of Democrats who simply don't get it. The Old epublci is dead. To save it, we are going to have to be a bit stronger, braver, and more aggressive than if we were living in a strong, healthy Democratic-Republic.

What strikes me about about the DLC is that they seem to (in addition to bootlicking King George with nearly as much fervrency as they ape Bushevik tactics in attacking anyone who disagrees with them) share a common trait: They all believe what the Right-Wing Sub-Media says.

And that is precisely the kind of people who are going to get our grandchildren Gulagged (or whatever surprise George P. Caligula has prepared during his Imperial Reign).

I am one moderate the DLC will NEVER represent! I do NOT favor weakness in the face of ruthless, unprincipled aggression!

And I do NOT lick the boots of Emperors.

Neither should they. And, before th DLC Brigade jumps all over me, there are plenty of ways to express opposition without sounding wacky. Hell the Repugs have been doing it for DECADES to great success.!

Go ahead, flame away.

[ReadTomPaine]

26. Aside - Love your nickname, btw.

<eom>

[David Zephyr]

20. You Erroneously Generalize About Jewish Voters.

You wrote: "If jewish voters support Leiberman because he has worked to advocate causes or issues that they place high on their list of importance, does that mean that they are no longer part of the base?"

The American Jewish community is diminshed by such comments. I have not seen any evidence that American Jews are supporting Joe Lieberman anymore than they are of the other leading Democratic Candidates and certainly no evidence whatsoever that American Jews would support Lieberman solely because he is Jewish. None.

[ReadTomPaine]

23. The DLC and The Broad Brush

To contend as you do that all DLC sponsored candidates are treated to a similar broad brush is to ignore the vast differences in personal style between them and the favoritism the DLC leadership displays among their own rank in file. You’ll find, for example, a far less vituperative reaction towards Kerry than towards Lieberman – both of who are considered DLC candidates.

You’ll also find that the farther a Democrat veers from the DLC’s questionable non-democratic platform aspects, the more support they get from the rank in file, and the less support they get from the DLC. The question then becomes, why support the DLC itself at all? What value to they bring to the party or to the candidates except to impose a traditionally non-Democratic yardstick by which to measure their approval? It’s certainly not an asset to the party itself to divide supporters with acrimony.

The swing voters that you seem to indicate the DLC will reach have traditionally not been swayed by middle of the road politics as much as by personal style and power of leadership. Reagan & Clinton didn’t garner so much of the swing vote because they appeased the opposing party, but rather thru personal magnetism- that is what appeals to people who aren’t interested in politics or don’t have strong convictions one way or the other. They are less moved by issues than by an innate sense of the character of the candidacy. Bush himself won the swing votes that he did on his ‘straight shooter regular guy’ portrayl, rather than running to the middle (something his core constituency would never allow).

If the ‘big blanket’ condemnation that you propose truly existed, then Kerry and Dean would not be neck and neck in the nomination race, and I’m sure just about everyone here would be happy in some capacity with either as a President. Also, lets not forget that by strict definition, Dean *is* a member of the DLC.

The question can be just as easily turn around and be perhaps more compelling in that fashion. Why is it that the DLC uses a big blanket to condemn their own candidates failing the litmus test of their agenda? This is esp. vivid with Dean, whose success, if tapped, would be a great way to help win the election for the Democratic Party if it were to be embraced as part of 'the big tent' rather than discussed with barely disguised contempt. It is, however, also true of Kerry- a front runner and a DLC member in good standing. If the DLC is playing straight, then why do they promote Lieberman at Kerry’s expense every time they get a chance?

It’s pretty simple to see that the DLC is not a meritocracy and is less motivated by ideology than by personal interests and advancement. While that might be a good strategy in certain circles, in this race it’s a horse that won’t run, much less win.

[Beacho]

24. lets clarify

"But if Unions support Gephardt...."

You mean union leadership


"If jewish voters support Leiberman..."

Sez who?

[sandnsea]

25. I think people don't know or don't get it

Alot of their policies sound fine at a glance. It's only when you actually get into it that you find out what they really stand for. And I think Unions are pro-corporate anyway. Without the corporate, they wouldn't be as needed for one. Also, there's a large batch of workers all in one place. And they may just think corporations are the best way to produce goods. But that doesn't mean the DLC doesn't believe Unions aren't relevant anymore. And I'm not sure Gephardt is as strong on the DLC as Lieberman is, for example. Let's say the DLC doesn't have the muscle that Tom Delay has, but they'd sure like to.

And I try to consider where each candidate actually stands on various DLC issues. Some of them I'm okay with, some of them I detest. I mostly detest any group in the Democratic Party that wants to dictate votes and policy. That's not democracy and that's the part I think most average people don't get.