Do you passionately loathe the DLC?

[IronLionZion]

[robcon]

1. I think the DLC could save the party

Unless we move toward the center, it will be very difficult to win a national election, IMO.

[saracat]

4. Arghhh! That is exactly the thinking that cost us the last three election!

People didn't have a choice! If going to the center worked the Republicans would have done it. Notice they moved right! We don't have an identity . As Truman said ."give a voter a choice between a Republican and a Republican, and they will vote Republican everytime!" And the DLC didn't elect Clinton. Clinton could have sold ice to Eskimos! Clinton elected Clinton. We haven't won any elections as centrist without him! Notice centrism cost us the Congress in 1994 and we have never gotten it back .except temporarily with the Jeffords defection! The DLC must go, or be transformed!

[Julien Sorel]

16. Prove that centrism cost the Democrats Congress in 1994.

You can't, but you won't stop making the claim. Neither will anyone else around here.

[saracat]

19. Prove it didn't. We have won nothing except for the Clinton

presidential elections since the DLC centrism became prominent. Many voters expressed discontent with the fact that the parties were too much the same. That was the principal argument flying around during 2000. Most people didn't like either candidate.In most cases, people voted against either Bush or Gore and not for either. They felt there wasn't enough of a difference to support either.In both cases it became the devil you know, and they held their noses, and voted party line. Neither side made a conversion, because there was no choice. The repugs smartened up and offered a choice. They went right, to make sure no one could confuse them with us. How often did you hear the phrase"But you know where I stand" ? No one knows what Dems stand for as they have tried to be Republican lite. We can't be all things to all people. As the repugs have already carved out the right for themselves , we can only go left to illustrate a difference. We lost congress in 1994 because there was no choice and Clinton didn't have coattails, because his support was generated by charisma, not centrism. The contract with America was clear and it offerd a definative stance. Again, as Truman said ,"when they have a choice between Republican and Republican, they vote Republican everytime! "They voted for the real Republicans. We must do better than offering people faux Democrats. Clinton states that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. This is exactly what the DLC are doing. We must break the pattern of insanity!

[Julien Sorel]

20. You made the assertion; back it up.

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative, "to prove it didn't." It is equally illogical to state, "B then A, therefore B caused A." But that's what you're doing.

I've posted this before: Clinton tried being a liberal in 1992 and 1993. He got hammered in approval polls, and the Democrats got crushed in 1994. He moved to the center in 1994, announcing "The era of big government is over," and abandoning national healthcare; his poll numbers went up, and pretty much stayed there for the rest of his presidency. It doesn't prove liberalism and centrism were responsible for Clinton's approval ratings and the 1994 elections -- but it's infinitely more evidence that you've offered, which is ... none at all.

Of course, as I said before, the lack of supporting evidence, and the existence of contrary evidence, won't prevent you and many others around here from continuing to claim centrism was the reason Democrats lost in 1994. Political scientists say otherwise?

While the election was a resounding victory for the Republicans -- no incumbent Republican lost, its lasting effect may well be limited to the South, where a realignment toward the GOP seems to be in place for at least a generation.

This election was the first, but surely not the last, in which the GOP won a majority of the votes for Congress and a majority of House seats. It was an accident awaiting an unpopular (in the region) Democratic President to happen. The region as a whole is more conservative than the nation, and the GOP is the more conservative party.

...

The trend in the South is unmistakable. Since 1970, after the full impact of the Voting Rights Act was felt, the Republicans have reversed what was a 18.5% to 10.0% deficit in House votes into the 17.1% to 13.5% majority it enjoyed in the 1994 election.

That trend is likely to continue for at least a generation. There will likely be further defections of Democratic office-holders to the GOP and more GOP victories in marginal districts. The Democrats went into the 1994 election with an 8-5 margin of House seats. It would not surprise me if the GOP achieved that margin in the next two election cycles.

Well, just part of the corporatist MSM. Can't be trusted. Besides, if Clinton had been more liberal, I'm sure he would have been more popular in the South.

[saracat]

23. My "evidence" was equally as convincing as your own.

After my initial sarcastic opening sentence , I did "prove " my opinion, at least to the same extent you proved yours. Clinton Never tried being a "liberal' in 1992 or 1993. He was heavily involved in the creation of the DLC and ran as their candidate initially in 1992. They have NEVER been liberal. The whole idea of the so called "new democrat" was spawned by the DLC. I interviewed Al From about this very subject during election 2004 and he would absolutely agree. I am basing my position on what he told me. The difference is I believe the DLC is an anachronism and he would believe it is still pertinent, but we would agree as to the facts, especially concerning the Clinton philosophy. Your facts are not correct.
As far as the south is concerned, the south is no longer relevant. Elections can be won without them as has been proven in 2004.If Ohio hadn't been stolen, Kerry wins without the south. Too much credence is given to the south who aren't worth it. They should never be in the position of deciding the presidency especially because they contribute so little to this nation. But that is JMHO.

[Julien Sorel]

29. You haven't put any "evidence"

forward, convincing or otherwise. Clinton was a centrist. The Democrats lost in 1994. Therefore, centrism was the problem. That's your "evidence." No analysis of the races. No expert opinions. Nothing at all but that absurd bit of reasoning.

The sun rose this morning. I stubbed my toe. God damn that sun for making me stub my toe!


Clinton's first two years were dominated by the national healthcare plan -- a liberal cornerstone since FDR. It proved to be unpopular across the country. That was what people saw about Clinton: a guy who tried to foist government-run healthcare on them. When he threw it overboard, his poll numbers went up.

Blaming centrism for losing control of Congress, then saying "the South doesn't matter," is absurd, since the South is where Democrats lost most of the seats. But why bother expecting reasoning at this point? You've made up your mind, and facts, those pesky things, aren't about to get in the way.

[saracat]

32. I would suggest you research the DLC.

You are clearly ignorant of its precepts. I think you are perhaps guilty of that which you accuse me. I also delineated between those "facts" and that which was opinion. But never mind.

[Julien Sorel]

37. Again, what can I say?

I read just about every word that comes out of the DLC. And the NDN. And every other center-left organization.

Of course, that's besides the point. Saying I'm ignorant about the DLC doesn't do squat towards proving, or even supporting, your assertion that the DLC and centrism cost the Democrats the 1994 election. It's just running away.

So let's recap:

You stated that Democrats lost in 1994 because of the DLC. You offered no evidence for this, and I've never seen any offered here or elsewhere. When challenged, you talked about the 2000 elections (?), which, oddly enough, the Democrats won in the Senate, the House, and the popular vote of the presidency. When I pointed out this doesn't support your original claim, and offered evidence suggesting the real reasons for the loss in 1994, you talked about interviewing Al From, who said the DLC was never liberal (What would the kids say? No duh?). You concluded by accusing me of being ignorant about the DLC. Nowhere in there was any support, or even an attempt at supporting, your original claim about why the Democrats lost in 1994. Have you changed your mind, though? Probably not. You will go on believing that centrism is the reason the Democrats lost in 1994, and will likely go on saying it, here and elsewhere, as an example of how centrism loses.

The Republicans have their Christianity, Democratic Underground has its DLC hatred. Faith over reason.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Logic 101: Cough up, Saracat

The person making the assertion has the burden of proof, not the person who refutes that assertion. It is not possible to prove a negative. The person making the assertion would be you, Saracat. So... cough up some proof, eh?

Meanwhile, the DLC and the DNC bashing is getting redundant at the very least.

[Cheswick2.0]

61. bullshit, she posted an opinon...one that many democrats hold

she doesn't have to prove her opinion.

[LittleClarkie]

68. The point is of the two sides, she's the one with the burden

Saracat makes an assertion.

Julien disagrees.

Saracat says "prove there isn't."

Well, Julien isn't obligated in an arguement to "prove there isn't." At the very least, that's my point. You can't prove a negative. Prove, for instance, that there ISN'T a God.

Sooo... if there's to be ANY proving happening, it's gotta come from the side that's making the assertion.

Learned about logic from a buncha atheists, I did.

On a slightly different note, she doesn't have to prove her opinion, but it also doesn't matter that it is one that is shared. If you can't give concrete reasons for why you feel that way, what good is it?

[Cheswick2.0]

70. and bullshit again...... the point is that she has no obligation to play

this silly game where you are asked to prove your opinion. People who play like to think they are master debators. In reality the game is really just meaninless posterbation. Julien is the one who asked her to prove her opinion. She simply called him on his silly request.

Those atheists you learned from need some lessons in logic. They may have mastered introduction to logic 101, but most of us are already graduated from the 400 level course.

[Julien Sorel]

95. No, I asked her to support her opinion with evidence.

It's something I've asked you many times, but you always "call me on my silly request," and then brag about your political knowledge and the like, while going on dribbling out the same nonsense.

Rational people (sorry to take you into unknown territory), form opinions based on observation and evidence. When asked about those opinions, most people are able to explain what led them to form them. For example, I am of the opinion that the Democrats lost in 1994 for three primary reasons:

One, the failure of the national healthcare plan (defeated by a coalition of conservatives, the insurance industry, and small business, by painting it as too liberal); Two) the retirement of longtime, moderate to conservative Dems in conservative districts; and Three) Clinton's unpopularity in conservative regions for pushing what was seen as socialized medicine. In other words, the Democrats lost for being too liberal. I can support that with a wide variety of evidence, and posted a link to some of it above. Saracat, and you, for that matter, claim that the Democrats lost in 1994 because Clinton was a centrist, with logic that looks like this:

Clinton was a centrist. The Democrats lost in 1994. Therefore, the Democrats lost because Clinton was a centrist.

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's just that some opinions seem a little more valid than others. Just a little, though.

[m berst]

101. one point ... or five :)

Interesting post. I want to pull one phrase from your post to demonstrate something for your consideration.

"...defeated by a coalition of conservatives, the insurance industry, and small business, by painting it as too liberal." (emphasis added)

You make a legitimate point - and back it up - that it is possible that it is liberalism or left wing positions that the voters are rejecting. As you know from other posts of mine, we see this differently. That being said, could we consider that the issue is a little more complex than that, and see if we can't find a beter way to talk about it?

Is it the left wing or liberal positions that voters are rejecting, or is it the painting of the issues that is causing voters to reject liberal and left wing ideas? Could it not be possible that the right wingers have so successfully gained control over the language and the debate that voters are rejecting their paint job they are doing on the Democratic party rather than the positions? Could it not also be true that many Democrats have misread this and assumed that the party needed to move more to the center? I notice that no matter how far the party moves to the center, the paint jobs continue and are just as effective. If these paint jobs are going to happen regardless of how far to the left or the center the party is, why not move to the left or at least stop moving to the center?

While I side with saracat and cheswick on this, I would suggest that there is a possibility for a constructive dialog on this subject. If we separate out the way that the opposition is defining liberal and left wing from the actual liberal and left wing positions the party takes, then the two components of the issue can be discusses more intelligently. The first is a matter of presentation and communication, and the second is a matter of core principles and goals.

Now it could be that you see a danger from traditional liberalism, or are defining it differently than I do. I grew up thinking that the party was all about protecting the little guy and the public resources from the potential ravages of the wealthy and powerful who have an inherent unfair advantage. Whatever most effectively accomplishes that, the Democratic party stands for. Since there are far more little guys than aristocrats, there should be no need for the party to ever have a controversy of practicality over principle. Naturally, the party does not therefore advocate the elimination of capitalism nor the punishment of achievement, so that balances the danger of ideology run amok and introduces practicality and compromise.

Today the public resources and the little guy are being ravaged. It can be argued that since the Democrats have a built in advantage of a larger natural constituency, and that since the Democratic party is the opposition party, that it is only logical that the party is failing or is straying from fundamental principles. Moving further away from its traditional position as advocate and champion of the little guy, then, would seem to be sacrificing long term sustainability for short term gain.

Now, as to whether or not the party is effectively communicating its positions to the potential supporters, that is another issue again. And I would add that playing on the Republicans ball field - reacting to their hot button issues and defining the party by those - is also an error. I would say that abortion and gun rights and GLBT issues and "moral values" issues are not liberal or conservative and have distorted our idea of left and right. My personal opinion on those issues is that my personal opinion doesn't matter, and that the party should be working to get them out of the national debate since they are merely wedge issues that the Republicans cynically use for political advantage.

The Republican program that is masked and hidden behind these hot button issues is one of destruction of public resources and commoditization of labor on a "free market" and that program is to the disadvantage of the majority of the citizens. On those issues of the dignity of labor and the individual, and the importance of public resources including infrastructure, health care, and education, the Democrats can run and they can win again and again. This isn't far left or radical.

Practicality and ideals are not intrinsically incompatible or oppositional as one would think watching the argument on this thread. Without the passion and idealism that saracat and cheswick express - and there are no "links" to "prove" what is in their hearts - the party would be a dry empty shell. I think that there passion comes from an emotional empathy with the downtrodden and the disenfranchised, the suffering and the marginalized among us.

Granted, the party needs to be practical. But the party needs a heart as well as a head. People are motivated by their emotions. The Republicans are using fear. Democrats historically have stood for compassion and empathy. The party will surely die without those, no matter how brilliantly practical the leadership is.

Rather than argue about the causes of specific results from specific elections - which I trust that you are knowledgeable about and I respect - could we agree that in general the party is in trouble?

If we can agree with that, and if we can agree that the idea of a big tent is desirable, and if we can agree that there are differences in the policies and positions of former Democratic leaders and the current crop, then I would ask one question.

If the party could win and run on the program and positions of Lyndon Johnson, would you have a problem with that? If so, what problem would you have?

[saracat]

71. Saracasm. My first sentence was meant to be satirical.

In any event, I gave concrete examples of why I hold my opinion. If one doesn't want to accept them ,fine. Many do. I don't need unanimous approbation of my opinion for it to be justified.

[Sterling]

81. I think the proof is self evident..

The record of success with DLC types calling the plays is pathetic.
Anyone who is not aware of that should not be allowed to vote much less help set the platform of the party.

[wyldwolf]

93. as opposed to the record of the far lefty types who've never won jack?

[m berst]

102. oh stop it

I presume you are a "big tent" and practicality advocate.

Saying "far lefty types who've never won jack" defeats your own purpose. It is inflammatory and divisive.

The Democratic party will always include your dreaded far-lefty types and you need to learn to communicate with them. Practice on me if you like. It is for the good of the party and the most practical and constructive thing you can do. Throwing around insults and one-liners doesn't accomplish anything. Well, it did draw me in, but I am not sure if that is a positive or a negative. :)

Let's discuss this calmly and intelligently. Winning is about compromise and open discussion of honest differences, and about being practical and realistic - as you lecture the far lefty types. So let's see some of that spirit from you. I hold that is is highly impractical to build the party by running around hurling insults at the left wing of the party. What is your position on that?

[wyldwolf]

105. AMAZING!

Here is ANOTHER one who sits idly by while moderates and DLC types are called all manner of names but suddenly becomes all moral when some of the treatment is sent back your way.

Re-read every anti-DLC thread over the last week...

The Democratic party will always include your dreaded moderate and DLC types and you need to learn to communicate with them.

Throwing around insults and one-liners doesn't accomplish anything. Just ask the anti-DLC'ers and anti-moderates here.

You really need to direct your wisdom to the anti-DLC folks who started and participated in the following threads. Notice it was them who first become inflammatory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1433746

(by the way, the above subject has been posted several times already)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1418423

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2824266

..and many more.

Just do a DU search.

In fact, one can't even post about Clark or Edwards or Kerry or a host of other Dems without SOMEONE bringing the DLC in and throwing around words like "fascist."

So tell your "wing" here on DU if they want respect, they must give it.

[m berst]

107. ok

But we aren't working in teams or competing here. At least I am not on a team. I can't speak for all of the people on the anti-DLC threads.

I would say that we far left folks feel like we don't have very many places to speak, I would think, and the DLC has become a symbol and focal point for people's frustrations. Whether that is right or wrong, does it hurt anything?

If there are too many anti-DLC threads maybe it is because there are a lot of anti-DLC people. That doesn't make them your enemy, does it?

[wyldwolf]

111. ok

But we aren't working in teams or competing here. At least I am not on a team.

In one of the anti-DLC threads just the other day, someone remarked that everytime an anti-DLC thread is posted, the same people come in to defend them. When it was very correctly pointed out that the same people continuously start and post in anti-DLC threads, the poster ignored that point.

So, no, no real organized teams - but we all know who plays on which side.

I would say that we far left folks feel like we don't have very many places to speak, I would think, and the DLC has become a symbol and focal point for people's frustrations. Whether that is right or wrong, does it hurt anything?

First, a difference on symantics with you. We're ALL left here - regardless of how much people want to pout and whine and set their own definition of what "left" and "liberal" mean.

Moving on, the further left always claims they are the base and the majority so if they don't have many places to speak, they need to work on that themselves.

Per DU's stated purpose, DU welcomes Democrats and progressives of all stripes. No one gets the place to themselves.

If the further left has zeroed in on the DLC as the source of all their woes, it speaks volumes as to how much organization they have.
Does ranting against the DLC hurt anything? Not really, though the ranters would certainly have more credibility if there was substance behind their ranting and proof behind their allegations.

What hurts things is calling DLC and moderate Dems "fascists," "traitors," and the like.

[m berst]

115. understood and agreed

DLC threads do quickly become - or start out as - one of those all or nothing polarized discussions.

I think a variety of things get mixed together in people's minds that aren't necessarily directly related. In this case an example of that might be some recent comment by Al From, the DLC, frustration in general with the party's rightward drift, frustration in general with the direction the country is going. It also seems the disagreements about strategy and disagreements about positions get confused and mixed together.

I would imagine that besides the problems you see with the anti-DLC threads here, you would have ideological differences with some of the further left, and some different ideas about election strategy than others here. I agree that we need input from a wide range of viewpoints, so let's hope that those more substantive issues can be discussed.

From reading the material at DLC website, I would say that the positions on free markets and also on welfare are the flash points for those on the further left. Almost everything there is in keeping with mainstream traditional Democratic party policies and positions. It could be true that the more conservative Democrats are active and visible in the DLC more so than the DLC is promoting conservatism within the party.

People then also have worries about unnecessary compromise with the opposition party, and with the wisdom of Democratic leaders imitating Republicans to appeal to the voters.

All of those concerns that people have do get smeared together and pinned on the DLC, no doubt.

[wyldwolf]

119. funny, though...

DU is NOTHING like real-world politics.

I work right along side of those further left than me and some to the right of me for the goal of putting democrats in office.

But still, your reply still offends.

You say "Democratic leaders imitating Republicans to appeal to the voters" where there is no set lines of distinction on what that is.

If the ones starting these threads could only see the futility of them...

But is is what they strive on. Not working for the party bitching about it on the internet.

[m berst]

120. clarification

"You say 'Democratic leaders imitating Republicans to appeal to the voters' where there is no set lines of distinction on what that is."

I am merely describing the fear that many are expressing. You are correct that we would need clearer lines of distinction before we could say anything intelligent or definitive about it. I am sorry that you took offense, as that wasn't the intention.

"DU is NOTHING like real-world politics."

It is nothing like practical organizational politics, that is true. The day in day out informal discussion by people here and elsewhere both on line and off line is a component of real world politics, though too.

I appreciate your replies, as they led me to thoroughly explore the documents at the DLC website and I have a much better understanding of the organization now.

[RetroLounge]

117. "far lefty types "

Wow, a rushism at it's finest.

Yup, wish I was DLC too, so I could spout RW talking points.

RL

[wyldwolf]

118. as opposed to...

..."fascists," "traitors," etc., the the far lefty types always call moderates FIRST?

Ann Coulterism at it's finest!

Yup, wish I was far left too, so I could spout condescending Ann Coulter talking points.

[wyldwolf]

94. it wasn't phrased as an opinion, but rather stated as fact

"That is exactly the thinking that cost us the last three election!"

I think some kind of proof is in order.

But I thought the last three elections were stolen.

Weren't they?

[saracat]

69. Don't even start. An argument that starts with the premise "Democrats

won in the Senate and the House in 2000 is laughable. We did NOT take back either body and haven't since. We won the popular vote ,true. But no one bothered to prove election fraud in Florida so we "lost "the WH. Daschle became minority leader briefly only thanks to the defection of Jeffords.. We lost in 1994 simply because once again the Republicans were better at being Republicans than we are. This is the end of this discussion. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. For further information I direct you to the DLC.

[ldf]

89. Clinton's healthcare plan...proved to be unpopular across the land

HUH?!

are you serious?

healthcare reform has been popular with the people who would actually benefit from it for decades.

who was it unpopular with? why, the republicans, who wanted to piss on anything and everything clinton did, ESPECIALLY if hillary was involved, and the big money makers of the medical industry. that's who.

so that crap about the healthcare plan being unpopular is only AFTER the big guns brought out every lobbyist from under every rock to work against the people, and for the corporate trough feeders.

so your argument is bull.

[gottaB]

100. that's my impression too

Hard to prove a causal relation between Clinton's support for health care and a period of tanking approval ratings.

Betcha we all agree that the constant attacks cut into Clinton's approval ratings.

Number of solutions:

1. Don't do anything that might be attacked by hate radio loudmouths and rightwing politicians. That's pretty hard to do if your a Democrat. On the other hand some issues are sure losers. Why start a fight you know you can't win? Discretion is the better part of valour, as they say.



2. Anticipate the attacks, and plan defensive maneuvers. Don't put forward any liberal policies until you have figured out some strategies for getting them past the gatekeepers and their drooly dogs. Capture the middle ground, and then turn and fight. That's Clintonian triangulation at its best. And I guess we're all aware of some of its pitfalls and shortcomings.



3. Come out swinging. Ignore the attacks, and assume the public is on your side. Even if they're not, you can hope to deliver a knockout punch.

[CTLawGuy]

51. Did the Republicans win Congress in 1994...

by being more "centrist" than Democrats?

Did they win by taking vague positions that sound like watered-down versions of the other party's platform?

Ever heard of the Contract with America?

Was New Gingrich a "moderate?"

[Julien Sorel]

55. I see.

The Democrats lost a bunch of seats in the South because they weren't conservative enough, so they should have taken firm, liberal positions. It's like burning your hand on the stove, then turning up the heat and burning the other one. Hey, you never know, the fire just might not have been hot enough -- that's why it burned. I'm sure this makes sense in some universe. Just not this one.

Every day here, I am simply amazed by the sheer idiocy of the anti-centrist crowd. It's one thing to have ideological differences. It's another thing to look at events and put together a reasoned, logical argument. But what you people do is simply embarrassing. The country moves right? Move left in response! They'll be impressed by your strength, and vote for you!


By the way, have you actually read the Contract With America? Do you know what's in it? Did you know it only came out a couple of weeks before the election, and by that time people knew the Democrats were in deep trouble, that they knew as soon as the health care plan was "postponed" in August?

Of course you knew all these things. I can tell by your post that in addition to logical reasoning, a deep and nuanced understanding of history is your strong suit.

[CTLawGuy]

77. again

Was Newt Gingrich a moderate?


Also, I want to hear your opinion on this Julien..

if you were advising Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as to whether to sign the voting rights act,

if you knew the risk was that the Dems would lose the South for a generation, and slowly turn into a permanent minority party....

if you knew that by not signing it, black people would be permanent second-class citizens...

what would you tell him to do?

and I don't like your insulting tone.

[CTLawGuy]

79. also

the country is only "moving right" because only the right really stands for anything.

The key to politics is volume. Those who shout loudest get heard most.

If we dont' shout at the american people just as loud as the right does, then they will always lean towards them.

We DON'T put our arguments out. It doesn't help when our Congressional leadership supports Bush's war. OF COURSE people are going to support the war when they don't hear any arguments against it.


Of course people are going to like tax cuts over a balanced budget and funding health care when one side constantly extolls the virtue of tax cuts while the other says little for fear of being too "liberal."

When howard Dean dares to challenge the tax cuts and war, he's called a "liberal" and "unelectable" by his own party, and he needs to be shut up so the Democrats don't "lose". Forget that his arguments may sway swing voters by making them consider what the Repubs won't talk about.

Given a choice between a Republican and Republican-lite, people will always choose the Republican.

[sendero]

121. You seem to draw..

... the conclusion that since Reps win we have to be more like them to win. Ever really broken that down?

It's not about getting idiot "conservative Southerners" to vote for us, they are never going to.

It's about giving the rest of the country a reason to vote for us.

Someone asked earlier in the thread about a "litmus test" for the DLC. Here's my simple one - if your idea of good governing is to enact/block legislation that your constituents don't-want/want and you are taking money from the industries effected - you fail the test - you are not a Democrat.

Simple enough for you?

[m berst]

122. thanks, it is clearer now

"The country moves right? Move left in response!"

I don't know that this idea is completely without merit, despite seeming illogical on its face. Moving the country to the left is the shared goal here, and while you are correct that merely running candidates who are more to the left is not very smart, still don't you think that there is a need to set an anchor point on the left and a need to promote liberal ideals and principles more effectively?

"It's one thing to have ideological differences. It's another thing to look at events and put together a reasoned, logical argument."

I think we can all agree that this is what is needed. As to whom is or is not making this difficult or impossible, that depends on the person's point of view. We could strive for the goals you outline here, though, of discussing ideological differences and opinions about strategies and tactics without forming two warring camps.

What would be helpful to me is if you could explain where you differ from Republicans ideologically and your view of what would be a successful long range strategic scenario for the party. It seems vital to me that we know what we are talking about - ideology, tactics, campaign strategies - and that we are hearing and considering as many viewpoints as possible now.

I am trying to see this from your point of view rather than just snipe back and forth with you. I suspect that you are a party insider one way or another or have practical experience in party politics that informs your arguments. Perhaps your feelings on this issue are similar to mine on the subject of Christianity. It doesn't help me to communicate with people in the church and to counsel de-politicization of the church and promote liberalism when there is a chorus of people identifying themselves as Democrats or liberals who are calling all Christians idiots, brain damaged, delusional, etc.

[UpsideDownFlag]

78. exactly.

nt

[greenohio]

125. Did Reagan win in the 80s (Rupkes held the Senate as well for a time)...

because Mondale and Carter were centrists? Give me a fricken break.

[Cheswick2.0]

59. Prove a widely held opinion?

That's just silly.

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. From and Marshall BRAGGED about it in their Blueprint propaganda rag

They called the theft of Congress a "liberation"

[Cheswick2.0]

63. Why? did they see it as an oportunity?

What useless scum.

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. Apparently they thought that the legacy of FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK, etc...

...was something to be "liberated" from :eyes:

Fucking useless re:puke:s that they are....

[wyldwolf]

22. what should I believe?

Should I believe that the last three national elections were stolen by the GOP, as many here contend, or that the DLC was the reason we lost them (as some of the same people contend)?

[saracat]

26. The facts are not mutually exclusive.

It could be that the election was stolen as a result of the actions of the DLC. Every Senator that has trusted the Repugs and practiced bipartisanship as instructed by the DLC "go along to get along" philosophy has been beaten by savage negative attacks.

[wyldwolf]

28. oh, now that is new wrinkle!

the election was stolen as a result of the actions of the DLC.

sigh...

Practicing bipartisanship is a tradition much older than the DLC, and one most in government at least would like to adhere to.

[saracat]

33. But it must be reciprocal! If the other side continually bites

the extended hand and locks out the opposition, excecising no bipartisanship in order to effect its goals , it isn't going to work.

[wyldwolf]

34. that's true.. but...

..how is the DLC explicitly complicit?

[saracat]

36. They haven't encouraged change or any action to support such actions as

electoral reform. Their position is and was that it is unimportant. They don't believe in stolen elections(or care) and they don't believe in the "people". They are corporatists. They tried and were moderately successful and developing corporate donors. It was and is their theory that the Republican money machine, furnished by the corporations was what was causing us to lose. They developed relationships with lobbyists and corporations in order to compete with the repugs. Not necessarily a bad idea but you have to sell out to do it. They were shocked to see that the little individual donors raised more money this year. They aren't actually happy with that as they prefer power to be in the hands of an elite. They are complicit because their centrism n muddied Kerry's message because they were afraid to antagonize their corporate interests by appearing "liberal" BTW they have cooperated with the demonizing of the word "liberal" because it have been in their interests to do so. They also will never rock the boat with election reform because it might damage some of their financial interests. I don't believe that they would mind always being a secondary power as long as they profited from it. JMHO

[wyldwolf]

38. neither has the DNC -- which is infinitely more powerful than the DLC..

DLC is only a think tank

[saracat]

39. You would think so. But the DNC takes its marching orders

from the DLC. Thats why everyone is having such a problem with the DLC. They have been defining the Party. Read the From Op Ed In the WSJ. He makes it clear what he thinks of the "people".

[wyldwolf]

42. No they don't

There is no proof or any indication of that.

[saracat]

57. Only someone who hadn't been seriously involved with the party

system would think that. Believe what you want.

[wyldwolf]

73. I have been seriously involved with the party...

... stay uninformed if you want...

[saracat]

88. I am sorry. I didn't mean to imply you weren't.

It is just that people like Ed Rendell and Gov. Richardson all admit that fact so it would seem the average Dem would be aware of it as well.

[Forkboy]

74. This shouldn't be reduced to who has been involved in the party

I think it's obvious from the direction the party is heading that wyldwolf has been seriously involved.

[Sterling]

83. Being involved should mean

you actually grasp what is happening in the party not just repeat platitudes about the "center".

Ignoring the fact that the trend towards appeasing the RW is NOT winning elections, "saving the party" or most importantly is hurting America is just unforgivable if you are a person who actually bothers to pay attention.

[wyldwolf]

91. ..and again...

...nothing but emotion void of fact.

[Sterling]

82. I agree.

I just can't take anyone who does not see that the DLC has final say over the platform and strategy of the party seriously. They are either lying or stupid.

[wyldwolf]

90. Prove it.

Simple as that.

If it is so obvious, documented proof must be abundant.

[m berst]

109. it is either effective or it isn't

If it is effective, it is steering the direction of the party, yes? Is that not its purpose? If it is not effective, then why bother to defend it?

Reading from their website, their goal seems to me to be to steer the party in a certain direction, and they seem to believe that they are effective at doing that.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

Instead of just repeating that everyone else is wrong about the DLC, why not make the case for them?

Al From founded it, Al From speaks for it, and Al From takes positions far to the right of what Democratic leadership from the past. You certainly wouldn't argue that he is on the left wing of the party, would you? Are there Democrats who are more to the right than he is?

I think that it is a worthwhile effort to adapt progressive positions to changing times and to appeal better to the electorate. Those appear to be the goals of the DLC from reading the website. Al From has one approach to that goal. Is it not appropriate to ask if that approach has worked? Have more Democrats been elected because of the DLC? Are progressive politics being more effectively promoted as a result of the DNC?

[donheld]

45. saracat do you ever feel like you're talking to the wall

some of these people don't get it because they don't want to. Thanks for trying though. Do you ever feel like the more the DLC moves us to the center, the further the right takes us to the right.

[wyldwolf]

47. we ask for proof of assertions beyond "just a feeling you have"

[m berst]

104. why?

That is a problem in my opinion that needs to be addressed - the ridicule of feeling, and the attacks on anyone who expresses any emotion or speaks from compassion or empathy. That determination to live in an imagined "logic land" of rationality will kill the party just as quickly as impracticality will.

If one person feels a certain way about the issues, then that feeling can be picked up by others. People act on feelings. They vote on feelings. The complaint about the Democrats from the voters is that they are dry, stiff, intellectual and arrogant.

Instead of asking others with whom you disagree to prove their arguments intellectually, would it not be just as appropriate for us to ask you to prove that you have a heart? I would say that a lack of compassion is every bit as destructive to the party as a lack of rationality. Wouldn't you?

People are called whiners and crybabies and idealists and ridiculed for having feelings. Why should we not criticize people equally for attempting to construct public policy in the absence of any human spirit of compassion? Cold, heartless, and inhuman - that is not good. I'll take the "feelings" Democrats any day. People can be taught the intellectual concepts of politics. They can't be taught to soften their heart. Softened hearts will always win more votes than hardened verbiage and cold logic that knifes through people.

Why is cold impersonal and detached reason presumed to make one superior? How can we call ourselves Democrats and treat each other which such callous maliciousness?

I call for more heart and less head in the Democratic party. Passion can overcome a lot of practical errors. No amount of practicality can overcome a heart that is dead. I'll take the live dog over the dead lion any day.

[gottaB]

106. Maybe we should all be pricked to see if we bleed

That's the problem with the internet. No means of establishing empathy.

[wyldwolf]

113. sound like the way republicans speak

Keep 'em stupid! Spread the doctrine! Don't let it be questioned. Believe it no matter what anyone says.

[saracat]

56. No but enough people like this make me give serious thought to leaving

Party. And there are many like me! But I am staying for now in hopes that the party can be swayed to the left. I have seen some success with my State Chair so it can't be hopeless!:)

[Sterling]

80. Not a wrinkle just obvious.

Without the knowledge that the DLC would never let the party challenge election fraud it would be a lot more risky to try to pull it off.

The DLC does a great job ensuring RW crime goes unpunished.

[wyldwolf]

92. prove it

..or it's just far leftwing conspiratorial ranting.

[saracat]

97. The proof is in the winning. We didn't win!

Are we in office? Do we control anything?Just asking?

[wyldwolf]

103. ..but... but... I thought the election was rigged... stolen...

...if the fix was in, then it wouldn't matter WHO ran or from what wing of the dem party they ran from....

So was the vote rigged?

...but still, what you offer is no proof that we lost BECAUSE of the DLC...

We may have lost worse with far lefties.

What you are implying is that Democrats go through primary processes, pick the candidate they want, but then won't elect him/her.

...or you believe that swing voters would rather have a republican than a moderate democrat.. which logically would mean they would MUCH rather have a republican than a lefty democrat...

...or you imply that republicans who might vote dem would rather have a lefty than a moderate - which would be ludicrous.

Do you believe any of that?

[saracat]

110. Click your heels together and repeat after me"There are NO swing voters.

There are NO Bush voters who would ever vote Democratic" . Close your eyes .Repeat again. Now take a deep breath. This is reality. Stop pandering to the nonexistent swing voters and Bushies. Goodbye.

[wyldwolf]

112. you misunderstand what swing voters are

..they are undecideds - people who can vote either way. People that don't vote straight party.

This is reality. Educate yourself. Goodbye.

[greenohio]

124. Whatever. There is so much wrong with this post...where do I begin.

John Kerry wasn't the center. He is a reasonably progressive Dem. Apparently on this board, if you voted for the war, you're on the right....all other issues don't mean diddly. Howard Dean however is held in high esteem, who is a carbon copy of Kerry, except for support for the war.

Clinton gives tons of credit to the DLC and their philosphy in his book My Life which I have posted several times. I think he knows more about the reasons for his success than you.

Clinton did not govern from the center until AFTER 1994 election, before that, he raised taxes to lower the deficit, pushed for universal health care, fought for gays in the military and revoked all of Reagans anti-choice orders.

[IronLionZion]

6. we don't have to "move" anywhere

what's wrong with having diversity of opinion in a party? I thought it was great that the Dems have liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, hell just about anybody is welcome in the Democratic party. The Republicans tend to be more intolerant of independent thought. They want everyone to march in lock step or get lost.

I think it's perfectly alright to have conservative Dems run in the South and liberal Dems run in the Northeast. It's ridiculous for Iowa to choose the presidential nominee but s/he could be whatever s/he wants to be since the Democrats support diversity of opinion. A strong economic and defense message could win us the white house if we have the right messenger. And somebody needs to stand up and say that family values means allowing gays to have families too...you know say it the right way.

[msgadget]

14. Yes, they can save it by adopting the other party's agenda

with the exception of reproductive choice. That's NOT a good thing!

[NoPasaran]

21. Move to the center? Exactly!

We need to shift LEFT and get back to the center of political discourse in this country. This business of having two rightwing parties sucks. No wonder we continue to get our ass kicked.

[ianrs]

30. and how is the party NOT centrist at the moment?

Take a close look at the party's platform, and realise that if it moves to the center, it is caving in to the lies of repukes,the lies of Fox etc, and the spineless cretinism of the big networks and much print media. It is not out of the mainstream. Personality and trivia politics, combined with effective spin/lies etc. combine to pervert the message, as Rove knows.

Anyway, you must FIGHT for your beliefs, or why be in a political party.
Look what is happening to the British Labour Party, for god's sake...

[lojasmo]

31. We did move toward the center....and we lost. N/T

[donheld]

44. Democratic Lameass Committee

Unless we become republican it will be very difficult to win a national election. Come right out and say it next time

[Mike L]

46. We must move toward the center with middle America.

Move or Die.

[AntiCoup2K4]

72. To HELL with so called "middle" America

Middle of WHAT exactly?

When the so called Red state maps are a nearly exact duplicate of 1860 pro-con slavery maps, it's pretty obvious that there is nothing remotely in the middle or "centrist" about what this brainwashed sea of fucking morons chooses to believe. Fuck them and their efforts to pull this country into their confederate freeper ditch.

Actually, ditch is putting it mildly. More like the Marianas trench at the moment.

[Mike L]

76. Hummmm......Ohio and Iowa are red states.

Wisconsin barely missed being a red state.

[AntiCoup2K4]

84. Ohio's not a red state.

It's a blue state that was stolen. As for Iowa, the caucuses are proof enough that they aren't as politically savvy as some would like to believe.

[Mike L]

85. They didn't steal 117,000 votes in Ohio. They probably stole about 10,000.

Not enough to make a difference.

[JNelson6563]

53. You are wrong

Given the choice between Real Rethugs and Rethug-Lite, the real ones will win every time.

I question those who would have us betray our values.

Julie

[ulTRAX]

114. Moving To The Center Helped Clinton? He only got 42% of 1992 vote

Maybe it was 43%. This myth is overblown.

[RetroLounge]

116. Battered Woman Syndrome is alive and well...

Yup, we've done real well so far being Repug-lite.

RL

[ShaneGR]

2. Still have yet to have a firm explanation of "Kerry was DLC"

But it's always nice to point fingers and villafy your own side.

[Forkboy]

3. Yep

Which is why there were threads here blaming pro-choicers,gays,unions and everybody else.

Oddly,I didn't see you complaining about that finger pointing :shrug:

[saracat]

5. The DLC isn't my side!

[debsianben]

40. Are you serious?

John Kerry was a paid-up member of the DLC. Its a matter of public record. He never hid his membership in the DLC, or pretended to be a liberal. In the debates with Bush, and at other campaign events, he angrily denied the lable when he was accused of being a liberal. He often bragged on the campaign trail about being "an early proponent of welfare reform." He's never pretended to disagree with his fellow DLC members on Iraq, "free trade" or much of the rest of the package. He was in fact way to the right of former DLC chairman Bill Clinton on many issues--Clinton signed the Kyoto Accord, which Kerry voted against ratifying, and Clinton signed the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which Kerry also voted against ratifying.

Or does "Kerry wasn't DLC" mean something else, unrelated to his formal membership in the DLC and his agreement with their positions?

[saracat]

98. Yeah well, There is being a member and there is being a footsoldier.

The DLC in not happy with Kerry at the moment because they didn't want him to pay for Grigoire's recount. Notice they wouldn't. And they are not happy that Kerry has signed on to the Ohio recount. Watch for the knives to be drawn. Kerry is not quite one of them. BTW watch Dean. He gets more conservative by the moment. Anyone remember when he said Kerry was more liberal than he was . Also , why does no one mention that Dean is a paid up DLCer? Just wondering.

[Harlan James]

7. I Passionately Hate The Republican Party

But those working to split mine come in a close second.

[Forkboy]

8. So that's a yes?

:)

[Harlan James]

9. It's a no.

[Forkboy]

10. But you said you hated people trying to split the party

:shrug:

[Harlan James]

12. Right.

And going on about how much you loathe certain elements within the party that are saying things that you might disagree with does have that effect.

Has anyone within the DLC ever said they hate you?

[Forkboy]

13. Not directly

but judging from the amount of shit on my head I'm guessing they dont really like me :)

[Harlan James]

15. Here's a towel.

[Forkboy]

17. LOL...got a good color anyways

:)

[saracat]

27. If you are a member of Move On.org ,a fan of M Moore or a member of the

Hollywood entertainment community , or any other "fridge element" ,by his DLC definition, they do hate you. They do not want the Democratic Party defined or associated with such people. He said so in an Op Ed for the WSJ, so it must be true. I fit two out of the three categories so I know they hate me. Can I borrow that towel????

[Harlan James]

43. The Towel Is All Yours

And here is a layer of thick skin to go with it. Something you need I suspect.

[Cheswick2.0]

66. and here is something I think you sorely need

The one you are currently using seems to be tin

[Harlan James]

87. Oh, I'm sorry, you're right.

One should always respect the sanctity of those proclaiming their victimhood.

[IndianaGreen]

11. This is not a "dead horse"

The evil DLC is alive and well, and in deep denial as to their culpability for the failed Kerry campaign.

[JohnLocke]

49. Give it up, IG.

It wasn't the DLC who undermined Kerry's campaign.

[Cheswick2.0]

67. sure it was

it was the idiotice catering he did to their aggenda and the DLC consultants who advised him which undermined his campaign.

[JNelson6563]

54. You are correct!

What poor advice they gave him an what poor judgement he showed by listening to them.

Julie

[Lorien]

99. Yep, three strikes, and they're still not out?

Who IS the Democratic party anyway? Us, or those megacorp whores in the DLC? We need to take back our party AND our country!

[Walt Starr]

18. We have a word for the DLC in my parts

Republicans.

[saracat]

24. Tee heee hee! So true!

[w4rma]

25. Yes. The DLC is a 5th column. Until they change leadership and bashing

liberals and liberal policy I'll strongly oppose them until they are marginalized within the Democratic Party or their leadership has been replaced with folks that can be worked with.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Yes, I do. Flame me if you like.

[hyphenate]

41. I loathe the pukes

A million times over, but if someone is a moderate, I have nothing against them. We need to understand that as long as they hold even some liberal values, they're a hundred million times better than anyone with a conservative agenda.

[IronLionZion]

48. wheeee!!!!

lets beat it like a pinata!

[Tinoire]

50. Unequivocably Loathe Them.

They don't have a single redeeming value I can think of.

You asked. I answered.

[Cheswick2.0]

58. no, I just think they are useless money grubbers and should be disbanded

I say we prove that other organizatons are more effective and the DLC will be starved to death.

[AntiCoup2K4]

60. The DLC are traitors against this party AND this country.

Will Marshall is a PNAC signator. PNAC is guilty of treason against the United States of America. How the fuck could anybody with a functional brain want a piece of shit like that associated with this party?

[GreenPartyVoter]

65. Of course I do. How could I not?

------------------------------------
Join the NEW Boston Tea Party!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[JVS]

75. Push poll

[AntiFascist]

86. What is this "centrism"?....

If it means becoming more hawkish, then no way, count me out, never in your wildest dreams, I will fight you until I get carpal tunnel syndrome and even then...

[ulysses]

96. shit, you found me out.

Was it something I said?

:evilgrin:

[Lerkfish]

108. First, you have to understand there is no "center".

What the DLC is calling the "center" is actually the right. It only appears to be the center because the republicans have shifter uberright.
The "center" they want us to move to is pro-war, anti-abortion, anti gay rights.

gee...that's pretty much right wing in my book.

go peddle snake oil elsewhere, DLC.

[Yuugal]

123. Yes, I passionately hate the DLC

When they tried to speak for every democrat and trashed M Moore, I hated the DLC. When I read on commondreams.org about the DLC holding a symposium on how dems should show their godliness more, this atheist hated the DLC. When they said that supporting gays, unions, and abortion rights is hurting the party, I hated the DLC.

The final straw was c-span the other day and Al From and co calling us "people who crawl out from under rocks", crazy leftists, people with nobody else to vote for who don't need to be listened to. One lady asked him why Kerry and the party leaders didn't do a better job explaining to people that this war was making us more unsafe and not safer at all......Al From actually laughed in her face, then he barked "I remember 9/11" (still blatantly hawking Bushco's lies about Iraq being tied to 9/11), then he shoved the mic away and scowled.

That is how the DLC has gotten my hated. They blatantly support the killing in Iraq because their corporate masters are making a good profit off of it and they can't stand liberal atheist union dems like myself who are part of the activist backbone of the party.

[greenohio]

126. By demonizing fellow Dems we can win....can't you see that? Don't you...

read the blogs? Stop thinking. The blogs can do that for you!