I am a proud supporter of the Democratic Leadership Council. Sue me.

[The Blue Knight]

You know what, I'm pretty fucking tired of all the DLC-bashing that's been going on this forum. I thought the Democratic Party was the Big Tent party? But every time I come on here, I see things like "Hillary Clinton needs to join the Republicans." Or "Evan Bayh is a Republican plant." It's all bullshit.

Well, you know what---the DLC produced the only 2 term Democratic President since FDR. Bill Clinton, whether you like it or not, actually did shit for the Democratic cause. Whether you like them or not, the DLC understands what it takes to win. The Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that the Democrats can occupy the center--where a majority of Americans are politically. The days of the New Deal are long dead, and to win we must win the critical swing voters. We had an energized, unified base in '04 and we got our asses handed to us---straight up.

I just wish some people on here would accept the DLC and the people who support it. I'm a moderate Democrat, and I will not have my Democratic credentials questioned because they're not liberal enough for some people on this board. We're all on the same team here. We should be worrying about the '06 elections and not bickering about who is a true Democrat and who isn't.

[Jacobin]

1. Well, here's some more, just to get it all out at once for ya:

That's why Range's little slam at the size of Left Blogostan's audience is so silly:

These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party.

Seep into the intellectual bloodstream? The blogosphere now is the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party -- unless Range is talking about the fatty, cholesterol-clogged arteries of the D.C. lobbyist culture. These once feed oxygen (the long green variety) to the DLC's brand of corporate centrism. But those veins have nearly all been ripped out and reattached to Tom DeLay's mechanical heart.

A few thousand readers? This blog, admittedly just a tiny dot in a vast sea of electrons, has been averaging almost 40,000 discrete readers a day lately -- without paid staff, without advertising, without subscribers and without DLC-style corporate sponsors. I bet Kos and Atrios easily do three or four times that much daily traffic, or more.

How many readers, by contrast, does Blueprint have? And how many of those readers would actually pay for the thing, if they couldn't write their DLC membership dues off as a fucking business expense?

Left Blogostan isn't a threat to the DLC way of life because of its readership, which is still small beer, relatively speaking, or because of its media influence, which is obviously marginal, but because of its independence. For the first time since I don't know when -- maybe ever -- there's actually an intellectual faction within the Democratic Party that doesn't have to go crawling to Big Business or Shrinking Labor for its supper.


LOTS LOTS more here:

www.billmon.org

Enjoy!!! :-)

[Cha]

49. I read that on billmon's earlier..

I liked this part..

<<snips>>

"But unfortunately, some of the braves in Sen. Clinton's band of moderates don't want to suck on the tribal peacepipe:..

What does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror.
Blueprint Magazine
Liberal's War
July 22, 2005

Given that Blueprint is the official house organ of the Republicrat Leadership Council, and the author of that little bit of slime is the magazine's editor, it's hard to view this as an accidental violation of the cease fire, as in: "Oops. We were just practicing with the artillery, and somehow we fired a barrage into your headquarters tent. Sorry about the casualties."



"Leaving aside the classic smear tactic of attributing to Kos (the person) what someone else at Daily Kos (the blogging community) actually said, Range conveniently ignores the fact that something like 85% of British voters say they agree with Galloway, not the politicians roundly denouncing him. They believe the Iraq War was either a contributing reason or the main reason for the London bombings."


So much for the peacepipe.

[Arkana]

2. Not everyone who dislikes the DLC says those things about those two.

I don't like the fact that they have told Dean to shut up, I don't like the fact that they want to sell out on the pro-choice facet of the Democratic plank, and I don't like the fact that they have urged the Democrats in Congress to bend over and take it every time the Republicans chip away at our civil liberties.

I dislike the DLC, and I'm a Democrat. Deal with it.

[The Blue Knight]

4. They don't want to sell out pro-choice Democrats.

They just want pro-life Democrats to feel like they have a place in the Party--which they do.

I was unaware, could you cite a specific example of the DLC telling Dems to "bend over and take it everytime the Republicans chip away at our civil liberties?"

[MisterLiberal]

26. So I guess you are saying that

not only do the Repukes get to try to outlaw Roe that WE should encourage people IN OUR OWN PARTY to do so likewise?

I don't know if you noticed, but these anti-choice wackjobs aren't out to do anything but overturn Roe.

[renaissanceguy]

88. and these anti-choice whackjobs

will NEVER vote Democratic.

Haven't DLCers learned from '04: WE NEED TO DISTINGUISH OURSELVES FROM REPUBLICANS, or else we get labeled as "obstructionists" and "flip-floppers" with "no new ideas."

There's a reason FDR won four elections... he had conviction, and given the time period, he was pretty damn daring.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/507794

[SaveElmer]

56. Interesting your comment about their pro-choice position...

I haven't been able to find a position paper on their position at all...do you have alink or something we could look at?

Thanks!

[tsuki]

79. You forgot "don't ask, don't tell."

;) I'm with you.

[Dr Fate]

3. I agree- lets talk about everything in terms of 2006 strategy.

I'm pretty much anti DLC from what I have read- but I'm willing to work with whoever has some common goals- so long as there is mutual respect.

Problem is-how are we going to get everyone else to go along?

[The Blue Knight]

5. Look, I happen to believe the center is ripe for the picking.

The Republicans have shifted way too far to the right, and I think the Democrats should capitalize on that. I think Bill Clinton and Al From are right when they say that we have to tell the American people what we stand for not what we stand against.

Also, I think we have to get back to economic policies and start turning out minorities (where Republicans are making inroads with every passing election cycle) and we have to regain our poisition as the party for the middle class family.

And I'm not saying we should abandon the liberal wing of the party. I think we all just need to realize that we're not going to agree with every Democrat on every issue...but we're part of a coalition. That seems to be the problem with the Democratic party these days. But, a Hillary Clinton or Evan Bayh will give you more than George Bush, Rick Santorum, or Bill Frist ever would.

[Dr Fate]

18. I pretty much agree...the question is how to do it...

....the "play it safe" issues have not gotten us results yet.

We need to be willing to talk about the war in terms of reality instead of percieved reality. I dont think parents really want their college kids being recruited, for one. I also think that most Americans do not support the war in any real sense anymore-so the pro-war rhetoric is slightly out of touch.

We need to favor middle class tax cuts over Republican style tax-plans- real, substantial cuts & benefits for the middle class to working poor...

I also have a problem with letting Republicans attack us without responding in kind- some strategists seem to think that responding is akin to "jumping in the mud."

My two cents!

[PassingFair]

24. The problem is:

"I think Bill Clinton and Al From are right when they say that we have to tell the American people what we stand for not what we stand against."

I don't want AL FROM telling us what we stand for. He does NOT speak for me. AT ALL.

Nice article about just this topic here:

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/07/crystal-clear-view-of-democrats.html

[MisterLiberal]

28. What?

How are you NOT going to abandon the base of the party? How many times do we have to listen to "become more Republican" before we ditch the party? How many have ditched already?

Is it OKAY with you that some of our people went Green and voted Nader in 2000?

THAT IS THE RESULT OF ALL THIS CENTRIST TALKING YOU KNOW: YOU GUYS LOST THE WHITE HOUSE FOR US!!!!

So if you think I have a lick of respect for the DLC, dream on!

You should be APOLOGIZING to us for leading us away from what we believe in!!!

You should be ASHAMED for causing us to lose in 2000!!!

But you come in here and DARE to tell us that what we should do is FURTHER alienate our base?

ARE YOU SERIOUS???? If our base hadn't been fractured in 2000, President Gore would be appointing Justices!!!

[fujiyama]

71. I'm willing to make peace with the DLC

once they stop insulting liberals and questioning our patriotism. I'm sick of their Zell Miller/Rovian talking points. I'm sick and tired of hearing how national defense isn't a "natural" issue for us, to stop believing that Iraq can still be a success.

Tell From and Marshal to go fuck off and then I'll consider making nice. Also, tell the DLCers (with the exception of a few decent ones like Kerry) to stop selling the working class down a fuckin river catering to corporate interests like the credit card industry.

[SeanQ]

115. Amen!

[SCDem]

114. That is the Democratic problem

Fighting for the 2% undecided in the center when at least 1/2 of eligible voters are not even registered to vote. Reach out to the voiceless and the way that the dem party should do that is with conviction not from a safe center. A safe center that doesn't answer to many of the real issues that face America is partly to blame for 1/2 the population choosing not to engage in the simple act of voting.

[Eloriel]

89. But that's the problem, Dr Fate

but I'm willing to work with whoever has some common goals- so long as there is mutual respect.

To too great an extent, they're missing the "common goals" part -- but to hear them tell it, that's OUR fault, you see, which just drives home the lack of common goals to my mind -- edited to add: and THAT drives home the lack of respect part, doesn't it?

[Vickers]

6. "the DLC produced the only 2 term Democratic President since FDR"

Groovy!

So...what have they done since 1996?

[tsuki]

80. Tried to sink Dean, Michael Moore and other Democrats. The

race for the corporate dollars.

[smiley_glad_hands]

7. The DLC is the

avenue by which corporate america pulls the strings of the democratic party. Many here are tired of the rampant corporatism in our society and the republican lite policies of the DLC.

While you may call yourself a moderate democrat, the other side considers you a liberal.

One could also argue that Perot got Clinton elected, and that the last Democrat to be elected in a two way race was a liberal (Carter, if you don't believe in the theft of 2000 & 2004).

Though I am not a supporter of the DLC, I will vote for whomever is nominated by the Democratic Party (not the DLC).

[The Blue Knight]

11. Corporations are always going to have a hand in politics.

And we're never going to change that. You can work with the cards you're dealt or you can whine and get fucked in the ass by Republicans.

You choose.

[wli]

25. unless they're legislated out of it

But that would take revolutionary measures to accomplish. Revoking corporate personhood would probably be one of the first steps.

[MisterLiberal]

31. So your argument could be summarized as

Get reamed by the DLC instead?

Sorry, there's not enough KY in the universe for that.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. McCain/Feingold was passed under a Republican administration

What makes you think that we couldn't eliminate the corporate hand in politics if we had a progressive white house and a progressive congress?

[rman]

82. It used not to be like that:

"In 1776 we declared independence not only from British rule, but also from the corporations of England that controlled trade and extracted wealth from the US (and other) colonies. Thus, in the early days of our country, we only allowed corporations to be chartered (licensed to operate) to serve explicitly as a tool to gather investment and disperse financial liability in order to provide public goods, such as construction of roads, bridges or canals.
After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."


source: Reclaim Democracy
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
Corporate History Primer
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/pdf/primers/hidden_corporate_history.pdf
Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

[smiley_glad_hands]

86. Seems like we Democrats have been getting fucked

no matter what. So I'll keep my distance from the DLC.

[SaveElmer]

61. Question about that...

How is this "corporate control" of the Democratic Party occurring?

Is it through large contributions? Do you say that because of the positions the DLC takes on issues? Do you have some evidence of some kind of under the radar collusion?

It's just that I see this comment all the time and don't really see what evidence people have for it...if you have links I'd be glad to look at em

Thanks!

[smiley_glad_hands]

87. You have a star so you can do your own search here at DU. eom

[SaveElmer]

101. Thanks, appreaciate the help!!!

I thought there might be some evidence you could point to that you found compelling...guess not!

[noamnety]

8. I don't really know what a "moderate" democrat is

I keep hearing the terms "centrist" and "moderate" tossed around. I don't feel like an extremist, but I seem to agree with the vast majority of the democratic platform, and none of the republican platform.

I honestly don't know what a moderate democrat would believe ... I presume it means they like most of the democratic platform but agree with a few of the republican platform items.

Which items? That's the part that concerns me.

I've stood up against random DLC bashing (today, in fact), but I can't think of any positions the republicans hold that I agree with. The best I can think of is that I agree steriods are bad, but that's not an issue that I get really worked up about.

[Writer]

12. I think that's the whole point of being a moderate/centrist.

It's more of an individual assessment of the issues and not mirroring those beliefs with a strict set of values.

[noamnety]

19. Well, that cleared nothing up

:)

(not trying to be rude, but really, without knowing a person's stance on the actual issues, the label "moderate democrat" means nothing to me.)

[Mairead]

85. It means "I'm a Republican at heart, but don't want to own up"

That's the sum and substance of what it means, and I'm really not being at all snarky in saying so. The label is adopted by people who like the idea of the rich plundering the poor, but prefer not to be openly associated with it because they understand that it's a mean and selfish attitude.

To verify that I'm not being too harsh, just look at their politics. Their real politics, though, not what they pay lip service to.

[union_maid]

9. The New Deal was killed by Republicans

A lot of it, or other things that are in the spirit of the New Deal are just as needed today. And I'm sorry if you're tired of the DLC bashing, but keep in mind that the DLC has done a bit of bashing of its own.

I vote Democrat. One hundred percent of the time, DLC or not, but I've been frustrated as hell with the move to the right. The DLC isn't trying to occupy the center. It's to the right of Nixon. That's too far right for me.

The DLC keeps trying to take credit for Clinton. That's ridiculous. Clinton was responsible for Clinton and his message was one of economic populism, not free trade or free markets and supply side economics. When he was campaigning the first time it took him a while before he'd say that he would back NAFTA. He did talk a lot about how we're working harder for less. Guess what? It's worse now and we're not hearing a message from the DLC about it.

I think that the best way to win those critical swing voters would be with a vigorous and cohesive message of economic populism and a viable healthcare plan that isn't designed by insurance companies. That'll get votes.

[The Blue Knight]

13. The DLC is not right-of-center.

Look at their platform. While it may be considered "Republican-lite" to some on this forum, it isn't by a majority of Americans.

[union_maid]

16. The center has moved

Democrats could do a lot to move it back. The DLC seems to like it where it is.

[Mairead]

96. "it isn't by a majority of Americans"

Of course it is! Try to find support for DLC platform planks in the NORC survey--you can't, because the majority of USAians are far to the 'left' of the DLC. Universal healthcare, restricting corporate power, taking care of the poor...these are all high-Yes issues with the majority of USAians, but they're not any part of the DLC goals. And people know that.

[MrSlayer]

10. The problem is the "center" is now middle-right.

The party is moving further and further from it's roots. We're becoming pro-corp instead of pro-labor and these people are leading the way.

[Q]

14. And I'm tired of the DLC taking credit for CLINTON...

...who didn't run on anything resembling a DLC agenda. They took credit after the fact.

You might as well get used to the 'fringe left' fighting the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

No more voting for politicians simply because they have a (D) attached to their name. They will have to EARN my vote.

And no more allowing the DLC to choose our candidates for us as they smear liberals and progressives. No more allowing the DLC to write our party platform.

I'll be voting for candidates that represent the poor and working class. I'll be voting for honesty and integrity...not Bush collaborators or shills for international corporations. If there are none...I'll find a third party candidate that wants to be a PUBLIC SERVANT.

The DLC says they're 'centrists' and 'moderates'...but they're nothing more than RWingers working from the inside to destroy the last remnants of the 'party of the people'.

The ONLY reason the 'days of the new deal are long dead' is because the DLC has worked with the Bushie GOPers to destroy it.

Associate with any group you want. But don't expect us to follow or end our fight to return our party and government to the People.

[MisterLiberal]

42. Well said

I couldn't have said it better in fact.

I will repeat part of it though, because it was so right on track!


* Clinton didn't run on anything resembling a DLC agenda. They took credit after the fact.

* You might as well get used to the 'fringe left' fighting the corporate wing of the Democratic party.

That's for sure! My own party is beginning to scare me!

* And no more allowing the DLC to choose our candidates for us as they smear liberals and progressives. No more allowing the DLC to write our party platform.

I don't have any idea what they think they're doing!!!

*** The DLC says they're 'centrists' and 'moderates'...but they're nothing more than RWingers working from the inside to destroy the last remnants of the 'party of the people'.

*** Associate with any group you want. But don't expect us to follow or end our fight to return our party and government to the People.

[KoKo]

50. Well said, and there are many who agree with you. The time has come

to stand up. The DLC has lost us the House and the Senate and two Presidential Elections and Mid-term Elections. With that record of failure some changes are in order. Anyone who feels that following a losing Manager year after year after year ...doesn't even know sports much less politics to see that the American people are the losers with that kind of failed strategy. :shrug:

[MisterLiberal]

119. Yep

We need a party change before we get to primary elections, because if all we're being offered is Repuke Lite or Lite Repuke Lite, we will fail.

But what can we do at this level? I know we can write our Congressperson and Senator but that's not the Party Leadership.

How can we get them to listen?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. The "West Coast Set"?

Where did you get that line, from Bill O'Reilly?

If you think the DLC is the only group trying to revitalize county parties, then you're more out of touch than I thought. The Progressive Democrats of America is organizing in every Congressional district. It wasn't THEY who decided to let some Republicanites run unopposed.

[mitchtv]

17. DLC, aka Wm Clinton advised kerry to betray

Gay Americans, Kerry said No. Feinstein blamed gays for our loss. You expect any Gays to support homophobe enablers?. Time to take a stand, develop a spine, take off the pink tutu.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Don't mention pink fucking tutus

esp. after you just gave kudos to Kerry for saying no.

God, I hate that Bartcop picture. Kerry and Edwards don't deserve it.

[elshiva]

39. AMEN! Pink TUTUS pic is homophobic/sexist.

[LittleClarkie]

20. The DLC killed my brother!!!

The DLC eats babies!!!!!! (lightly grilled, with cream sauce and a nice ripe tomato)

The DLC will come to suck out your brains in your sleep!!

Iiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[mitchtv]

27. not only that

they will stab you in the back
HOWARD DEAN SPEAKS FOR ME

[LittleClarkie]

30. Jokes on them

I don't have one. I'm a pushmepullyou.

[Q]

29. Make light of this debate all you want...

...but as you can see...the 'fringe left' is very pissed that the corporate whores in the DLC have not only sold out the party...but the very people that have always depended on Democrats to represent THEIR interests against the ruling class.

Or to put it another way...we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

The 'new' Democrats can either work WITH progressives to create an agenda that represents a majority of Democrats...or they can simply go to hell. We're not going to vote for them. Don't believe me? See what happens if they run a DLCer in 2008. No more ABB mentality.

[LittleClarkie]

33. That's nice dear

I'm not into circular firing squads.

So, what are y'all going to do besides bitch.

Me, I'm working on getting local Dem candidates into office. Or would you rather look at Sensenbrenner's ugly mug until he dies, the entrenched bastard.

[Q]

37. I just told you what I'm going to do: NOT VOTE FOR DLCERS

...and you can count on it.

Those who defend the DLC love to call it a 'circular firing squad' now that more Dems have become aware that there are 'traitors' and sellouts trying to take control of the party. Strange that they don't give it the 'squad' label when the DLC ATTACKS liberals...something they have been doing for a very long time.

It's not about just 'winning' anymore. It's about rebuilding the Democratic party and representing the People instead of corporations.

The first step is not to encourage or enable DLC candidates.

[LittleClarkie]

38. Centrists attack Liberals

apparently Liberals also attack Centrists.

Looks like a wash to me.

[whitehousemoron]

92. response to Q

Really Q, I thought elections were all about winning? I guess you like being a loser, and are happy with Washington.

[CWebster]

117. Winning what exactly?

The DLC looks at the Right's win and thinks they can win by copying them? They are self-loathing Democrats--they don't believe that Democrats standing for Democratic values can win -because they have adopted viewing it all through the prism of the Right.

[MisterLiberal]

125. The DLC

The DLC uses the "circular firing squad" line to scare us into thinking that we shouldn't speak out.

That we should just sit back and give them our vote and shut the hell up.

I agree, Q, if winning is selling our soul to Republican Lite, we better rethink what we would be winning!

If we try SERIOUSLY to fire up the base instead of shaming it for having principles, I bet we win!

[TexasLinda]

104. I believe you

You proved your point in 2000 when the 'fringe left' refused to back Gore, giving us 8 years of Bush, a trashed economy, a raped environment, and a whole lot of dead an maimed people. And we're probably going to see the Supreme Court move firmly to the right for a generation (goodbye, Roe v Wade). I have no doubt that the 'fringe left' is ready to do it all again if a DLCer is the Democratic Party nominee in 2008. However, threatening to continue in a spoiler role is not the answer. How can you package your message so that it is relevant to the average working person and they feel motivated to go vote for your candidate? A lot of working folks are just surviving day to day; they don't have time for details and nuance on complex subjects. A recent article (Paul Krugman: Toyota, Moving Northward, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?hp) told of the U.S. losing well-paying manufacturing jobs to Canada because our workers are uneducated and lack health care. How does the progressive agenda address this? And why does the progressive agenda belong to the 'fringe left'? If the ideas and values are universal and good for the majority of citizens, why are you a 'fringe'? Is it simply a matter of message? The Bushies are very good at getting their message out (even though it's a load of crap). Should you try to emulate their methods? The 'fringe left' doesn't have enough votes to win by itself -- you need the folks in the middle if you ever want a chance to implement at least some of your progressive agenda.

[rman]

83. Corporations will save us!!!

No really, if only we allow them to rule us, it will be for the best of ehm.. all of us.

[Pithy Cherub]

21. The DLC has a black eye right now. You may want to give

your tender ministrations to them - the DLC took a well-earned beating in the liberal blogosphere today. (kos, digby, billmon, atrios...)

The DLC has not been under this much political pressure ever and are not handling the differences of opinion well. Liberals and Progressives will now engage as never before on the battlefield of democratic ideas and ideals. You can bring and defend your ideas as much as the next individual here.

The DLC sponsored corporate team needs some ice or a corporate steak for that black eye. :evilgrin:

[BIG Sean]

23. Great Post!

I completely agree. Bill Clinton and the DLC are not "liberal" enough for the many democrats.

[The Blue Knight]

32. You expect any Gays to support homophobe enablers?.

1/3 of Gays voted for George Bush in '04. I'll let that number speak for itself.


And, the DLC took a beating in the liberal blogosphere today? Woopty fucking do. What has Daily KOS done for liberals in America? What laws have they helped pass? What legislation have they put through Congress? How many jobs have they created? Or are they just a bunch of guys pounding away at a keyboard bitching about our country but not really doing shit?

[The Blue Knight]

34. And, without the DLC, there would have been no Clinton.

Clinton surrounded himself with DLC-advisors and was quite successful. the DLC had a large role in pushing Clinton to the White House.

[Mass]

35. Perot too, you know.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. No, Clinton was a once in a generation politician

Clinton's charisma and intelligence got him to the white house. Clinton's listening to his DLC advisors is largely what kept him from accomplishing what he could have as President.

Oh yea, Kerry and Gore were both DLC and they lost. Having a DLC next to your name, doesn't mean that you will win.

[bread_and_roses]

36. There was an "energized, unified base in '04" because....

...1. the Corporate Masters handling the imbecile puppet are a threat to all life on the planet
...2. PROGRESSIVES put aside their demands to work day after day, night after night, door to door, phones, voter registration, money, everything, in an attempt to defeat GWB - for a candidate about whom we were none too enthusiastic.

And I am not "on the same team" with any Pol willing to sell out Labor for Corporate Profit, sell out health care for Corporate Profit, sell out our Civil Liberties for Corporate Profit, endless war, and Theocracy, sell out PRIVACY and my own medical decisions for Theocracy. I am not on "the same team" as any Pol, including Dems, who ignore our inner cities for Thirty+ years and then push the Prison-Industrial Complex in a "War on Drugs" and "Tough on Crime" campaign - a combination of policies that are devastating communities of Color and reinforcing Institutionalized Racism.

Whatever happened in '96, and I think it's debatable, the DLC line kept us from having the overwhelming majorities that could have made the voter fraud in '00 and '04 ineffective. They offer nothing to Labor, nothing to Communities of Color, nothing to working people needing health care, and then expect Progressives to come out and support them every four years because the alternative is worse.

No, no, and no again for this progressive - not until I can tell the people I register to vote, the faces at the doors in poor neighborhoods, the people of color that are being stopped for "driving while Black" and whose young men with clean records are less likely to get a job than a white Felon, that the Dem candidate will work for them.

And that, from everything I read, ain't the DLC candidate.

[The Blue Knight]

40. Then you guys follow Howard Dean.

And have fun losing while you're at it.

[The Blue Knight]

41. Perot helped Clinton.

But the only reason Clinton came close enough for Perot's running to make a difference in the first place was because of the DLC.

Not to mention, Clinton's DLC-influenced policies of his first time resonated well with the American people and he won relection with ease.

[union_maid]

45. OK, I'll bite

What's good about the DLC? What does it offer working people, poor people, the elderly and in general the vulnerable members of our society? Not when Clinton was president. Now, under the conditions that pertain today. Winning elections is great, but there has to be a reason for it. Why should someone who lacks money or power prefer the DLC to anyone else?

[stevietheman]

72. Dean is a greater leader than any in the DLC...

as he is of very few who are speaking truth to power, and actually inspiring many true centrists who are extremely upset with the criminal Bush regime and its Iraq war collaborators (including DLCers).

I'm starting to believe that you using the language of a Republican muckraker, but that's just a hunch. When you say "have fun losing" even though Dean is a multi-consecutive winner of governor races and wasn't even given a shot by the Democratic Party to see if he could have won against Bush, your position speaks volumes.

It seems to me that denying Dean's ideas is what will fuck Democrats up. Dean wants to fight, and it just so happens that we *need* to fight. So who are these people who keep saying we should just "shush" and play along again and just let the Republicans or "Republican-lites" continue to keep us all beholden to big corporations and the military-industrial complex?

Who are these weasels?

[mtnester]

90. Hey, we followed DLC direction in 00 and 04, and LOSING then

was no fun either....time for a new tactic brother.

Many of us left part of our souls on the sidewalk working and campaigning for the DLC choice in 00 and 04...

Once, shame on you, twice, shame on me...third time? Nope, won't do it.

[fooj]

122. Who's "you guys"? Isn't the DLC still democratic?

D stands for democratic, right? L stands for leadership, right?

The Clinton's are where they are today because of the DNC. Period.

[chaumont58]

44. Clinton won because he is the best candidate in recent years

"the DLC produced the only 2 term Democratic President since FDR"

Shirley, you jest. The DLC was just along for the ride. They had
zilch, nada, to do with his wins.

[The Blue Knight]

48. union_maid

http://www.dlc.org/

There you can find all you need to know about the DLC and the principles we stand for. Also, subscribe to the Blueprint. I read every issue and is an awesome read.

[union_maid]

51. Been there, not impressed

Just for starters, they're for CAFTA. Now there's a vote-getter. None of these trade agreements have benefited the workers, no matter how they were sold ahead of time. What in the world would make you think this one is going to be better? And why would you think that's in the mainstream. This stuff is forced down the throats of ordinary people of both parties.

[chaumont58]

53. I've been there and read the essays on the war on terror

and I have a hard time believing they were written by Democrats. They would have us kiss the military's ass, just like we were back in the 1940s. I'm a vet; I served four years on active duty. I don't want anyone to kiss my ass and I am not ready to kiss any GI ass.
According to the essays, the DLC supports the War in Iraq. They say that as an American, I should have gratitude for what has happened in Iraq.
An ideal world for me would be for every DLCer to have a gold star up his ass. DOD can raise the upper military age limit to 104 and Al From and Bruce Reed can grab weapons and start making the trek from the Baghdad Airpost to the Green Zone, every day. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[KoKo]

54. His "personality" won him the election. And, after four years of "idiot

George I" folks couldn't stand it anymore. He was a doofus like his son but he wasn't nearly as dangerous. However, many of us thought those who ran Poppy were dangerous and we voted him out. Clinton's message of hope, dashed us down when his first legislation was NAFTA...from then on ...it was downhill. We just didn't know how bad it was because we were always so busy defending him against Scandals by the RW. (and, now I see that some of it was his own failure...but at the time, I was fighting to the death for him..but with a big reservation about NAFTA passage and them not fighting hard enough for Hillary's Health Care plan. The rest is a blur...and he gave away the Media to Big Business and caved on SEC Regulations...all because either he was weak or so bruised by the battering scandals that the RW kept hammering their base about.

Anyway, if we had a stronger party with a definite platform the way the RW Repugs do we could have MADE Clinton tow the line for us.

We can't drift anymore looking for "Personality and Perfection, or a Sure Thing." We went that way with Gore and Kerry. Gore would have stood by us but the Florida Fiasco killed that...and Kerry just wasn't strong enough and didn't have the backing of all those DLC'ers that he's a member of. Our Dems don't even back up their fellow Dems when they have tough times. They never have and never will until we get a BASE that they have to listen to.

It used to be the strong labor unions that could make our Dems "heel" but with their demise it's only the K-Street Lobbyists they listen to.

It's time for a change.

[bvar22]

46. The basic premise is flawed.

The Republican Party has been extremely successful by appealing to and energizing their base. They certainly haven't been running to Left to capture the MUSHY MIDDLE. The Democrats should try a winning strategy and give the OLD STYLE Democrats a reason to get excited and go to the polls.


What the HELL is a NEW Democrat? Are they different from a regular PRO-LABOR, Pro-Working Class Democrat?
What is wrong with the FDR Democrats who sparked and sustained the greatest Economic Expansion and Middle Class explosion the World has ever seen, and why do some supposed Democrats feeel the need to distance themselves from regular Democrats. I understand why the republicans HATE FDR, but why should a sect within the Democratic Party agree with the Republicans on this issue?

The DLC does NOT represent the mainstream Democrats inspite of their slick PR and promotional materials.



Do YOU believe that:

*Free Trade Policies have been wonderful for America and we need more of the same

*that "Tax incentives" can provide a strong enough economic alternative to keep Corporations in America when competing with the Slave Labor offered in 3rd World countries

*That organized LABOR is bad for America

*that protecting American Jobs and American based Industry is bad

*That the POOR are lazy and deserve what they get. That nothing motivates like hungry kids

*That Tax credits will provide all the necessary HealthCare for ALL Americans. That if an American wants good HealthCare, he should just "buy in" to the same plan that Congress uses

*That the USA should stay in Iraq until we "win", and that we need to INCREASE the size of our military presence in Iraq

*that we need to EXPAND our Military and INCREASE the Defense Budget

*that Corporations are entitled to MORE power, and the Working American less

*that if your Mom and Pop business or Farm can't compete with the Global Wal-Marts, you should just learn a new trade

*that government oversight and regulation of Big Business just hurts America


The DLC claims that the above are Mainstream Democratic Postitions. They are LYING to you, because the polls and studies PROVE otherwise.

"At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way."

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020805&s=borosage20020726

Published on Friday, March 4, 2005 by The Nation
Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt
by Ari Berman

from the March 21, 2005 issue of The Nation


<snip>
"Major fissures emerged within the New Democratic movement as the DLC lost longstanding ideological and organizational support. Elaine Kamarck repudiated her "Politics of Evasion" argument--which laid out the policy blueprint for Clintonism--in a series of Newsday columns, arguing that the Dean campaign rendered the DLC establishment "pretty much irrelevant." After Kamarck endorsed Dean in early January 2004, the DLC-friendly New Republic wrote: "Al From's Head Explodes." "The Democrats are not where we were fifteen years ago," Kamarck now says. "I think it's great that there's been a resurgence in grassroots activism on the left side of the party."
<end>
Read the rest of this article. Its GREAT!

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it – including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this! It completely DEBUNKS the DLC claim that they represent the mainstream.
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

I have been collection and compiling issues related data on the positions pushed by the DLC and where they fall on the political spectrum. On issue after issue, the studies and polls prove that the DLC occupies and extreme RIGHT/Republican position within the Democratic Party. In fact, when polled on specific issues, a LARGE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS agree with the positions held by Dennis Kucinich.

[The Blue Knight]

52. I don't support NAFTA or CAFTA.

I should've cleared that up. When it comes to trade I do differ with the DLC. While I'm not a big union guy, I do generally back unions over business any day.

But I'm sorry to hear you were unimpressed with the site, union maid. THe stuff resonates with most Americans though.

[union_maid]

58. Trade is the stuff for me

Trade, work issues, healthcare. Those are the things I want to see Democrats address. I couldn't disagree with them on trade and then turn around and say I support them. Again, I'll vote for them. But never in the primaries. I want someone who understands the problems of real people. And trade is an issue that matters very much to the American people. People want government to be on their side when it comes to those issues. The DLC must know that, but they don't seem to care.

I e-mailed Hillary Clinton from her site about things she's said about outsourcing. I might add that I'm also her constituent. And I voted for her. And I was polite and respectful. Not so much as an automated response. Nada, nothing.

[bvar22]

62. NAFTA/CAFTA is a CORE issue with the DLC.

It is sacred and untouchable. If you vote for a DLC member, you are voting FOR NAFTA/CAFTA.

[CWebster]

118. Exceptional post nt.

[Psephos]

55. 2 kinds of people here: some want to stay pure, the others want to win

Political inclination, like nearly all human traits (IQ, income, height, latitude of residence, etc., etc.), follows a Gaussian probability distribution. I.e., a Bell Curve.

Bell Curves have a fat middle and skinny ends.

The votes are in the fat middle. You have to be either naive or ignorant to not understand this.

There are way more voters whose views range from moderately left to moderately right than there are whose views range from moderately left to hard left, or moderately right to hard right.

Way more.

You want to win, you appeal to the most voters. You want to pat yourself on the back and boast how you stayed pure when everyone else sold out...then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The problem, just to be very clear, is that the Senate, the House, the Presidency, and the majority of governorships are all (R), not (D).

I just watched the AFL-CIO come apart at the seams, and I see nothing but bodies lying on the battlefield. Repug vultures are already swooping in.

We either learn (as Franklin said) how to hang together, or we will hang separately. Honestly, all this internecine sniping sounds just like what happens when different flavors of fundies clash, every goddamned last one of them convinced that THEY ALONE possess the "Truth." It's easy to tear things down, hard to build them up. Guess which one I pick.

Peace.

[The Blue Knight]

57. You also ask what the DLC has done for Labor and the Poor

But to that I say, what has a self-destructing labor movement or the poor done for the Democrats?

[union_maid]

60. You've got your values backward

Working people don't exist for the benefit of the Democratic party. If the Democratic party doesn't exist for the benefit of working people, organized or not, it has no reason to be. It might as well pack up and go home.

[Eloriel]

128. Eggsackly

That is PRECISELY the Democratic Party's whole raison d'etre, standing up for average people against corporate interests and the wealthy, which has always been the REPUBLICAN party's "job," so to speak. And the eternal struggle between the two parties has been: how to use government (or how MUCH government to use) to advance either The People's interests, or the Wealthy and Corporate interests.

If the Dem Party shirks its duties, it doesn't even deserve to live -- and THAT, my friends, is precisely the death struggle we're in right now. It's literally a fight for the very soul of the Party. There has to be SOME power base to stand for The People. Repugs will NEVER do it. Corporations will NEVER do it on their own, out of the goodness of their hearts (tho there are a very small hanful of decent corporations out there). What's left? Either the Dem Party gets it, does it, fulfills its promise and mandate, or The People have to go elsewhere. It's really that simple.

[bvar22]

64. Besides showing up at the polls regularly

and voting for the guy with the "D" after his name? The Democratic Party, under the influence of Corporate Money, has danced furhter and further to the RIGHT taking these votes for granted and providing little in the way of protection to these groups and minorities. It would be a serious mistake to take these votes for granted in 2008.


BTW: Is that an FDR Avatar?
Man, If FDR came back today, he would run the DLC out of the Democratic Party faster than Jesus ran the moneychangers out of the temple.

[CWebster]

120. Here is the thing

Accusing someone of "purity" for standing up for something is akin to liberal bashing.

The "middle" is created by manufactured consensus--which side has the more compelling and convincing message. The problem is the DLC abandoned the Democratic message as a losing proposition and adopted a moderate Republican identity for the Democrats. This served to attract corporate funding and, at the same time, tag on the very effective propaganda campaign of the Right to frame the debate--with strategies like liberal bashing and other bullying tactics.


Now where doe that leave us? There is no representation, for example, on Iraq, to speak for the majority of the people. None. But the DLCers will destroy the messenger, should one emerge they will claim we are wishin' and hoping for the Messiah - when all we want is some damn REPRESENTATION.

[IChing]

59. YOU'RE A SUPPORTER BUT NOT A MEMBER IF I MAY QUOTE YOU

And that is the difference, I am a member of DU and the Democratic Party
but not a member of this club

Should I join them to get the money they get?

[The Blue Knight]

63. Union_Maid

The labor movement is in trouble. It's not the political force it was back in the '40's/50's. While I have no doubt that it will return, it is just a frail shell of what it used to be.

Labor is its own enemy at this point. Not the DLC.

[The Blue Knight]

65. Lol, Bvar.

FDR actually wasn't as liberal as most people on here would like to believe.

Look, there are those who don't like the system and want to lose on principal. I, for one, and sick and tired of losing, and would rather win with the system we've got.

[union_maid]

66. Labor is people

This is so frustrating. The DLC talks about "fears" regarding free trade and blithely ignores the people who have lost job that aren't coming back. The pay no mind to the lives derailed by outsourcing of jobs. They refuse to confront the basic dilemma that faces all societies that want to maintain a stable middle class in the face of globalization. Labor is not just unions. Labor is individuals striving to support their families. That's the labor I'm talking about. And the DLC won't even discuss their concerns. They dismiss them as fears rather than take on the serious problems that free markets and globalizations have created here and will create in other countries as well.

[IChing]

68. The split that happen was that union member are fighting

the collaboration of AFL-CIO leadership with KAFKA, and anti-union organizing
things they have done. Now you attack UNIONS?
teachers and the nurses union in California stopped Arnold so that frail shell is an insult.
FU you are misinformed and a shrill.
Ck

Besides I was talking about supporting the DLC and being a member of the DLC
like you had a vote
which is what democracy is about.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Oh, you mean that the "moderate" Democrats standing idly by while

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers and employers began hiring permanent replacements for strikers (in essence, firing people for striking and therefore destroying the right to strike) and Rush Limbaugh and his ilk treating unions as some evil conspiracy to enslave working people had nothing to do with the decline?

[rman]

81. But it's not as though the DLC is worried about Labor being its own emeny

In fact it's the same forces that created the DLC that have defused the labor movement.

[seabeyond]

70. i am not a democrat. if all this bullshit fighting between dlc and dnc

doesnt stop, then what a waste of my time. i have only seen the dlc attack dnc btw. that pisses me off. i dont see a whole lot of support going from dlc to dnc

but.......blue knight, i want bush out. i want controls over corporations. i have been pro business all my life, and in the last decade all advantages are with corporations, all the screwin has gone to the customer and employee.

(i run a business. i am pro business)

i am seeing dlc bought out by the very corporations that are causing the u.s. so many problems. i am tired of watching blue collar workers, work their ass off, and not be able to cover basic living expenses, let alone health care. and health care provider to run amok screwin the clients.

being more than just a moderate dem.......if i can recognize the issue with dlc, and their support of corporations, then why in the world would i be supporting dlc.

i dont trust them. i dont trust the way they have done after dnc, feels too much like rove mentality.

i am more than center knight. tell me where i am wrong, and why as such a conservative, i get such a bad feel with dlc.

[stevietheman]

73. I'm pro-business too...

with the exception of government coddling big corporations with undeserved corporate welfare... big business should be able to fend for itself without government assistance. However, small/independent to medium-sized businesses are struggling, and government policies should be geared toward them.

Totally agreed that the DLC is scary exactly because they cozy up to big corporations, entities that generally don't care about how their businesses affect customers, employees or the environment (whereas the smaller ones tend to be much more socially and community conscious).

And of course, we cannot forgive a DLC that continues to virtually support an illegal naked aggression without rationale that the American people were lied into. Nobody who thinks rationally should support this. (Yes, I am saying that the DLC has become just about as irrational as today's Republicans)

[woodleydem]

74. How dare you bring your rational and fact-based thoughts to DU. Didn't

you get the memo about how any Democrat who doesn't march lock-step with an extreme liberal ideology is not a real Democrat?

[seabeyond]

76. let me ask you, what is the difference between the dlc and repugs

labeling dnc dems in the nastiest of ways. how is that going to do anything to the party. i am not hearing dnc attack dlc. but i have seen many examples tonight of dlc attacking dnc. i have seen it in the past. how is that helping the party.

like with the repug, and wanting them to own their misbehavior, why are you not willing ot do the same. i am moderate, centralist, i have disagreed with a handful of left dem positions, but never, have i felt the need to put them down, call them names or make them less. i have always, wanted to work with them, thru open and respectful communication

why would you allow anything less of a group you are promoting. how is it going to help your cause, making dnc less. i dont get it. i really do not

[stray cat]

108. I'll take any DLC member over W and Frist.

If you don't see a difference you deserve to get radical repubicans running everything.

[seabeyond]

123. not my point. the dlc takes the repug talking points in describing

the dnc.

it is not healthy productive nor will it create solidarity. nor does it empower the democratic party. it empowers the republican party. that is the stupid in it

[pgh_dem]

106. Didn't *you* get the memo that the 'didn't you get the memo' cliche

is SOOOOOO tired?

That this kind of hyperbole is not funny or witty?

Hey, wait! Why not try out the 'Go ahead, stick to your *principles*, and wonder why you keep losing elections!'

Or, throw in a couple unsourced 'Most americans agree with blah blah blahs'.

And you're well on your way to Full-Fledged Internet Political Hackery!

[Q]

112. Perhaps you could tell us what is 'extreme'...

...about wanting 'our' party to represent the interests of the People instead of that of 'big business'?

Since when is such a concept considered radical or extreme?

[Capn Sunshine]

75. The Big Lie

" we know what it takes to win"

no You don't. You got outrageously lucky with Clinton. HE knew what it takes to win, not the DLC.

If the DLC knew what it takes to win, we'd be in term two of President Gore, discussing how irrelevant he kooky right wing has become.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a member of the DLC, but the DLC stopped listening in DC when the Lobbyist cash started speaking louder than the people. The problem is that the DLC thinks that somehow they can reconcile and collect Corporate cash and still be responsive to the people. It just doesn't work that way.

Why do you think the Dems have lost so consistently since '98? Because you can't have it both ways, and guys like Bill Clinton come along once in a generation. HE made you, not the other way around.

You can't out war a warmonger, you can't out moral a hypocrite liar, you can't try to be something you --and WE--are not.

As Will Pitt put it:
"For the last several years, the Democratic Party has been, for the most part, leaving skid marks on the street as they have retreated from confrontation after confrontation with the radicals who now control the Republican party."
<snip> "The voters who are supposedly going to be alienated by this kind of talk are the very same voters who look for guts, strength and straight talk from the leadership of this country. All too often, Democratic leaders come off sounding like they are saying seven things at once, leaving the impression that their spines are somewhat slippery. Boldness, on the other hand, begets confidence, even in disagreement. "

Why you guys disagree with this is beyond me. But you do. And THAT is the crux of this debate.

You don't know how to win jack.

[stevietheman]

77. Exactly spot on! n/t

n/t

[depakid]

78. Welp, I don't accept it

And the major reason why is because the DLC not only lacks integrity- but also causes us to lose time and again.

Until the party rids itself of DINO's (which- if one looks at the evidence- should probably be priority #1) then the Dems are doomed to REMAIN irrelevant.

And your point about Clinton is grossly exgaggerated (at best)- for a variety of reasons that have been gone over ad ininitum by sharper people than me over the years...

[CWebster]

84. Then don't complain

When they sell you out down the river and put the needs of the citizens after their corporate sponsors, and refrain from clear and unambiguous language opposing the Bush administration--with the same passion and ferocity that they attack progressives---don't complain.

[whitehousemoron]

91. I am a member of the DLC too.

And I am also tired of all the DLC bashing at the liberal
websites like MyDD and Daily Kos. It quite amazing to me that
the Democrats used to be the big tent party, but in the last
few years, it seems that moderates are not accepted in the
party anymore. We don't have a say in who gets elected, we
don't have a say on much of anything anymore. Moderates, like
myself, decide elections. It's about time that we have a voice
and be listened to, because if we aren't, the party will
always be in the minority. Do you like what you see in
Washington? I thought not!!!

[Connie_Corleone]

95. Welcome to DU!

Good luck!

:hi:

[CWebster]

103. The Centrists have been calling the shots for years

even echoing Right-wing slurs to ostricize "progressives" who may be little more than Democrats who stand behind Democratic values without triangulating the Right's framework.

Traditional Democrats have something to say and offer the American people whereas Centrists have limited or damaged credibility on so many issues because they compromised in an effort to steal Republican thunder or pander to corporate expectations.

They keep us wandering in the Wilderness without a road out.

[cally]

93. Tell From to quit attacking fellow Dems

every time he gets on TV. Tell From and friends to quit attacking progressive Democrats more than Republicans. Explain to me how the DLC has won elections. Seems we lost the House, Senate, Governorships, Legislatures, and the Presidency under their plan. Carter was not DLC and Clinton had political skills few possess. The DLC has hurt the party.

Still, I think Dems do need a moderate voice and do need to reach out to the middle. Dean is a MODERATE. Look at his record. He is not a liberal. Dems will always be portrayed as whacky liberals no matter what policies we take. We have to learn to stand our ground and communicate our message. We will never win on the right.

[martymar64]

94. DLC, the Grima Wormtongue of the Democratic Party

Or, if you want a modern analogy, the Neville Chamberlains of the Party.
When they talk about appealing to the mushy middle, it's really about taking the base for granted, "come on, who are they gonna vote for, Nader?" As the DLC chuckles in the smoke filled backroom.

[dolstein]

97. Actually, if one must draw analogies to Neville Chamberlain

then one must acknowledge that, in terms of foreign policy, the left-wing is the "Neville Chamberlain" wing of the Democratic Party. After all, it's the left-wing that is so reflexively anti-war, that is so quick to justify and excuse the motives of groups that seek nothing less than the destruction of Western liberal democracy. Personally, I'm embarrassed that people who see a moral equivalency between the U.S. military and Al Quaeda believe they have a home in the Democratic Party.

[Q]

107. And you wonder why the 'left' resents the DLC?

You won't even acknowledge that the Iraq 'war' is based on lies and deceptions. Why? Because the DLC helped perpetuate those lies.

It's dishonest to say that the left is 'excusing' anything. We understand that terrorism is a threat...but believe that blowing up countries that DON'T threaten us and killing thousands of innocents only breeds more terrorism.

What's 'embarrassing' is the DLC enabling the Bush 'doctrine' of 'preemptive' wars and collaborating with war criminals. We're not 'anti-war'...we're against unnecessary, criminal wars.

It's sad that the DLC chooses to use the tactics and anti-left rhetoric of the RWingers...which makes them look even worse in the eyes of those looking for honesty and integrity.

[cmd]

98. I'm not a member of the DLC, but thanks Blue Knight

I'm not here to bash anyone. If we expect to win, we had better learn to work together.

[emcguffie]

99. Do you not think the election was stolen?

We only got our "asses handed to us" because they are cheaters. Americans are not as dumb as people think. And, excuse me, but the DLC is reactionary.

[Burried News]

100. We do not need an education and we do not need thought control

All in all, we just put a nick in your wall.
But we do need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Trust is earned - keep working on it or get out of the way and let others with talent and integrity do it.

[brentspeak]

105. What are you talking about? (n/t)

[ArkDem]

102. This thread is guaranteed to be a long one!

[brentspeak]

109. Bottom line(s) are this:

1)The DLC doesn't know how to win presidential elections. But this is also true of the DNC.

2)We nevertheless, as Democrats, must support our DLC candidates, otherwise Republicans will gain seats. That shouldn't be too hard for anyone to understand.

3)If people don't like certain DLC candidates, then they have a responsibility to suggest alternative Democrats who stand a good chance to defeating their Republican opponents.

4)If someone spends more time bashing allegedly DLC Democrats than they do Republicans, that should raise a red flag.

5)If anyone who claims to be a Democrat agitates to get rid of allegedly DLC-types - and yet can't suggest decent alternative Dem candidates who have a good shot at beating the Republican candidate - then the agitator is either a) a disruptor, or b) a Republican mole. In either case, they are "losers" who should be 'alerted' to the mods.

6)Clearly, the DLC needs to shed its milquetoasty take on many issues. It absolutely needs to take a firmer stand on free-trade legislation (ie., Democrats should be AGAINST most free-trade bills). And it needs to become the party that bills itself (and practices) as the party that refuses to be bribed by special-interest and corporate lobbyist. Such a stance will absolutely resonate with the American public, and provide a readily understandable contrast to the Republicans.

[stevietheman]

121. You're out of line on #5

As long as DLC types support the Iraq war and corporatism, they must be opposed with as much vigor as we oppose Republicans. And I'm not a "disruptor" or a "Republican mole." I assume your language of "'alerted' to the mods" means "disrupting freedom of speech". Who's the real disruptor here?

[brentspeak]

124. I believe it's you who are out of line

Read the forum-posting rules: members of this board are not supposed to agitate against Democrats. It's perfectly fine in my book if anyone wants to bash particular Democrats, but if someone wants to encourage others here to get rid of of that Democrat, then he or she should at the least propose solid Democratic alternative candidates. That shouldn't be too hard to ask.

You did read the rules, I take it? In case you haven't noticed, there's no "freedom of speech" afforded to Freepers who hit-and-run here; they're banned forthwith. These aren't the Yahoo! boards.

[justinsb]

110. I won't sue you, but you won't get my vote either. n/t

[SeanQ]

111. I have two problems with the DLC - BIG problems

I have no issue with more centrist minded Democrats - none whatsoever. We should be a big tent, and we need people on the center edge to help negotiate compromise, when compromise is appropriate. We need a wide spectrum of people in the party, to debate options and help come up with solutions that will hopefully be the greatest benefit to the country as a whole.

What I have a problem with is that the DLC seems to think the whole Democratic party should be meek and centrist.

1) The DLC has NO business telling Dean (who we selected to lead OUR party) to shut up. NONE! This is the DLC's fundamental problem. Instead of leading by offering more moderate options, or politely stating that they disagree with some points Dean might make, they expect the majority of the party to tow their line. FUCK THAT

2) The DLC appears to have little, if any backbone. While they don't seem to have any problem criticizing and trying to browbeat members (and leaders) of their own party, they seem incapable of criticizing Bush and the GOP. I fear if the party were left to their lead, we would continue to meekly follow where the GOP directs, putting up meek, token resistance.

We need leaders who speak the truth, clearly and directly. Leaders who are not cowed by the GOP or afraid to call something BS when it obviously is. Leaders like Howard Dean and Wes Clark. Neither of whom, BTW, I would count as a real liberal - they are centrist democrats, by and large. When the DLC shows some spine when it counts, and leads rather than try to apologize to republicans and eat their own, maybe I'll change my mind. But right now, as far as I'm concerned, they do us more harm than good. JMHO

[brentspeak]

113. The DLC is lacking a truly great leader

There's no one currently in the DLC who comes close to the kind of charisma of an FDR, JFK, RFK, or even Truman. Too many of them seem like they just left the cookie-cutter assembly line. We need a strong personality to join the DLC who isn't afraid to shape the organization up the way it ought to be shaped up.

[ulysses]

116. hey, knock yourself out.

It's my party too, and I believe the DLC to be a poisonous influence on it. Sue me.

[Adelante]

126. I support your right

to support the DLC on DU. :hi:

[Blue_Tires]

127. i've been watching this debate for awhile

For starters, as long as the DLC continues to support the illegal invasion, I do not care to acknowledge or associate myself with their platform in any way...IF they ever see the light and reverse themselves, THEN maybe the 'fringe left' as they like to call them can have some sort of meeting of the minds...

Secondly, I've always wanted to ask (to this board in general): WHY is it that the Dems feel they have to move rightward or compromise their long-standing positions all in the name of the 'center?' The gop did NOT get to where they are by moving leftward, and it seems like the farther right they go; the more extreme and outrageous they get (Santorum, Inhofe, Coburn, etc) the more seats they pick up....While the gop only pays lip-service to moving to the center during election cycles when in reality they go farther right, the DLC which claims they are on our side actually IS moving the talking points and memes to the right...Why? and how does this help??

And I've got news for those that think the Dems are overrun by the raging secular socialists and commie peaceniks: As it stands now, viewing the parties' elected officials from top to bottom, the Dems are a helluva lot closer to that mythical center than the GOP...So why has it not resulted in more of those moderate votes???

I know the DLC likes to take credit for Clinton '92...Imagine if you will that same unknown Clinton as a state governor coming up through the ranks today, looking for a presidential run in '08...Would the DLC still support him? Or lump him in with the Deaniacs and kneecap him in the primaries?

[Moderator]

129. Locking

continuation of locked flame wars.

Enough already. If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang separately.