The DLC and the "Liberals" should declare a truce...

[kentuck]

to all this infighting, in my opinion. There is an enemy bent on doing great harm to our country and our institutions. As much as we might disagree on strategies, etc, this is not the time to fight those battles. Both groups need to mobilize to fight the Republican Party and the fascists now in power.

[SteppingRazor]

1. The gap between DLC and true progressives is so huge, though...

it's more likely that the DLC would get together with the Republicans to quash progressives.

[kentuck]

2. We should offer them that option...

That will be the test.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I disagree.

While DLC can bridge gaps, they are not in bed with crooks and traitors.

[SaveElmer]

13. Here is a list of some of the current members of the DLC...

Can you tell me how many of these you believe will decide to "work with Republicans to quash Progressives"? And which ones?

Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Cruz M. Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor, CA
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Michael Easley, Governor, NC
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Steven A. Geller, State Senator, FL
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Jennifer Granholm, Governor, MI
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
Tim Kaine, Lieutenant Governor, VA
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Ruth Ann Minner, Governor, DE
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Janet Napolitano, Governor, AZ
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Ed Rendell, Governor, PA
Bill Richardson, Governor, NM
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor, KS
Eliot Spitzer, State Attorney General, NY
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA
Mark Warner, Governor, VA
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC

[SteppingRazor]

14. Can you name one that would agree to stand behind...

a true progressive platform, including withdrawal from Iraq, massively reduced defense budgets, universal health care, and so on?

Of course, my previous statement is silly. But so is the idea of these people working with progressives.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. Here are the most likely supsects (from your own list)

Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN

Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE

Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY

Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA

Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN

Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA

Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT

Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR

Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL

Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE

Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR

Bill Richardson, Governor, NM

Tom Vilsack, Governor, IA

These DLC'ers already are working against Progressives and against the American people at every given opportunity. Along with numerous others that aren't on your list, like Joe Biden (R, MBNA) for example.

[SaveElmer]

53. Questions...and actually it's not my list...it is the DLC's

But that is neither here nor there....

First, what do you think of the voters in the states that send these people to office year after year? Are they just ignorant of the DLC? Do they support them?

It does seem to put a lie to the notion that the DLC isn't capable of formulating a winning strategy...afer all nearly half of the Democrats in the Senate are members...as are a number of successful governors(Warner, Vilsack, Nepolitano etc)...how do you account for this seeming disparity? Is it just at the national level that their strategy falls apart?

Also, here are the lastest ADA Ratings for all the Senators and COngressman you singled out: (out of a perfect 100 liberal score)

Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN - 90 (70)
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE - 95 (80)
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY - 95 (95)
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA - 100 (80)
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN - 75 (70)
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA - 85 (85)
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT - 75 (70)
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR - 95 (70)
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL - 80 (70)
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE - 65 (50)
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR - 85 (not yet in Senate


As you can see, the worst score on her is, as you might expect, Ben Nelson of Nebraska...(btw the ADA lists Senators with ratings between 40-60 moderate)...for comparison...I have also listed the 2002 rating...this of course is there year the Iraq war was authorized. This rating is in parens. So, in 2002 ratings for virtually every one of these individuals was lower than in 2004 (except Hillary who remained at 95), though all except Nelson were to the left of moderate as defined by the ADA.

My question is, does this indicate to you that the ADA is another non-progressive organization? Or is it possible that the folks you have singled out, really aren't as conservative as you think they are? And, doesn't this also put the lie to the influence of the DLC on these Senators...after all, every one of them voted more progressive in 2004 than they did in 2002!!!

[Cascadian]

61. Ah, There's the rub!

I am almost convinced the DLC's goals is for the Democratic Party to simply become a token opposition party in the New Order in America. Just to give an illusion of a democratic government. Fortunately, people are finally waking up and are going to fight the DLC to take the party back. If there is hope, then they will succeed or if that doesn't work, then the time may have to come for the formation of a new progressive political party.

John

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

64. More likely?

What exactly do you think their whole purpose is? (said in a kind, questioning voice not a harsh, rebuking one)

[mattclearing]

Sorry, no deal.

Not until the DLC starts standing up for us.

We aren't along for the ride anymore.

We're in the driver's seat. They can ride our coattails if they must.

[Cha]

62. Clink!

:toast:

[deutsey]

4. But circular firing squads are our speciality.

:eyes:

We shouldn't have to ask how Hitler and the Nazis rose to power; the German Left and Center were too busy fighting each other to fight the Nazis.

And that "grand" tradition lives on here in America.

ON EDIT: I should also say that I am no DLC fan. However, I think if the Left and DLC can somehow at least stop undermining each other, we can all start undermining the Bush junta.

[Totally Committed]

16. This is not a circular firing squad...

more like cutting out a cancer that was eating us alive.

They need to go. They have fed on us for way too long. I only hope we got the cancer in time.

No deals.

No compromise.

No surrender.

Never again.

[MisterLiberal]

23. Cancer

That's a VERY good analogy. After we cut them out, we need to find out how we got the cancer so it doesn't happen again.

[Totally Committed]

28. We need to live a good clean life on the

"No Bullshit Diet". If we go back to being real, honest-to-God Democrats, and we eat a diet rich in anti-bullshit, we'll be okay.

Enough is enough. Never again.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. The cause of the cancer is corporatism

The "no bullshit diet" will certainly help, but real campaign finance reform is needed. Corporations have no business in political parties, and if that puts a bunch of lobbyists out of work, oh well. The right wing ones can enlist in the military, and the DLC'ers can work at the Wal Mart made possible by their NAFTA bullshit.

[mazzarro]

19. That is the core of the issue IMHO - the DLC is more inclined to

undermine the "liberals" rather than the reThugs because DLC takes its marching orders from the corporate elites.

[MisterLiberal]

25. Exactly!

And that doesn't seem to bother the "centrists" here.

[MisterLiberal]

29. Then the DLC

can start compromising. They want a compromise? Let THEM make the first step.

I'm through compromising.

[ulysses]

5. ok.

From and company started it. Let them declare a truce first. :shrug:

[bowens43]

6. No thanks.

The DLC is part of the problem not part of the solution.

[NYCGirl]

7. As Arianna Huffington says in her blog today:

So there's a fight brewing in the Democratic Party. And it has nothing to do with John Roberts. Instead, it was prompted by Hillary Clinton assuming her role as head of the DLC’s “American Dream Initiative” and immediately calling for a “ceasefire” in the fight over the direction the party should be taking.

Right. Sure. I believe a little translation is in order. Because in almost every instance where a politician or political group calls for a "ceasefire," or "a stop to the mud-slinging," or "unity," what they’re really saying is: "I'm calling on the other side to stop disagreeing with me, so we can move forward in the only right way. Which is my way."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/arianna-huffington/hillaryas-aamerican-d_4738.html

[bloom]

10. "I'm calling on the other side to stop disagreeing with me..."

If the DLC people here want to start supporting progressive causes - fine.

If they are going to encourage people to support the corporate agenda and the DLC - that is not fine.

[MisterLiberal]

26. Yep

And that is exactly what the DLC wants.

They want US to compromise, but I have NEVER heard them offer to compromise on any subject at any time.

And WE'RE being touted as "inflexible"???

[kenny blankenship]

54. exactly: stop fighting back!

so I win.

[Options Remain]

8. The entire DLC and all non fresman legislators need to go

all of them. Its time to clean slate the system.

[AndyTiedye]

17. That Would Give us All Republicans All the Time Forever

The Democrats cannot afford to lose any more seats or we are finished.
That would inevitably result in a one-party government for the forseeable future.

[MisterLiberal]

27. I don't believe that for a minute

That's the scare tactic the DLC feeds us so we toe the line.

"We got Clinton in for eight years!" they say.

We are supposed to hang up our ideals and principles and march lock step with the DLC, compromise, compromise, compromise, handing Republicans political capital with every step we make to the right.

And we're supposed to LIKE IT????

[AndyTiedye]

35. You Advocated Turning Out Almost Every Democrat in DC

That would include people like Conyers, Barbara Lee, Barbara Boxer....

Many would be replaced by Republicans. This would be a Bad Thing.

It would very like be the end of the Democratic party, since we would have so few seats left in Congress.
They would be able to push through "HAVA-2" (Help America Vote Republican Even More) to make that situation permanent and extend their control to state and local governments.
They would pack the Suypreme Court with Fundie Bushbots who would decide every election dispute in favor of the Republicans.

I would suggest targeting one or two select senior turncoat Dems who are in safe Democratic states and think they are set for life.
Take them out in the primaries. We must have a strong enough candidate so that he or she also wins the general election for the Democrats.
We must not be spoilers who merely enable the Republicans as Nader did.

[MisterLiberal]

42. But that's just it

it was the centrists who turned off our base and SENT them to the Nader camp!

If they hadn't been turned off, they would have voted Democrat.

Don't try to blame this on the base of the party!

[AndyTiedye]

44. It's No Good Playing "Look at What You Made Me Do"

If progressives play the role of spoiler, we not only don't get more progressive candidates elected, we further enable the fascists.

We must not do that. I should think that would be pretty obvious.

The alternative is not to do nothing, but to focus our efforts where
they will make our party stronger and more progressive. That means
replacing some sitting Democrats with more progressive Democrats.
It does not mean replacing some sitting Democrats with Republicans to "teach the party a lesson".

To advocate that we turn out everyone but the freshmen Dems is unfair to a number of excellent Democrats who have served our country for years.

[MisterLiberal]

46. Excuse me

but why does it always default to us having to compromise and the centrists and the DLC NEVER compromising?

And you expect us to be happy about it?

Again, it was the CENTRISTS who ran off the progressives in our party who voted for Nader, not the progressives.

You centrists and the DLC in particular, owe the party an apology.

[AndyTiedye]

55. ???

but why does it always default to us having to compromise and the centrists and the DLC NEVER compromising?

That is a good question. An even better one is what is a "centrist"?

And you expect us to be happy about it?

I rather expect you to be hopping mad about it. Like me.
We are on the same side, but advocating different tactics.

Again, it was the CENTRISTS who ran off the progressives in our party who voted for Nader, not the progressives.

Voting for Nader did not advance the progressive cause. We must find ways to do so that do not backfire on us.

You centrists

Me, centrist? Well, maybe I am. I oppose the Iraq war. I support Roe v. Wade and oppose judges who would overturn it. Those seem like centrist positions to me, supported by large majorities according to all polls. Those who support the Iraq war or vote for judges who oppose Roe are not centrist. They are to the right of the majority.

and the DLC in particular, owe the party an apology.

Who or what is the DLC these days? Hillary Clinton?

[MisterLiberal]

56. I'm sorry

I prejudged you, sorry about that.

It's just that I'm so tired of being blamed for the state of the party, almost ORDERED to compromise even MORE to the right and then the centrists and DLC take NO RESPONSIBILITY for anything.

Again, sorry.

[AndyTiedye]

57. So Now That You Realize that We Are On The Same Side...

What do you think of my suggestion:

I would suggest targeting one or two select senior turncoat Dems who are in safe Democratic states and think they are set for life.
Take them out in the primaries. We must have a strong enough candidate so that he or she also wins the general election for the Democrats.
We must not be spoilers....

[MisterLiberal]

58. That is a start

I think that somehow there must be a counterpart to offset the DLC influence.

An organization that represents the BASE so we don't get screwed.

They know we won't vote for the GOP and they know that 2000 scared most of us from voting Green Party so they think they can just walk over us as the "devil you know"

THAT IS WORSE THAN SHRUB! AT LEAST HE IS FIGHTING US BECAUSE HE'S OUR ENEMY! THE DLC IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ALLY!!!!!!!!!

[Fleshdancer]

9. If there was ever a time when we should be united, it should be NOW

I don't care if the Democrat standing next to me is a centrist or a liberal, I just need him or her to stand next to me period.

I'll be more than happy to continue fighting over the direction of the Party after we've won the fight over the direction of this country. I am suspicious of anyone who would put any energy into insulting other Democrats at this time.

[Q]

11. The problem we face is that the direction of the party...

...and the direction of the country are one in the same. Allowing the DLC to call the shots means more concessions to the Bush Criminals and the advancement of THEIR agenda...not ours.

At one time the Republicans had the same opportunity we have right now to stop the Neocons/Theocrats from taking over their party. We must stop the DLC while we have the chance. We can't allow them to call the shots or lead the party away from the people.

I DO care that the Democrat standing next to me wants to destroy my party.

[kentuck]

15. There is the assumption we can win with a left agenda...

I'm not so sure anymore after Kerry and the last election.

[AndyTiedye]

21. The Repubs Can STEAL The Election No Matter What Out Agenda Is

There is the assumption we can win with a left agenda...

I'm not so sure anymore after Kerry and the last election.

What left agenda? What did our agenda have to do with our "loss"?

It had more to do with the Republican control of the media and the voting machinez.




Fixing the Votes Around the Candidate

[SteppingRazor]

24. Why not? Kerry was far from a left agenda. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

40. On which issues was Kerry supposed to be too far to the Left?

[Q]

47. THERE IS NO 'LEFT AGENDA'...

...why do some of you insist on repeating these RWing stereotypes? All the left wants is a government of, by and for the people. Yet you make it sound as if this is some sort of diabolical plot.

I think we can win with a DEMOCRATIC AGENDA...but not with the 'New' Democratic agenda.

Why is it so diffcult for many Democrats to understand why our party held a majority for 40 YEARS and in matter of a decade lost everything? Do you think it's a coincidence? Fate?

No...the loss of majority status coincides with the party abandoning their traditional base. These are the groups that the 'new' Democrats want to take for granted and expect their votes without giving anything in return.

Blacks, Women, Workers and the poor.

It's getting seriously screwed up when your own base won't vote for you anymore.

[MisterLiberal]

30. Then you should be suspicious of the DLC

Because they are marching us to the right.

[Catrina]

31. I can't stand next to someone

who defends or tries to excuse or votes for illegal war, The Patriot Act, torture, the destruction of social programs, caters to Tom Delay, George Bush, neocons, believes that machines can be trusted to count the votes and that nothing questionable happened in the last two major elections ~ who tells US who we should or not should not support (their insulting statements about Michael Moore, whose movie they seem to be as afraid of as are the right, eg).

If they support all those things, this is not the party for them. The Republican Party would seem to be a better home for them. Why they call themselves Democrats is a mystery to me, but then anyone can claim a title. Look at those who claim to be 'Christians', eg?

Imo, they are here to represent globalism, eternal war, and to get Democrats to go along, which in a way we did, during the election. No more ~ either they stand up and condemn Republcan policies or they go join the party they appear to have more in common with.

I'm for unity also. So, when they get on board with the core values of the Democratic Party, we'll be happy to welcome them. Where do they got off calling the shots, btw? And why are people supporting their demand that we go along with them on issues we so oppose? I'm really puzzled by this.

[AntiCoup2K4]

51. And if the "democrat" standing next to you votes Republican.......

....are they really a Democrat at all?

Why elect people like the Nelsons, Mary Landrieu, etc? What good does it do to have the letter "D" next to a seat when every vote is in the "R" column.??

In many ways it would be easier to have Republicans in those seats and KNOW they need to be defeated, than to assume they are in Democratic hands, and then have every fucking vote go against us.

[tedoll78]

12. Silly poster.. that would be LOGICAL.

We can't have that here at DU now, can we?

We're much, much better off letting right-winger Republican presidents choose the next three or four Supreme Court justices. Think of the lovely fresh slate we'll have when they start dying-off in 2045!

:sarcasm:

[JHB]

18. A "Truce" Can Be Had Easy As Pie...

... all it needs is for the DLC and its associated wonks, writers, and politicians to cease all speeches, articles, op-eds, etc. that attack the rest of the party (which they try to marginalize as "liberals", the "far left", etc.) and commence with pointed, direct attacks against the rampant Republican mismanagement of the government on all levels.

I'll say it again:
If the DLC would attack the Republicans with a fraction of the vigor with which it attacks the rest of the Democratic Party, this level of rancor and contention would not exist.

It's not that we'd all love each other and agree on everything (hell, no), but there is a basic party dicipline that needs to be enforced: Thou shalt not go before the media and badmouth other party members -- individually or as a faction. There are places to argue, but op-eds, magazine articles, and big press events like the recent one in Ohio are NOT those places.

If they want to lead, then they have to understand that and practice it. And right now they just refuse to.

[Totally Committed]

20. Thank you, and ...

A M E N .

[MisterLiberal]

22. If that means

default to the soft center of the DLC then, sorry.

Why is it that we're supposed to compromise all of the time?

When was the last time the DLC compromised?

PLEASE, someone show me where THEY compromised to the Left.

Even ONCE.

[longship]

32. DLC uses the same kind of rhetoric as the Repugs

when they demonize liberals by calling them extreme.

:rant:
I am very saddened and very, very angry about this. The DLC has no fucking right to divide this party. If they want to place their positions on issues on the table that's fine. But to do damage to the party is abso-fucking-lutely inexcusable.
:rant:

I'll stop my rants about the DLC when they stop trying to divide the party.

[stevietheman]

33. Once the DLC stops...

supporting Bush's criminal war and supporting corporate interests over the people's interests, then we can talk. Until then, no dice. And there's *no* compromise on this.

[welshTerrier2]

34. "stop rebelling against our agenda" ???

we are fighting for control of a Party that wishes we would just be quiet ... they want our votes, our money, our campaign work but not our ideas ... they preach unity as long as they can call the shots ...

the DLC issues missive after missive after missive showing total disrespect for the progressive wing of the Party ...

you stated: "Both groups need to mobilize to fight the Republican Party and the fascists now in power." ... the source of the infighting is that progressives believe the DLC has done nothing but appease the "fascists now in power" ... that's what the rebellion is all about ...

if the DLC really wants unity, they need to reach out to progressives ... stop telling us what we're doing is wrong and acknowledge that what you're doing is wrong !!! unity will, and should, only occur when all in the Party are truly represented ... and that, sadly, is not currently the case ...

[Dr. Mullion Blasto]

36. Most people who have posted on this topic

do not seem to understand what the DLC is. The DLC is an organization of Democratic office holders whose sole purpose is to raise corporate money so they can get re-elected. Now there are some political scientists who argue that this is the sole purpose of any political organization if you take out the word corporate. But these guys are especially without any redeeming ideology to balance their opportunism. I would like to ask Kentuck, who normally produces sensible posts, and the others who have agreed with the original post, what exactly do progressives achieve by having a truce with the DLC which by its very nature stands for nothing, except that we then come to stand for nothing. Besides, we already have had that truce. It is called the Clinton administration, where we watched the sellout of most of our key constituent groups (NAFTA, labor law reform, etc.), the groundwork that led to the Iraq War, the loss of control of Congress. What Hillary and the DLC are essentially saying is "Trust us, we know what we are doing, this is what you can have." Great for them, nothing in it for us.

[welshTerrier2]

39. very well said ...

and welcome to DU, Dr. Mullion Blasto !!

my main theme on this topic is that those pushing for unity have the right goal but have not offered a coherent means of achieving the goal ... you cannot demand loyalty from those who feel alienated ... if you want those who rebel to join you, you have to respect their right to disagree; you have to sit down with them in a real exchange of ideas; you have to truly be willing to make changes and find common ground ...

when Hillary and Bayh call for unity but offer no changes and no process to achieve it, their failure of leadership and empty rhetoric is all that remains ...

btw, just a writing tip, use more paragraphs when you write; it's much easier to read that way ...

excellent points you made and welcome again !!!

[CWebster]

37. What is to be gained by knuckling under?

The problem is they spend more energy and effort opposing us than the Right. They are little more than obstructionists. Hehe.

[union_maid]

38. I'm all for uniting on Election Day

I'm not one for taking my ball and going home. I think that if there's anything even less productive than the DLC, it's allowing Republicans to be elected. Until then it's a fight for the party and the Democratic party is the only hope this country has. If the DLC has its way, there'll very little hope at all.

The DLC is just a formalized version of the "me, I'm no liberal" Democrats that emerged during the Reagan era. They were wrong then, they're wrong now. It's time for them to move left and join the real Democrats or give it up and join the GOP. They need to decide which side they're on because there is no middle ground anymore.

[Fluffdaddy]

41. A DLC and "Liberals" truce.........I agree

All this infighting does not get us back in power

[Totally Committed]

43. A Truce, You Say? Read this first:

Going Nowhere: The DLC Sputters to a Halt

Today's DLC is a far cry from the anti-establishment organization created by New Democrats who captured power within the party in the Clinton era by distancing themselves from the party's traditional base and liberal candidates. After co-founding the DLC in 1985, former Congressional aide Al From aggressively expanded what had been an informal caucus of Southern and Western Congressmen into a $7-million-a-year operation at its peak in 2000. By that time it had 5,000 members, who paid $50 a pop to join; and politicians, policy wonks and lobbyists flocked to its annual conferences. The DLC's tough free-market positions, connections to big business and early media savvy enticed Clinton into becoming chair in 1990. Although the organization always took more credit than it deserved for his 1992 victory, downplaying Ross Perot's impact and Clinton's own charisma, that election nevertheless institutionalized the DLC's rising status. DLC strategists William Galston, Elaine Kamarck and Bruce Reed became top domestic policy aides in the Clinton White House. After the Republican Revolution of 1994, From told the Democrats to "get with the program." The DLC quickly became the new Washington establishment, launching state chapters, creating a New Democratic Coalition in Congress and expanding its Progressive Policy Institute think tank. A top aide to Jesse Jackson groused of the post-Clinton Democratic Party, "The DLC has taken it over."

But the DLC's great hopes in 2000 of becoming a permanent power center in Washington never materialized. Al Gore's promising New Democratic candidacy turned sour for the DLC when Gore, a DLC founder, switched to a populist strategy after trailing in the polls. No one but the DLC believes that strategy cost Gore the election. "Gore's defeat didn't reinvigorate the DLC as the defeat of Dukakis did, nor did it vindicate their strategy like the election of 1992," says Baer, a Gore speechwriter in 2000. In George W. Bush's first term, the DLC emerged as an important backer of "compassionate conservatism" and convinced the Democratic leadership to back Bush's war with Iraq. Current and former DLC chairmen Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt flanked Bush at a ceremony announcing the war resolution. Still enthralled by centrist orthodoxy, prowar candidates emerged as early frontrunners in the Democratic primary.

>snip<

After Kerry's defeat, the DLC promised to "avoid the circular firing squad" mentality but then quickly broke the promise, reverting to its favorite target: the Democratic base. Instead of labor unions and feminists, the DLC fixated on MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. "We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore," the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. "What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon," the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. "Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left." The DLC continued this vitriol into March.

>snip<

Conservative Democrats also subsist on "warmed-up leftovers from the Clinton brain trust," as The Washington Monthly wrote recently, or what DLC fellow (and former Christian Coalition staffer) Marshall Whitman boasts of as the "tried and tested formula for the Democratic Party's resurgence." But today, emerging wisdom holds that Clintonism without Clinton is not a winning strategy. When Clinton entered office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Democrats now have their smallest minority presence in decades. All eight candidates for whom Clinton campaigned in 2004 lost. Nevertheless, the DLC has adopted Clinton's triangulation tactics on national security, economic policies and family values for the "Heartland Strategy" it's developing to help Democrats win in the red states. What Daily Show comedian Lewis Black said recently of Democrats in general is true in spades for the DLC: "Sometimes the devil you know is better than winning."

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

[CWebster]

45. Unity is a cop out

I recall after the election, all the DLC politicians calls for unity. There is no way I am unifying behind that crap, when unity mean capitulation or calls for let's just get past this and move on.

The purpose is opposition, why should I want unity with those who oppose me rather than oppose them?

[Q]

52. The left LONGS FOR unity...

...against the Bush Cabal.

We can debate issues all day long. But there is no excuse for the DLC's promotion and enabling of dangerous Bush policies. It's pure lunacy to go along with Bush's doctrine of 'preemptive' strikes against countries that pose no real or immediate threat to our security. Worse...Democrats trying to get the truth out about Bush lying this nation into war are attacked by both the RWingers AND the DLCers.

And now the DLC/Hillary wants us blindly follow them simply because they call themselves Democrats. This isn't unity. It's insanity. I want no part of it.

[Pithy Cherub]

49. No. The time for caving in and sucking it up is over.

This is a battle over what the Democratic Party stands for and will fight for and holds dearly above all else. The self-annointed Kings & Queens of DLC Compromise City went to far in validating, supporting and eviscerating core ideals to the betterment of their personal political aspirations. Then WILLINGLY tying their "ideas" to the corporate feedbag. The DLC is welcome to espouse ideas within the party, but Democrats are not wholly owned subsidiaries of the DLC.

It is time to stand up and defend principles - and that means there will be some injuries, but the base will no longer be taken for granted. Let's see the DLC take their turn at becoming the embodient of espousing the big tent united while not agreeing with everything. Turnabout is fair play!

[Guaranteed]

59. Yes, capitulate to our losing strategy and agenda. nt

[Cascadian]

60. I have no objection to a truce but the DLC should back off of...

trying to control the Democratic Party and forcing their agenda on us. It is for the people, not corporations or right-wing infiltrators, to decide where the Democratic Party goes on a platform.


John

[kentuck]

63. Perhaps we would all be better off if we can find a Democrat...

within the DLC that is so close to the Republican Party that many Republicans cannot distinguish the difference? Insane! You might say? Maybe and maybe not?

Because it would be better working with the most unreasonable DLCer as a Democrat than working with the most reasonable Republican. Unless you are in power, you have no power. Do you need any more proof than the present Republican Party?

If we do not get in the door, we can stand outside and yell 'til the cows come home. It won't matter. So the question becomes:

Who stands the better chance at winning in a national election in today's America - a liberal or a moderate-conservative type? From the evidence we have seen in the last few elections since 1994, I think you have a tough argument to convince people that America will vote "left" if just given the chance? I'm not so sure.

We are no longer playing checkers. This is now a chess game. Simple answers and simple strategies do not win. We need a strategy that is so bold and so unpredictable that no Republican could conceive it. What would that be?

We find us a DLC candidate that looks like John Roberts or white bread America and let him talk as conservative and "moderate" as he wants. The more the better. We push him like we would push a Cadillac on a new lottery winner. We will be the "new" Democratic Party. We will be the "moderate" Party. We will even be "conservative" if we have to. But, we will push that DLCer right into the White House. And then what?

We will at least be in the door. And, from this strategic point, it would be much easier working to pass healthcare, minimum wage, workers issues, whatever, than if we are on the outside. Even if we have a DLCer sitting in the Oval Office.

So why not let the DLCers push the "liberal" candidate, you might ask? Why can't they get behind the liberal with the same "strategy"? Because one might not be as strong as the other? Maybe the DLCer would be stronger if the entire Party was behind him or her? But the "liberal" tag, at this time in our history, realistically speaking, may be poison to a politician? Is that possible? Or are we simply in denial and refuse to accept it as even a possibility?