DLC Member Quotes Which Take On The Failed GOP

[RBInMaine]

Okay folks, I don't like any divisive comments by anyone on any side of this party because we MUST unite this party with a broad coalition that includes liberals and moderates alike, and there's room for ALL of us. So let's give the DLC centrists some credit, for example, for the following statements from last month's DLC
forum.

"To earn a chance to lead our country Democrats have to offer a positive, strong, optimistic agenda of our own; a tough and smart alternative to the GOP's failed ways." – Al From

"The right wing of the Republican Party has asked their candidates to take socially extreme positions, positions outside the mainstream…and now the right wing is asking for their pound of flesh: Terri Schiavo, stem cells, a whole new series of litmus tests."
- Governor Mark Warner

"The Republicans abandon arithmetic. Well, we’ll bring it back. We’ll reform the tax code to favor work over privilege, productive investments over non-productive ones…
And we’ll restore the vigorous enforcement of our trade laws against unfair competition, which the Republicans have drastically reduced." – Hillary Clinton

Train the fire where it needs to be pointed, at the GOP! As Governor Warner says, the GOP has lurched so far to the right that they have abandoned the "sensible American center" and we Dems can bring them back (AND expand the liberal base as well). THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO, AND WE CAN!! So let's line our political "firing squad" in a line instead of in a circle as we too often do. Either we unite this party, have a big tent, and expand the electoral map or we remain the electoral minority indefinitely, simple as that!

THANKS!

[ironman202]

1. I like Mark Warner

[RBInMaine]

61. Warner's Good!

Warner is damn good. He's a centrist Dem who won in a solidly red state with the help of moderate R's and I's. He'd also be a very good Pres. candidate from what I've seen of him. He is NOT
"Republican Lite" just because he's a common-ground moderate.
Look at our few Presidential winners in the last several decades:
Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. All southerners, all ran as moderates.
(Gore, a moderate, won the popular vote and probably Florida but still lost 30 of 50 states including his own. Kerry pretty much had a repeat performance, only 19 out of 50 states. NOT GOOD)
McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, all Liberals, got beaten into smithereens. Are we seeing anything here???

[Douglas Carpenter]

85. just what positions did Mondale and Dukakis hold that were so liberal?

If you check the record, you will see that they also ran on a DLC-lite program.

When Barry Goldwater lost by a humiliating landslide in 1964--the right wing didn't give up. They built the infrastructure necessary to not only take control of the GOP--they now control all three branches of government and the media as well.

When the Democratic Party stood for something it dominated the political landscape for decades. When they decided that standing for something wasn't important (I suppose in the late 70's) they have been loosing ground ever since. The Democratic Party has been abandoning its working class roots for more than the last 30 years--This approach simply does not work.

Take a look next door in Vermont. Bernie Sanders wins staunchly rural, conservative Republican counties by landslide proportions--as an open socialist. He doesn't do this by his good looks or charisma. He does it by making politics relevant to ordinary people.

Is the goal to only elect more Democrats or build a progressive majority. One thing is clear you cannot build a progressive majority led by anti-progressives.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. Really!

There was nothing "far left" about either Dukakis or Mondale. We have only the right wing's say-so, and too many Democrats are accepting the right wing's characterizations of our candidates.

Dukakis and Mondale were both lousy candidates because they ran lousy campaigns. When Mondale said in his acceptance speech that he was going to raise taxes and did so with hwat looked like glee, I knew it was all over.

I am SO SICK of hearing that DLC bullshit about how Dukakis and Mondale were "too far left."

I was an adult during both their campaigns. The fact was that they were inept campaigners, uninspiring, and prone to make massive blunders. Hard core Democrats voted for them only reluctantly.

The year that Dukakis was "too far left" was also the year that Jesse Jackson won the Michigan primary. Explain that.

[MisterLiberal]

133. EXACTLY!

Why is it always that the liberal base has to work with the centrists?

We've been doing that and all that gets accomplished is the party moving ever more so to the right!

It's time the centrists worked with the base!!!!!

[OzarkDem]

139. DLC dems are just lazy campaigners

They've been seduced by the idea that they need to rely solely on corporate donations for expensive media campaigns. The DLC and corporate lobbyists have managed to convince them that the base of Dem voters is so "far out in left field" that, as candidates, they would have to radically change their position on issues to raise funds and in so doing would alienate them from average voters. The DLC has created this ridiculous "liberal bogeyman" trying to frighten Dem candidates into remaining dependent on corporate money alone.

Any Dem in office who buys into that myth needs to seriously reconsider whether they should be in office if they're that out of touch with the beliefs of their base.

[Clark2008]

145. Warner's a Bilderberger.

Tired of them.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. I disagree with you.

[LittleClarkie]

4. Short but promising

Do you feel like expanding that into a criticism?

(promising because what is there is civil)

[RBInMaine]

15. Yeah, DLCers and moderates need to work with the liberals.

Yeah, DLCers and moderates need to stop their own foolish divisive comments and accept that this party has a liberal activist base that will work with them on many of their policy ideas. The point I'm trying to make in all that both liberals and DLC types need to stop the silly bickering and turf ward and get together on commonalities, the first being the we are ALL worthy Dems and that we need to work together to beat the GOP. Why so many Dems insist on the silly infighting is beyond me when there is so much common ground and such a great common target in Bush and GOP. It's absolutely ridiculous!
Liberals Dems need moderates win, and moderates Dems need liberals
win. Why does it seem so hard for so many to understand this????

[OzarkDem]

30. They also should accept

that there are plenty of moderate and conservative Dems who don't agree with the DLC or their tactics, but get along just fine with other Dems.

DLC is really just a meaningless label. It doesn't represent moderate Dems in any way.

[RBInMaine]

58. Well, yes and no.

The DLC has been the premier moderate or centrist Dem organization in the country, so in that sense it is somewhat synonymous with the idea of "moderate wing of the party." I sometimes say "DLC types."
But you are exactly right, it is a political organization that doesn't necessarily speak for ALL moderate Dems, at least not in every way. My point has been this: STOP THE INFIGHTING! PEOPLE MORE TO THE LEFT NEED TO STOP BASHING MODERATES (OR CENTRIST DEMS, INCLUDING THE DLC MEMBERS), and the same goes for the other side.
The fire needs to be trained at the R's, and Dems of all stripes need to unite on common ground, and there damn well is plenty of it despite what some might think.

[jackbourassa]

75. Isn't it funny how DLC-types are always calling for a truce

And then a week later we read that Will Marshall is calling progressives "anti-American?"

I for one don't give one bit about the DLC.

Want to hear a joke?

What would happen if Will Marshall fell from a 20 story building?

Answer: Nothing.

Why? Because he and his organization are so insignificant that no one would care. Can anyone name anything positive the DLC has done for the Democratic Party in the past 10 years?

The only time I hear the DLC mentioned is when they attack us liberals. I say screw them.

[me b zola]

89. "The fire needs to be trained at the R's,"

The first R's in the sites should be the ones who have infiltrated the Democratic Party.

dlc does not equal centrist or moderate. dlc=corporate frickin interest--the same that the repukes serve.

You know, you guys come in waves. You all come here selling your snake oil, until enough people get tired of your shit and run you off. Actually, you all remind me of grifters who prey on little old ladies and their social security checks--oops, a little too close to the truth.

True to a good con (oh, another little ditty too close to the truth), you will post pages of lies to try to support your lies, but in the end you wouldn't recognize a Democratic Value if it bit you on the ass.

[sunnystarr]

120. I don't see that moderates are being trashed. It's the open

hostility and criticism by the DLC that has the majority of Dems in a rage. Understandably so and it needs to stop or they need to form their own party instead of trying to take over this one.

[MisterLiberal]

134. The same goes for the other side?

I note you put "PEOPLE MORE TO THE LEFT NEED TO STOP BASHING MODERATES (OR CENTRIST DEMS, INCLUDING THE DLC MEMBERS)"

in all cap letters then basically said, "oh yeah, the other side, too"

Bottom line? We've worked with the centrists. IT'S TIME THE CENTRISTS WORKED WITH US!!!!

[Clark2008]

146. Because you pick the wrong candidates.

You pick people who are WIMPS.

You're never going to carry a red state with a perceived or actual WIMP.

Oh, come ON!

[RBInMaine]

19. You disagree that we need a big tent?

You disagree that we need a big tent? You disagree that Dems need to unite its party wings around its common ideas and principles instead of bickering foolishly and continuing to get beaten into political oblivion by the GOP? You disagree that despite some misgivings about the DLC one might actually look at some of their ideas and find something of value? You disagree with their comments targeting the GOP? With what do you disagree? Look, I'm not out waving the DLC banner, I'm just trying to get Dems to understand that if they have a desire to win again everywhere in this country then they need to stop the silly liberal-moderate bickering and start the liberal-moderate common ground movement, once and for all.
I had some disagreements with DLCer Bill Clinton, but he put together the kind of broad based party coalition he needed to win and did so TWICE, and he was a hell of a lot better than hi R opponents. We need to get back there again. Look at the issues and you'll find that moderates and liberals can agree, in large measure 75%-80% of the time. Let's focus on the common ground and stop the silly infighting which is just a gift to the GOP.

[Zhade]

28. See, that's where your premise fails.

We liberals and progressives do NOT share "common ideas and principles" with the DLC.

Examples:

We're for universal health care. They're for keeping it in the private sector.

We're for ending the illegal war in Iraq. They're for continued occupation and have been for the war since before we invaded. Hell, Will Marshall, founder of PPI, has endorsed several PNAC statements on Iraq.

We're for funding public schools, they're for using taxpayer-funded private vouchers.

We're for workers' rights worldwide, they're for NAFTA/CAFTA.

We're for ending the failed War on (Some) Drugs, they're for ramping it up and "winning".

We're for a woman's right to control her own body, period. They're for limiting those rights.

We're for equal rights for GLBT folk, they are for avoiding the "electoral damage" that allegedly does.

The list goes on. At this point, I think I've made myself clear - we and they do NOT share the same ideal, principles, or goals.

There is a chasm that cannot be crossed. You cannot find a middle ground between "equal citizen" and "not equal". You cannot find a middle ground between supporting an illegal war and not supporting it.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

39. Some people might have you on ignore.

And it might not necessarily have anything to do with being afraid.

[Zhade]

40. Maybe because for the longest time, they've lied about being the majority?

Ironically, it was their beloved organization's own words that showed they are most decidedly NOT the majority of the party.

[spaniard]

46. huh?

why would anyone want to engage you in a conversation when the challenge begins with an ad hominem attack?

And what questions has anyone refused to answer??

[me b zola]

90. If dlcers feel attacked maybe they should start their own party

...and quit trying to take over the name of the Democratic Party. :grr:

[spaniard]

108. nah, I have a better idea

the loony fringe left two-percenters should start their own party. They've been so successful already...

[me b zola]

112. Aw, isn't that special. You use the same rhetoric as paid dlc mouthpieces

Yeah, that "loony left" that brought us the voting rights act, the demand for a woman to have sovereignty over her own body, is demanding that GLBT's have the same full citizen's rights as heteros, recognizes the importance of separation of church & State--because other wise you get this fucked-up mess that we are in, that supports unions & workers rights, and who don't believe in sending our children off to die in an illegal war.

Yeah, that's pretty fucking loony :eyes:






edited to add that many of the "loony left" who don't support this war have their children or another loved one in Iraq. What "loony" mofo's we all are to wish to end this war of greed and bring their loved oned home to them-----ALIVE :grr:

[spaniard]

116. PAID DLC mouth pieces? Where can I sign up?

All the issues you mentioned were championed by the Democratic party, not the fringe two-percent you occupy.

[me b zola]

125. L Street would be my guess

The only thing fringe in the Democratic Party are the paid lobbyist trying to pass themselves off as Joe Citizen.

Selling the dlc name reminds me of the oil company's television ads that try to convince everyone that they are good for the environment. Ya know, the cute elephant dancing in a beautiful jungle. Or how about the coal industry's sexed-up commercials. :eyes:


So you acknowledge that the issues I mentioned are true Democratic values. I cannot recall a dlcer calling for an end to the war. I cannot recall hearing a dlcer championing equal rights for gays. When we, the base, speak on behalf of those two issues the dlc joins with the repubs in calling us the "loony left".

It may be helpful for you to understand that those of us you call the "loony left" are the Democratic voters who watch C-SPAN, who follow the votes, who follow the issues.

[MisterLiberal]

137. Welcome to the DU Mr. 47 posts

Maybe you oughta read the rules sometime; to post on this board, you have to support progressive stances.

So stop fighting us already.

[wyldwolf]

143. Welcome to DU Mr. 346 posts

Maybe YOU oughta read the rules sometime.

[TankLV]

119. You know, we are a small step away from doing exactly just that.

But I'm afraid you won't like it and look around to find out that YOU are the 2% when we all leave!

But sometimes fantasies like yours are the only things you can kling to when you are on the losing side of reality.

[me b zola]

141. I say they can't have our name!

You know, I really believe that they want us to leave so they can take over the good name of the Democratic Party.

Think about it. We are the Democratic voters who are informed. We are the activists. Name recognition is a big deal in politics. Unfortunately there is a sizable percent of Democratic voters who do not follow the issues, and can be lead around by their nose. Hence, the "security mom" voters. Many people will not follow because us into a new party. They will buy into the propaganda that we are "fringe" or "loony". And who wins? THE CORPORATE REPUBLICANS.

Don't let them run you off!!

I view this as an attempted coup, and I say they can't have our good name.

[MisterLiberal]

136. They're trying to do the same thing

that the fundies did to the Repukes; move the party more to the right.

[RBInMaine]

59. I think you're too limited here.

So you say you that liberals have NO common ground with DLCers?
Please read the following and tell me honestly if there is a single idea or sentiment that you can agree with?:

"To win the war on terror, America needs more friends. We believe that running the country deep into debt is economically dangerous and morally wrong."

"We believe that dependence on foreign oil is the greatest threat to America's national and economic security -- and the most avoidable."

"We believe American ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, and hard work can beat any competitor, but only if we make sure that hard work is rewarded, and that Americans are given the tools to rise to the challenge."

"We believe the promise of American life is opportunity -- the chance for all to achieve their potential. America should offer every citizen the basic bargain that built the nation: Do right by your country and your family, and you can rise as far as your dreams and hard work can take you."

"We believe that governments and corporations don't raise children -- parents do. A nation that puts rights ahead of responsibilities, and profits ahead of values, will soon lose them all."

"We believe the purpose of politics is to solve people's problems, not to serve special interests. We can't afford a political system that protects privilege and the status quo and ignores the needs of ordinary people."

"We believe that ideas and results matter, and that no political party deserves to win unless it lays out a plan for how America can win."

"Above all, We believe in summoning Americans to a cause that is greater than any party -- to unite our nation in an unstoppable quest to save the American dream and put Washington to work solving people's problems."

If you have found something, anything you can agree with here, you have found some common ground the the DLC and many centrist Dems because this is from the DLC beliefs statement. You only mention a handful of issues, there are many others. And there is no way even to pigeon-hole "liberals" and "progressives" because there are still some differences of opinion here and there within those blocks.
(i.e. I know plenty of pro-lifers who are liberal on about every other issue.) Bottom line, if Dems want to win again they better stop the dividing and start uniting, and that means Progressive and Centrists BOTH have to do their part. DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ZERO COMMON GROUND! NOT SO!

[Zhade]

65. I didn't say there was NO common ground.

I can see how I may have been unclear, so let me rephrase: liberals and progressives don't share many of the same principles and goals as DLCers on some of the (IMHO) most important issues, like the examples I listed. My apologies for the confusion.

Now, as to this post...

"To win the war on terror, America needs more friends. We believe that running the country deep into debt is economically dangerous and morally wrong."

I don't think a "war on terror" is the right response to terrorism. 9/11 was a crime, and should have been handled as such. You will never win a final military victory against a fighting tactic. The roots of the problem must be dealt with. To simply react militarily to terrorism is ineffective, wasteful, and exacerbates the problem (for evidence of this, see our illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent increase in fundie-Islam terrorism). Calling for more soldiers, as some DLCers like Clinton has, is irresponsible and useless.

I agree we need friends and allies. Not invading countries that didn't attack us is a way to maintain these, as is not supporting the Big Lie that Iraq is part of the "war on terror".

I agree with the debt comment...but if these guys are serious, why did the DLC support the b*s* tax cuts and still do so to an extent?


"We believe that dependence on foreign oil is the greatest threat to America's national and economic security -- and the most avoidable."

I believe this is shortsighted and limited in imagination - dependence on oil PERIOD is a problem. Pushing hydrogen cars, for example, is a limited, glacially-slow solution that doesn't really do all that much (after all, it takes oil to make the hydrogen to replace the oil).

Plus, I think it's disingenuous of the DLC to talk like this while taking money from rightwing oilmen like the Koch Brothers.


"We believe American ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, and hard work can beat any competitor, but only if we make sure that hard work is rewarded, and that Americans are given the tools to rise to the challenge."

Sounds nice, but what does it mean? Remember, the DLC supports NAFTA/CAFTA, which its benefactors (multinational corporate interests) favor. These policies make sure hard work ISN'T rewarded, by forcing down wages in America by encouraging corporations to move offshore where labor rights are of little or no concern. Once there are fewer jobs, there are lower wages - we've all seen that become true in this country, where wages haven't kept up with inflation since 1976.


"We believe the promise of American life is opportunity -- the chance for all to achieve their potential. America should offer every citizen the basic bargain that built the nation: Do right by your country and your family, and you can rise as far as your dreams and hard work can take you."

See NAFTA/CAFTA above.


"We believe that governments and corporations don't raise children -- parents do. A nation that puts rights ahead of responsibilities, and profits ahead of values, will soon lose them all."

Partly right (censorship is bad), partly wrong (school lunches are good), totally vague and smacks of pablum to appease the masses. If the DLC believes in putting rights first, why have they publicly stated they wish less influence from labor, which is all about workers' rights? What about their glaring lack of support for equality for all Americans, such as GLBT folk like myself? Why do they speak of limiting a woman's inherent right to control her own body and medical decisions?


"We believe the purpose of politics is to solve people's problems, not to serve special interests. We can't afford a political system that protects privilege and the status quo and ignores the needs of ordinary people."

Coming from the DLC, who takes money from everyone from Enron to the aforementioned Koch Brothers, this is just fucking laughable. They're all about special privilege - see their support for corporate-friendly policies like the reprehensible bankruptcy bill, or again NAFTA/CAFTA (which were policies literally written by corporate lobbyists).

But what they're talking about, as I said above, is "special interests" like labor and womens' rights groups. I know this, because they've said it themselves.


"We believe that ideas and results matter, and that no political party deserves to win unless it lays out a plan for how America can win."

Hey, sounds right - which is why, after examining the DLC's plan, I feel their candidates do not deserve to win.


"Above all, We believe in summoning Americans to a cause that is greater than any party -- to unite our nation in an unstoppable quest to save the American dream and put Washington to work solving people's problems."

Unless, of course, you're a liberal against the war. Then you're "un-American". Again, from their own words. Not making it up. Not interested in working with people who label me as such.

You say you're against divisiveness. Great - tell it to the DLC, the ones who actually need to hear it.

Good luck with that. Unless you can write them a hefty check, they're not likely to listen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. Zhade:

:yourock:

[Zhade]

127. Awww, shucks Ms. Leftcoast!

(I don't know if you're married, so you're Ms. to me.)

Personally, I think you rock, too. :)

[TankLV]

121. I would like to see the entire text of which the quotes were part of.

I seem to remember that the quotes about "initiative" and "the individual" were in response to those of us who were urging the funding of more social programs for those who cannot cope with more social welfare program cuts, as well as an argument AGAINST national health care - which agreed with the repukes line of the day.

Their idea of "special interests" is unions, teachers, poor, GBLT, etc.

"American ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, and hard work" - same bullshit for thier arguments against worker protections, their anti-union and anti social program rants.

Just like bunkerboy: Their "code words" do not fool us at all.

We don't trust that these select quotes are truly representative of what the true thrust of their "ideas" really were.

[eggman67]

70. No, maybe you can't

but can't you understand that some things take time?

for example:

"We're for equal rights for GLBT folk, they are for avoiding the "electoral damage" that allegedly does."

Guess what,it DOES do electoral damage and you can't do a Goddamn thing without GETTING ELECTED.

Most people in this country DO NOT favor same-sex marriage but they DO favor civil-unions. Take what you can get or you get nothing. Let them get used to civil-unions first and then you may get what you want eventually.

"We're for a woman's right to control her own body, period. They're for limiting those rights."

Stop fighting parental-notification and late (3rd trimester) abortions and this issue will go away. Some things shoud be limited.

"We're for ending the illegal war in Iraq. They're for continued occupation and have been for the war since before we invaded."

Guess what, we're there. Walking away now serves no purpose. It's bad for Iraqis and bad for us. We blew the country up, we have a responsibility to stabilize it. Whether or not it was right to blow it up in the first place is irrelevant. You break it, you bought it.


The bottom line is that you simply cannot have the radical changes you seek in one fell swoop, they must come in stages.

What do I say to those who may not live to see the end result? Like the elderly lesbian coule who saw their marriage invalidated in California? I'm sorry, but thank you. Thank you for taking one for the team and moving the cause an inch further than it was before. It may be imperceptible now, but so was Rosa Parks sitting on that bus.

[Zhade]

72. It may not come as a shock to you, but I heartily disagree with your post.

The GLBT thing costing votes? Bullshit, and it was debunked here on DU at the time.

"Stop fighting parental-notification and late (3rd trimester) abortions and this issue will go away. Some things shoud be limited."

No (there are cases where young mothers would be killed, especially if her dad is the father), and third-term abortions are ALREADY limited. But then, you knew that, right?

"Guess what, we're there. Walking away now serves no purpose. It's bad for Iraqis and bad for us. We blew the country up, we have a responsibility to stabilize it. Whether or not it was right to blow it up in the first place is irrelevant. You break it, you bought it."

I don't subscribe to the "Pottery Barn" rule, and what's more I recognize that our presence is the primary destabilizing force. Longer we're there, the more people died. It's pretty simple to understand.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

82. Fuck me, eh?

What, did you run out of coherent arguments?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

86. Yes, I tend to dismiss posters who have to resort to swearing at me.

Clearly, your argument is not even worth addressing.

[eggman67]

88. Or unaddressable.

You had to read past several arguments to get to the swearing (a response to your behavior BTW). You clearly cannot rebut them.

[Zhade]

92. No, I just refuse to converse with people who swear at me.

I will not indulge those who attack me over imagined wrongs and break the rules by doing so. If you swear at me, the conversation is over. I don't care how good your points might be (and there are a couple we could debate honestly), once you've done that, forget it. You don't deserve a reply at that point.

[eggman67]

93. Imagined wrongs?

You're trying to tell me that you seriously don't see the condescension in your post?

[Zhade]

98. Honestly? No.

When I said "it's pretty simple", it meant it's pretty simple to me. I understand the situation in a way different than you do - that is not a value judgement on your understanding, only a declaration of fact: I do, indeed, clearly see the situation differently than you.

To me, it's simple: we illegally invaded, killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, tortured them, privatized their state-owned enterprises, robbed them, and in every possible way screwed them over.

The reason people continue to die seems simple to me: people don't like being occupied by invaders who carelessly, and sometimes deliberately, kill their non-terrorist brothers and sisters, mom and uncles and grandnieces and whoever, and they have decided, if not to take up arms themselves, to shelter and support those who attack the invaders.

I'm not talking about the purported al Qaeda cells led by Abu Musab al-Goldstein blowing up children taking candy from U.S. soldiers (a horrific, evil act) or the true, if few, holdouts from Hussein's regime. I'm talking about the unaffiliated Iraqi burying the IED in the sand beside the road under an overpass, the prisoners who organize and fight their captors with homemade shit-dirt-and-flammable-hand-sanitizer bombs, using floorboards for shields and holding out for days.

I'm saying, to me, it seems simple enough: we broke it, as you said, and I agree that in a sense we also bought it, in that we owe the Iraqis all the money that's currently funneling into Halliburton and CACI slush accounts.

We owe them an end to the death. I think everyone here can agree on that. We do owe them a way out of the clusterfuck we've gotten them into.

But it is my belief, simple as it may seem, that WE are the main problem in Iraq. People often forget that Iraq had terrorism and sectarian strife long before we foisted it on its citizens - people like Allawi, Iraq's "prime minister", directed bombings in public places during Hussein's reign. The lawlessness has amped up the terrorism to a high degree, no question. I don't favor just fucking over the Iraqis more, and it's wrong of you to imply that I would,

The Iraqis want us gone. Civil war is coming either way - just look at the Sunnis and the fucked-up constitution that was just drafted. The question is, can we stay in Iraq and make it better? It seems a simple-to-understand argument to me that staying where we're hated, continuing to Fallujah towns and villages during operations that cross the line into collective punishment, and continuing to be the ones calling the shots, when we're hopelessly mired in the muck and blood of occupation, is folly.

We're the problem, because the Iraqi people really don't want to work with us. They don't trust us, and after Abu Ghraib, why should they?

That's my argument on the whole "Pottery Barn rule" angle. And had you not swore at me, breaking both the board rules and my own rule of not debating people who make it personal, you might have gotten a lot out of the exchange, just as I might have.

That's not condescending, that's just how it is. You'll notice that even after you basically told me to fuck off twice, I might have sworn, but it wasn't directed at you.

If you still have a problem with the post, it's out of my hands.

[Raksha]

84. ANYONE who says it's "irrelevant" why we're in Iraq has lost me.

It most definitely *IS* damn relevant, considering the Downing Street Memo and what we know already about the Plame leak, and why there was a Plame leak to begin with--i.e. to build up an imaginary threat and a bogus case for war at the very least, and possibly to cover up other criminal activities at worst. It's understandable if not commendable for the neocons to pull that "what does it matter why we're there" crap, but coming from someone who claims to be a Democrat it is damn well unforgivable...ESPECIALLY right now! It's their silence in the face of Shrub's tanking poll numbers that condemns them more than anything.

EVERY poll these days shows that a majority of the public now believes the Iraq war was a mistake, so it's not like it's even a politically risky position to take these days. And yet the DLC types ALWAYS stop short of saying that. At best, they will talk about the "handling" of the war, which I agree has been disastrous. But the bottom line is that Bush wanted this war and fixed the intelligence, suppressed the truth and persecuted the truth-tellers.

I don't care if we pull all our troops out tomorrow or spend three months or even a year working out an exit strategy. Personally, I don't think there are any good solutions. I believe there will be a civil war and chaos if we stay, and the same thing when we finally leave. If someone can think of a way to make it less disastrous, I'm all for it, provided there is an exit strategy of some kind.

But until someone in the DLC has the guts to stand up and say unequivocally that we NEVER should have invaded Iraq in the first place and that it was all based on lies and deception, they don't deserve a place at the table as far as I'm concerned.

There are other reasons why I don't trust the DLC, but other posters have covered them more than adequately.

[eggman67]

87. You miss my point

The point is that, whether or not our reason for being there is just, the reality is that we are in fact there. We can't rewind and not have gone in; we are in. The fact remains that we now have to do something about it, and just walking away, washing our hands and saying, "oops, our bad" ain't gonna cut it. So it is irrelevant in those terms.

[Raksha]

91. Yeah, I've NOTICED that we're there (in Iraq).

But NOT saying "our bad" is totally unacceptable, and even more inexcusable is trashing the anti-war faction that is now the MAJORITY, not only in the Democratic party but in the whole country. I'm 59 years old dammit, and I don't EVER want to hear any more of this goddam crap about "Vietnam Syndrome"! Just what the hell is wrong with Vietnam Syndrome anyway? Is Vietnam Syndrome a reluctance to get involved in a pre-emptive war? If so, then it's a very healthy phenomenon and we need more of it.

The thing is, here it is 40 years down the line, and not only is the Vietnam era anti-war movement not getting any credit, we are still getting trashed to this day for BEING RIGHT!!! I read that passage (I think it's from Al From) about "aging baby boomers" and I just wanted to puke. Like our opposition to the Iraq war is basically nostalgia for our lost youth or something. Yeah, maybe a little bit, but mostly it's a painful awareness of the similarities between then and now.

If they could, the DLC would make Vietnam comparisons off limits, just as they've done with the language of class warfare. I just don't happen to think either of those tendencies is something to be gotten over or outgrown, not when they are AT LEAST as relevant now as they ever were.

[eggman67]

94. I'm not saying you're wrong about Vietnam or Iraq

And I'm not saying we shouldn't admit culpability. What I'm saying is that even given that we still have to stay there and fix it.

I don't think that just walking away is the solution, I think that would just make things worse than they already are.

[w13rd0]

95. Staying there and trying to fix it...

...with THIS administration...WILL NOT WORK. They SUCK, and they get EVERYTHING wrong. Staying there, with these buffoons in charge, is a recipe for just misdirecting and delaying this civil war you speak of in favor of their shooting at our children. I say screw that.

We CAN NOT FIX A DAMN THING with THIS administration. PERIOD. END OF STORY. "We still have to stay there and fix it." But with Bush, we are just staying there, no fixing is involved. And sorry, but myself, and the majority of the people in the world, except the Bushbots and the DLC, understand that.

[Zhade]

130. Great post.

I fully concur.

[TankLV]

118. I wonder if they will understand it. They haven't so far - no matter how

we try to explain it.

[Zhade]

129. Well, we're talking about people who think DLCer-types are the majority...

...even when the DLC itself has admitted it is in no way the majority of the Democratic party.

If they can blind themselves to the fact that they are in the minority, both in numbers and in the policies they support, even when shown BY THEIR OWN FAVORITE ORGANIZATION that they are in the minority, it's pretty clear they are slightly deluded, or at least quite confused.

And pissed, I'm sure, that the "radical loony neoleft extremist fringe McGovernites" are actually not as radical so much as they themselves are more conservative and in line with Republican principles than they care to admit.

Heck, I have no problem with honest old-time Republicans. I don't support their agenda, but I appreciate honest debate. Pretending to be the majority when you're not, and falling into the trap of calling yesterday's rightwingers "centrists", is hardly honest debate, though.

[OzarkDem]

32. False choices

You're with us or against us rhetoric seems to be the hallmark of this group.

How do you feel about moderate and conservative Dems who want no part of the DLC and its ideas?

[MisterLiberal]

135. You solution can be summarized in one word to the base: Capitulate

I'm tired of giving in.

[Totally Committed]

3. There is nothing moderate about the DLC.

Corporations win at the expense of the little guy. Nope. Too Republican for me.

[LittleClarkie]

5. I've never understood why they hate Clinton

if he's so much like him.

Perhaps if they got to know him, like Poppy has.

Weird really. The Repubs still consider them far left don't they.

[spaniard]

51. why WHO hates Bill Clinton?

The DLC?

No...

[LittleClarkie]

54. Republicans

They hate him. And yet it appears he was alot like them.

Did they hate him because he co-opted their issues? Beat them at their own game so to speak?

[Raksha]

144. Well, they like to pretend they consider the Clintons far left anyway.

It's all part of the charade, the better to paint mainstream anti-corporate Democrats as "the wacko left-wing lunatic fringe."

[LoZoccolo]

6. That's it! Anyone who does a knee-jerk boilerplate post...

...is liable to end up on my managed time list!

[RBInMaine]

13. You don't have to like the DLC but you can still be for party unity.

You obviously don't have to join the DLC to still be for a big tent and party unity. I don't like everything about them either, but I do agree with some of their ideas and absolute necessity of having a united big-tent party that can win again everywhere, unless Dems want to be a permanent electoral minority. That of course is the other alternative.

[jonnyblitz]

14. you might want to send these pleas of unity for them

you have it ass backwards. they don't want "us"

[firefox]

7. No DLC candidate for me

Is there a DLC member that is not pro-Empire and a drug warrior? Seriously.

[Pepperbelly]

25. is the ANY candidate that is anti-drug-war? nt

[eridani]

100. Dennis Kucinich

Also the only candidate to use the term "prison-industrial complex" on his issues page.

[AntiCoup2K4]

62. Russ Feingold?

Somebody told me he was on the DLC membership list, though I'll be goddamned if I know why, since his history doesn't show much interest in their agenda.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Guaranteed]

23. It's common sense at this point. nt

[LoZoccolo]

24. I rest my case. n/t

[Guaranteed]

27. We're all pretty convinced.

By which I mean the DLC is awful consistent.

[Pepperbelly]

31. "We"? Do you have ...

a mouse in your pocket?

For whom are you speaking beside yourself?

[Guaranteed]

33. Where'd you get the idea for that quote?

Seen something like it before from them?

Sounds like it was pretty easy for you to come up with it.

[Pepperbelly]

37. what quote? the ...

one in the tag line?

Saw it somewhere ( :shrug: Don't recall where. I've slept since then), thought it captured the essence of Bonehead the Pirate's shameful double dealing and double talking. Thought it said something interesting about Bush.

[Guaranteed]

43. Excellent!

:P

[MadisonProgressive]

9. The democratic party

needs to decide what they stand for and then yell it from the rooftops. Anything less is just more of the same.

[Q]

10. Look...

...you and a few others seem confused about what's going on here. Why aren't you writing these f**king unity letters to the DLC? Why aren't you asking THEM to stop smearing the left? Why is it that the 'left' is asked to compromise and not the DLC RWingers?

This type of thread is fruitless because the DLC has taken control of the party and plans on pushing their OWN agenda without any kind of consent or input from the REST of the party.

Want the party to work together? Then send a letter just like this to the DLC.

[RBInMaine]

56. I HAVE sent the DLC "unity" letters.

Look, I HAVE sent the DLC these these "unity letters" and I darn well believe they should stop their own divisive rhetoric. Perhaps you should write them too, and also the organizations further to the left who are just as responsible for as the DLC for this foolish Democratic divide which only helps the GOP.

[Eloriel]

63. You are spitting in the ocean -- big waste of time

the DLC will NEVER yield to your demands. Why? Because of the purpose for which they were formed in the first place is to exclude us.

Please read these two articles in their entirety (some excerpts are posted downthread by others):


How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print


You can appeal for unity all you want, but if one party you're appealing to is constitutionally opposed to it by definition and mission statement (figuratively speaking -- I have no idea what their mission statement is if they even have one), you're not going to get very far. So STOP THE FUCK BLAMING US, or lecturing us what WE "must" do. It's damned annoying. Some people here have a much better understanding of what the hell is going on than you do. Please be smart enough (forget humble -- won't ask for that) to listen to them.

Too, don't take the wars here as anything important; they're not. The DLC has some members at $50 a head, but they don't care about having a membership, they only care about big corporate donors and keeping them happy. So the "people" you're asking us to be unified with are a few pro-DLC people here at DU and the leadership of the DLC. I mean, what you're asking for isn't all that logical, frankly, or even logistically possible, if you've understood what I'm saying.

[Q]

74. Did you get a REPLY from the DLC?

If so...why not share it with us?

It's not the left that's 'helping the GOP''. If it were up to us...we'd impeach Bush & Cheney and prosecute every damn criminal in this most corrupt administration.

Which brings up another issue. The DLC are collaborators/enablers to the Neocon/PNAC groups that have not only taken control of our government via a bloodless coup...but have encouraged the Democratic leadership to go easy on these traitors.

You want us to find unity with those who would condone/enable/ignore election fraud, aggressive war, torture and the killing of thousands of innocents?

Not a chance in hell.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Suggested Reading: "How the DLC Does It" by Robert Dreyfuss

Excerpt:

A Business-Led Party

Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One. A veteran of the Carter White House and Capitol Hill, where he'd worked for Louisiana Representative Gillis Long and served as executive director of the House Democratic Caucus, From helped build the Committee on Party Effectiveness, a forerunner of the DLC, in the early 1980s. To From, a key rationale for establishing the DLC in those days was to protect the Democrats' eroding bastion in the South against mounting Republican gains, and indeed one of the DLC's chief projects in the 1980s was to create and promote the Super Tuesday primary across the South, aimed at enhancing the clout of southern Dems in selecting presidential candidates.

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse–style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro–free market outlook.

It's hard to argue that they haven't succeeded.

Today's is not your father's Democratic Party. Though the dwindling chorus of party progressives provides counterpoint, today's Democrats are proud to claim the mantle of budgetary moderation. They oppose President Bush's $2-trillion tax-cut plan not by arguing mainly for more spending on health, education, and welfare, but because it risks the new sacred cause of paying off the national debt. They are the party of increased military spending, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and partnership with religious faith. They are the party of Ending Welfare As We Know It, the party of The Era of Big Government Is Over.

The New Democrats, who helped bring about this shift, have surged in power and influence. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), have blossomed into a $7-million-a-year operation. The New Democrat Network (NDN), which provides funds to dozens of certified co-thinkers in federal, state, and local races, raised nearly $6 million last year. Twenty U.S. senators and 70 members of the House of Representatives have formally affiliated themselves with New Democrat caucuses, and hundreds of state and local elected officials are signing on. The three men who've dominated the last three presidential tickets, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Lieberman, the DLC's most recent chairman, are all quintessential New Democrats. So are many of the party's rising stars, such as Senator John Edwards of North Carolina; Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, the DLC's new chairman; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics. Yet the affiliation of scores of members of Congress has enabled the DLC to establish alliances with Fortune 500 corporate supporters, particularly along the so-called K Street corridor of Washington-based lobbyists and in high-tech enclaves such as California's Silicon Valley.

Once, the Reverend Jesse Jackson disparaged the DLC as "Democrats for the Leisure Class." But no one should underestimate the DLC's role in remaking the Democratic Party. Disciplined and single-minded, working tirelessly to forge alliances between individual Democratic elected officials and business groups, zealously promoting the political fortunes of their stars, and publishing a dizzying array of white papers and policy proposals, the DLC has given strategic coherence to what otherwise would have remained an inchoate tendency within the party. It has become a forum within which like-minded pro-business Democrats can share ideas, endorse one another, and commiserate about the persistence of the Old Guard.

(We all know who the "Old Guard" is.)

more...

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[flpoljunkie]

12. Be sure to read on to see where the DLC gets their major funding.

Here's an excerpt:

The DLC's investment in Clinton paid off, of course, after the 1992 election. Not only did the DLC bask in its status as idea factory and influence broker for the White House, but it also reaped immediate financial rewards. One month after the election, Clinton headlined a fundraising dinner for the DLC that drew 2,200 to Washington's Union Station, where tables went for $15,000 apiece. Corporate officials and lobbyists were lined up to meet the new White House occupant, including 139 trade associations, law firms, and companies who kicked in more than $2 million, for a total of $3.3 million raised in a single evening. The DLC-PPI's revenues climbed steadily upward, reaching $5 million in 1996 and, according to its most recent available tax returns, $6.3 million for 1999. "Our revenues for 2000 will probably end up around $7.2 million," says Chuck Alston, the DLC's executive director.

While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[Q]

26. And remember this: these millions aren't meant to help ALL Dems...

...just the DLC's chosen ones.

[Eloriel]

64. And they rigorously exclude liberals

LIBERALS NEED NOT APPLY
NDN's brochures sound like investment prospectuses. "NDN acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials," says the PAC. "NDN provides the political intelligence you need to make well-informed decisions on how to spend your political capital. Just like an investment advisor, NDN exhaustively vets candidates and endorses only those who meet our narrowly defined criteria."

snip

To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support.
How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[unlawflcombatnt]

132. Thanks for the link

It also helped me understand why I don't like the New Democratic Network (NDN), headed by Simon Rosenberg. They're an offshoot of the DLC. Unfortunately, they are very active in recruiting. I actually got a phone call from them about becoming a member, as well as numerous Emails. This was months after I had told them I wanted nothing to do with their free-trade/free-slave organization.

The DLC advocates privatization of Medicare. Which is simply a Corporate welfare scheme for HMOs, health insurers, and pharmaceutical companies. Just what this country needs -- more taxpayer handouts to corporations and the rich. More reverse-Robin Hood policies.

In many respects, the DLC seems more right-wing and plutocratic than the Republican Party. At least some Republicans oppose free-trade/free-slave policies. Do any of the DLC bigwigs oppose free trade?

[LittleClarkie]

42. Hrm

Saving us from the AFL-CIO. But they're a big part of our organization around election time. That doesn't seem like such a smooth move.

I wonder what they think they're going to stitch the new party out of. Many of their activists are the ones they're trying to jetison. I guess they're trying to attract rank and file people, but then alot of those are working stiffs, and outsourcing their jobs can't be popular.

Fiscal responsibility, okay. I can live with that plank.

(See, guys, I can think the DLC is wrong headed in alot of ways, criticize them and try to push the party away from them. But that doesn't mean they don't STILL have a voice. There is NOTHING that can be done about that. We have to deal with them being around, and THEY will have to deal with us being around.)

[Zhade]

67. Oh, it has a voice - all that corporate cash buys a pretty loud megaphone.

There are only a few members, relatively speaking, crowding around it to shout at the majority rank-and-file base that is NOT comprised of the DLC and its ilk, but the loudness of their screeching "UNITY! UNITY!" while shivving liberals in the back and whispering "you're un-american" makes a lot of reasonable people think they must have some kind of magic.

They don't. It's all smoke-and-mirrors. Clinton made the DLC, not the other way around, and the DLC will never admit that, nor realize how out of touch many of their favored policies are with the common American (universal health care - Americans want it, DLC doesn't) and sheer decency (supporting the illegal war in Iraq is just plain wrong).

"Saving us from the AFL-CIO. But they're a big part of our organization around election time. That doesn't seem like such a smooth move."

You got it, right there. Now, ask yourself why they find labor interests distasteful, and glance at the campaign contributions from major corporations DLC candidates get, and it'll click.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[LSK]

18. i see posts on why we must unite the party

But nobody ever explains why. Why must we keep the RNC-lite members of the party?? Why cant we just kick them out?????

[Dr Fate]

50. Who do we replace their numbers with?

???

I mean, I dont even KNOW anyone who calls themsleves "DLC"- and I've been involved in local politics for a while.

In GA- I knew plenty of DEM centrists (Pro-life, gun owners, etc), but I never heard them talk about the DLC- are we talking about these guys or what?

[Eloriel]

66. You yourself provided the answer to your own question

There AREN'T any DLCers (to speak of) whose numbers would NEED to be replaced.

DLC is a bunch of consultants and such, self-appointed. Then they went and got big money from big corporations, lured in some Democrats to be involved, and there they are. Oh, they'll take your $50 if you want to be a rank-and-file individual, but they're really nothing more than a bunch of fatheads with a think tank and a PAC.

But they control enormous parts of the party, and want to control more (like all of it), which they'll be able to do if they can just kick us liberals out.

[RBInMaine]

57. Because a small tent means we lose!

The Democratic Party is now the MINORITY party in this country.
In 2004 we didn't win a single southern state. We also lost bigtime in the west and midwest. We lost 97 of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The GOP controls the entire federal govt. and a majority of the states. THEY have been WINNING while we have been LOSING and SLIDING and BLEEDING. How in God's name are we going to come back with smaller electorate and a narrow ideology. Are you interested in winning? That's what this is all about. There is plenty of common ground in the party. Sure we'll have some differences, but we need a big tent united party. And here's some more news, this country really isn't "left wing" and it really isn't
"right wing." It is generally a moderate country, as mushy as that may sound. And there are millions of center-left Dems whom we NEED to win nationally, along with I's and even some R's.

[LSK]

69. but a big tent might confuse people into thinking we are the same as GOP

I see a lot of people who dont pay attention as much as people here do and a lot of them think both parties are the same thing. Then they dont vote at all or just vote GOP. Id rather have a party that offers clear choices in contrast to the GOP. To the casual voter, all they needed to know was that Kerry supported the war or that Hillary wants to stay in Iraq and then they will just label us as bad as the republicans and get discouraged and not vote.

And if the DLC is truly just a few powerful lobbyists and politicians, what huge vote are we loosing?? We are just purging a few bad elements from the Democratic party who are simply not democrats anymore.

[TankLV]

122. The DLC is the smallest part of the Democratic Party.

Without them, we'd still have a pretty "big tent".

They can sleep outside in their pup-tents!

There are too many things that are just plain JUST and BASIC that cannot be "compromised" on.

They would have us go after the KKK vote to include them in thier numbers of how we could "win".

How about the really trying to go after and unite with the real "left" and form a formidible coalition to defeat the repukes?

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that there would be more benifit to that tactic.

[Al-CIAda]

20. For every quote you find chastizing the GOP, I wager you find 5x as many

against the 'liberal' Dems -and with much greater venom.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Nope. n/t

[Guaranteed]

29. Not taking that bet, eh? nt

[Pepperbelly]

35. I don't know about the ratio but those comments from them suck.

It seems to me that both the DLC and the Democratic far left are intent on vanquishing one or the other from the party while the rest of us are left watching uncomfortably while people we like fight bitterly and viciously.

I don't know ... :shrug:

[Zhade]

22. Their actions speak louder than a few of their words.

Sorry, I don't work with anti-worker, anti-choice, anti-universal health care, pro-illegal war organizations funded by founders of rightwing think tanks that make up a minority of the party the way the DLC does.

Not interested.

[Q]

34. More insight into the DLC mentality...

DLC | The New Democrat | January 1, 1998
The Myth of the Resurgent Left
By The Editors

"...In a similar vein, New Democrats share Clinton's belief that Medicare and Social Security must be reformed to preserve the nation's commitment to health and retirement security. The left interprets such realism as a fatal concession to the Republicans that threatens to remove "protecting Medicare and Social Security" as perennial political trump cards. Yet the public, especially younger voters, overwhelmingly recognizes the need for structural reforms.

Finally, liberal elites charge New Democrats with blurring the sharp contrasts between Democrats and Republicans. Partisan posturing may well be the occupational hazard of legislators. But presidents are elected to solve the nation's problems, not to posture. Given the reality of divided government, the nation's progress depends on some modicum of political cooperation between the White House and congressional Republicans. Liberal elites need to understand that the party's hopes of recapturing Congress hinge on its ability to govern effectively, not on its ability to mire government in ideological gridlock.

President Clinton and the New Democrats have infused the Democratic Party with new ideas, fresh energy, and a realistic political strategy. Liberal fundamentalists feel control of the party slipping away, and they want to get it back. But for Democrats, there can be no turning back. The best way for President Clinton and Vice President Gore to consolidate their political gains and show they are not intimidated by the labor-left revolt is to continue their historic effort to update the Democratic agenda for the Information Age. --- http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=1621&kaid=127&subid=171

[Zhade]

41. What the DLC calls "perennial political trump cards"...

...I call protecting Americans' health and enabling them to afford being alive when they're no longer working.

That they call Medicare and Social Security "perennial political trump cards" - as if THAT'S why those policies exist, as some kind of cynical manipulation - says a LOT about that organization's mentality.

And you gotta just LOVE their repeated use of the Limbaughesque "liberal elites". Yeah, the best way to promote the Democratic Party is to use the language of the rightwing nutjobs who would kill Dems if given the chance.

Brilliant "strategy", guys.

:eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

52. One of these perennial trump cards" is health care. Read what Breaux says

Joining Lewan on the event committee were several dozen of Washington's elite lobbyists, including representatives from the Dutko Group, Greenberg Traurig, the Wexler Group, Verner, Liipfert, and SVP Kessler and Associates, all with blue-chip clients, along with lobbyists for Chevron, Citigroup, Salomon Smith Barney, and others. One was Arthur Lifson, vice president for federal affairs at Cigna Corporation, one of the nation's largest health insurers and a company that stands to gain enormously if, say, Medicare were privatized along the lines proposed by the DLC and by one of its founders, Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. "The DLC is trying to bring some fresh ideas to Medicare and to dealing with the uninsured," says Lifson, whose company is listed as a member of the DLC's policy roundtable. "It builds on changes that are taking place in the marketplace, rather than turning everything on its head Hillary Care." Lifson frankly endorses the DLC as a counterweight to "populists ... at the other end of the party."

Guess who are the populists?

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[flpoljunkie]

53. Breaux is now a senior counsel for Patton Boggs, a top lobby shop in D.C.

[jonnyblitz]

73. wow. the more of their stuff I read,the more disgusted I get.

they are so fucking right wing it's pathetic. why don't the just come out of the closet and realize they are REPUBLICANS? I don't get it. :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Wow, with my income just below the median for my area...

who knew that I was part of the "liberal elite"?

I guess it's elitism now to advocate that hardworking people don't lose their jobs simply because the board of directors wants to increase the dividends from their shares.

[Mark E. Smith]

38. Great Post

Right on the money.

Thanks!

[RBInMaine]

60. THANKS TO YOU TOO!!

Damn straight! Time for ALL sides to start the silly bickering and start uniting which is possible even if there are some honest disagreements. There is plenty of common ground if people want to just take a deep breath for a minute and take off the hard-and-fast
ideological blinders.

[Eloriel]

68. No, you guys aren't paying attention

Go back and read (or re-read) some of what's been posted about the DLC -- origins, agenda, etc.

[Q]

76. Are you even reading any of the quotes or links to the DLC?

Stop the happy talk and start doing some research.

[TankLV]

123. Their answer is "NO, of course not!"

It's much easier to believe in their own fantasies than admit the TRUTH!

We are talking to a "wall" - and that is a wasted effort.

But don't give up the fight - I get real tired real fast repeating the same FACTS and PROOF over and over which they never read!

[Dr Fate]

44. I prefer to view this conflict issue by issue, candidate by candidate.

Some DLC issues and candidates I like, others I do not.

Lets take it as it comes instead of using "DLC" or "Micheal Moore Left" broad brushes.

[LoZoccolo]

45. That's all I ask as well.

People run around thinking I'm a paid DLC shill, but really I just want some sanity.

[Dr Fate]

49. I'm posting this suggestion on all of these threads...

...some dig it, some on both sides are content on continuing the labeling/in-fighting...

I'm making an effort to get into '06 mode and cut my own infighting impulses- its tough, but we are going to have to bite that bullet soon.

[LittleClarkie]

47. I feel that as well

There are different shades of DLC in certain candidates. Bayh and Warner seem hardcore, Kerry and Edwards not so much, for instance.

[Dr Fate]

48. Al Gore & Clark have common ground with the DLC as well...

We are throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater with all these blanket condemnations of DLC types...

On the flip side, I dont like From & company blaming "internet activists" & "Micheal Moore types" for losing the last 3 elections- when we were not even given much input opportunity- but WERE the ones on the ground doing GOTV, fundraising, etc.

I dont have a solution- all I can do is try to put this conflict in perspective.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Gore especially has moved away from them in a big way

I think he was liberated by his loss.

And Clark refused to move away from Michael Moore. That counts for something. Those who talk fiscal responsibility and nation defense may have something in common with the DLC, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Al From or Will Marshall speaks for them.

[Q]

78. Gore is no longer in any way associated with the DLC...

...just thought I would let you know.

[TankLV]

124. Regardless of all the statements I've made concerning the "keery worship"

I see, I still vividly remember the good feelings I had about him and the joy I felt when I thought he actually was winning!

Make no mistake from all my criticisma: The country would have ALWAYS been better off with him as our President.

But THIS is EXACTLY the place for all these dabates and criticisms to take place! THIS forum is exactly the appropriate forum.

I never argue the points I try to make here when talking in the "real world" to other repukes and lost souls (or the "soulless").

This is EXACTLY the right time and place to "fight" and "argue" against the DLC and those we, who belong to the "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party, disagree vehemently with.

But once out in public (which this is NOT) it's like defending a family member.

And Zell and LIEberman are NOT family members by any long shot!

[LittleClarkie]

131. Kind of like you can say stuff about your brother

like he's an asshole, but woe to anyone else outside the family who calls him an asshole.

This is the place for criticism indeed and hashing out what we believe and conflicting within the family.

But I gotta tell you, calling someone a Kerrybot sorta cuts off debate. It's like saying some of us aren't worth listening to. I like the guy. Why does that make me a bot necessarily if you don't like him? You know what I mean?

[Q]

103. Al From seems to think differently about Kerry and Edwards:

Transcript
2004 Democratic National Convention
Al From
Democratic Leadership Council CEO
Monday, July 26, 2004; 2:30 PM

Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, was online Monday, July 26 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the Democratic Convention, the Kerry-Edwards ticket and the 2004 election.

Al From: John Kerry and John Edwards are good, reform New Democrats. Don't believe those voting record analysies. The Democratic Party is very different today than it was when it lost three straight landslides in the 1980s. On the key issues that redefined the party -- fiscal discipline, welfare reform, crime, and trade -- John Kerry voted with Bill Clinton even though large numbers of liberals voted the other way. Zell Miller is not a New Democrat in the progressive center; he's a virtual card carrying Republican. For a complete analysis see our website www.ndol.org. We analyzed the National Journal voting record. Kerry only cast 19 or 63 votes counted -- the DLC agreed with him on almost all of them. So'd we'd be a liberal senator by their standards.

Al From: A centrist, New Democrat who can win both core Democrats and swing voters is the only Democrat who can win the White House. John Kerry is such a Democrat. He's running on a platform of national strength, expanding the middle class, and duty and responsibility. His platform is similar to 2000 but the tone of the campaign is aimed more at critical middle class voters.

Al From: I believe voters know why they're dissatisfied with George Bush. They don't need Democrats to stridently tell them over and over again. John Kerry just needs to introduce himself to the voters so they know who he is, what he believes, what he stands for and what he'll do as president. That's what he needs to tell them this week at the convention. That's why he's instructed speakers not to attack Bush personally.

Al From: John Kerry is a New Democrat. He's running on a new democrat platform of strength, opporunity, and service. He -- and John Edwards -- are strong advocates of expanding the middle class, not just their tax burdens. We did a New Dem Daily on the Kerry-Edwards ticket. You can find it on www.ndol.org. John Edwards was a terrific addition to the ticket. His message -- as you saw in the Wisconsin primary -- is powerful and compliments Kerry's. --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9666-2004Jul23.html

[Eloriel]

71. Are you equally sanguine and tolerant of PNAC? Bush&Co.?

Or do you recognize that they are basically evil organizations/entities that deserve NO support but rather eternal opposition?

Just curious.

[LoZoccolo]

110. Eternal opposition?

You mean like how the Democratic Party deserved eternal opposition when it was the party for segregationists?

I think we should always keep our head straight, and be able to think about things with the same complexity they not only deserve, but impose on us whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

And yeah, I support Bush* on a few things:

- national "do not call" registry
- personed mission to Mars
- I'd heard some things about a broadband subsidy, though I'm not sure if this passed

And even some of the thing PNAC nominally supports as an organization (and please don't forget that I said "nominally" or what I implied by it if and when you reply; please ask what it means if there is any confusion):

- isolationism is irresponsible (and a right-wing philosophy)
- the importance of a modernized military (which makes war safer for civilians and was something which allowed Clinton to spend less)
- it is in our best interest to establish democracies in other nations (an interventionist idea that they stole from liberals)

Going around trying to taint things by association is a shortcut for thinking, and a tactic the conservative establishment foists on their rank and file which they don't properly respect. Let's not bring that to our party when we need to be able to think straight.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. "Isolationism"--AARRGH!

Militaristic gung-ho types just LOVE to tar the peace movement with the charge of "isolationism." If you're against all the stupid, immoral games of Risk that the various U.S. administrations have played, you're an "isolationist," and it will be all your fault if another Hitler arises.

There are three kinds of isolationism:

1) Other countries have a right to conduct their own affairs as they see fit, including pissing off the U.S., as long as they are not committing genocide or invading their neighbors. (Military isolationism)

2) The U.S. doesn't have to know or care about the needs, aspirations, or legitimate interests of other countries, because the U.S. is the biggest bruiser on the block and can impose its will on anyone at any time. (Intellectual isolationism)

3) "The rest of the world can go to hell as far as I'm concerned." (Idiotic isolationism)

The recent Republican administrations have been past masters of the second kind of isolationism. They "isolated" because they neither know nor care what the rest of the world things. They're "isolated" in their own little echo chambers where "U.S. interests," meaning the interests of the major corporations, trump all other considerations. That's the kind of isolationism that's undesirable.

I rather like the first kind of isolationism. It's the epitome of the Golden Rule. We wouldn't like other countries meddling in our affairs; therefore, we should not try to meddle in other countries' affairs.

You have to recall where isolationism came from. It arose in the aftermath of World War I, where the U.S. was drawn into a ridiculously tragic family feud among European royalty. There were no great principles involved, just naked power grabs on the part of monarchs who were all first cousins.

Once the fighting had stopped, people looked back and thought, "We don't want to do that again!" And they were absolutely right about that particular situation. They did not want to send young Americans to die in a war where no American interests were at stake. (Defeating the Kaiser? He was no saint, but Hitler would never have come to power if the monarchy had been in place.)

The mistake the isolationists made before World War II was that they didn't have enough information, especially not when nationally known figures such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were saying that Hitler was just misunderstood. If you didn't dig deeply, the looming war in Europe looked like a replay of World War I.

Today the situation is the opposite. The much-reviled peace movement KNEW that Saddam had no WMD, they KNEW that the Iraqi people would resent foreign invaders, they KNEW that the dominant force in a majority-rule Iraq would be Shiite fanatics, and they KNEW that this would have to be a long, drawn-out war.

Face it, the peace movement was right and the hawks were wrong. The Iraqi people may no longer have to worry about being sent to one of Saddam's prisons, but they have to worry about being sent to Abu Ghraib, about having their houses, cars, and property searched at any time, about rising crime and terrorism, about lack of electicity and running water, about a rollback of women's rights, about being shot because of a misunderstanding with a bunch of scared 19-year-olds who'd never been out of their home state before, and about being under an unwanted foreign occupation.

Oh, but we can't leave, because then the situation would turn BAAAAD. :sarcasm:

[Dr Fate]

115. I wont support any candidates who I dont trust.

Not that he is a candidate, but Dean is in line with a lot of DLCers on gun control- but I'm not going to call him "Republican lite" or a "DLC" type just because of that.

I'm going to look at his over-all picture instead. I'm more in line with his "lets fight in the Red States with grass roots" than the DLC "lets kiss Bush's ass" 2002 strategy.

I've looked at some DLC issues, and I think some of their pro-war & "pro morals" planks are a buncha BS. But I think middle class tax cuts are a good idea.

I hope this gives you idea, since you asked.

[Q]

77. The DLC wants to 'privatize' Public Education...

...and they can't admit that Gore won the 2000 election because it would expose their BIG LIE that a Democratic populist can't win...

---

The Democratic Leadership Council:
An Explanation of the Organization through an Examination of Education Policy

By John Lyman

On the other hand, many liberals argue that the problem with public schools today is that funding is too low and is not properly distributed. Vouchers, they argue, attack the idea that education is a public good that should be available to all children. Community relationships are undermined when replaced by competition between individuals. Raising standards for promotion and graduation without increasing the resources available, they believe, sets up students for failure. Relying on standardized tests narrows the curriculum and encourages rote learning. Liberals believe that an increased focus on class “rank” harms solidarity among students and reduces education to a game of winners and losers. Most also support President Clinton’s plan for national testing and increased funding to hire 100,000 more teachers.

Those at the DLC take a “Third Way” approach to education reform. Their basic vehicle for improving the quality of education in America is the charter school. These schools are freed from most of the traditional rules that apply to public schools, but are in turn held accountable for results measured by performance reviews (Sylvester 1997, 82). Many are also established to address specific needs or talents, including student disabilities such as deafness or blindness or certain concentrations such as music or dance. What this model provides is a focus on results; it exists only as long as it serves its students well and attracts support from parents. But charter schools differ from private schools in that they are still held accountable to something besides market forces. In addition to supporting charter schools, the DLC has called for voluntary national academic standards, more teacher accountability, and an end to social promotion in which students are allowed to move onto the next grade simply because that is what the rest of their age group is doing. Also, the DLC believes that while reducing class size is important, teacher quality is what matters most to a student’s learning. --- http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/lyman.htm

---

Dems Say Gore's Presidential Bid Ruined by Populist Message

By Brian Hansen

WASHINGTON, DC, January 24, 2001 (ENS) - Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," was unveiled this morning by Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) officials at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. The DLC's 40 page report concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right - towards the Republicans - if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Democrat Al Gore, who ran on an environmental platform, lost his bid for the White House because he cast himself as a liberal, concludes a new report released by the Democratic Leadership Council (Photo courtesy Office of Vice President Al Gore)

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened the freewheeling discussion forum this morning by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

"Gore chose a populist rather than a new Democrat message, and as a result, voters viewed him as too liberal and identified him as an advocate of big government," From said. "By emphasizing class warfare, seemed to be talking to industrial age rather than information age America." --- http://ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2001/2001-01-24-15.asp

[cosmicdot]

79. the DLC in its own words ...

" ... the DLC and the New Democrats have offered the most durable and sustained effort to oppose the dominant liberal faction of their party.

~snip~

"Ultimately, it is success in winning such offices, plus a continuing hold on the presidency, that will institutionalize the New Democrat philosophy further. And with each victory, it will be harder and harder to return to the liberalism that preceded it."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=955

Is that a welcome mat?
Is that a call to work together?

Sounds like a mission to supplant and/or destroy the party which brought a New Deal, a Square Deal, a New Frontier, and a Great Society, etc., to America; and, the party which has expanded the promise this country has to offer its people .....

They claim to be Democrats but have established separatist organizations which compete and lobby for money which could be better used inside and for the Party, i.e., the DNC down to local Democratic Party organizations. They are convenient tools of the right-wing Faux, etc., to weaken the Democratic response.

The money they funnel into their new dem network will go to paying salaries and leasing downtown DC office space for those clever enough to know how to make the most of establishing 501c3 organizations in benefiting themselves and their personal agendas.


Why can't they work under the tent?


Diebold hires top Dem for PR blitz (former DNC chair, DLCer)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4408897#4409036


Third Way: New Group to Tout Democrats' Centrist Values
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2007203

[fujiyama]

81. Fuck From

Whatever he says has no meaning. He has no interest in working with other wings of the party. All he's interested is in insulting them. His rhetoric is getting more and more nasty.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. When the DLC decides it wants to "unite" behind a Presidential Candidate

who

unapologetically supports a single payer health care system, because 45 million Americans with no health coverage is an outrage.

is unafraid to call a spade a spade with regards to ending the disaster in Iraq.

has the guts to call for an immediate end to the wasteful and misguided drug war.

DEMANDS that we be given the full truth about places like Abu Ghraib and that we have full accountability from the folks at the top who were responsible.

Understands that economics, terrorism, and politics don't mean squat if our grandchildren don't have a planet that is inhabitable- and as such puts the ENVIRONMENT, and the imperative to develop renewable sources of energy, on the front burner where they belong.

pulls no punches when standing up for the separation of church and state, the reproductive rights of women and the civil rights of gays and lesbians...

and most importantly FIGHTS the Republican Party instead of imitating it...

I will gladly welcome 'em into MY big tent.

If they're going to diddle around endlessly with stuff like culture war pandering and video games while spouting Joe Lieberman style pro-war bullshit, I'm sorry, but they can kindly fuck. the. hell. off.

Like the man said, "you better WAKE UP... it's LATE", and while Bill Clinton was a fine President, in this hour we need someone with conviction and gumption- and not some squishy poll-watcher- to undo the damage wrought by Bush and the Neo-Cons.

BOTH parties have moved too far to the right. Bush doesn't neglect his base.. it's well past time ours got some friggin' respect.

[evilqueen]

97. Looks to me like...

the DLC needs the Liberals more than the Liberals need the DLC. If we're the "dominant" part of the party, that makes them the minority trying to run everything, doesn't it?

BTW, when's the last time you saw Hillary or any DLC bigwig in the places we Liberals talk about all this stuff? Do you see any of them at Daily Kos, DU, MyDD, TPM, etc.? I sure don't. They don't want to engage us in this conversation, obviously, they just want to dictate from "on high" and expect that we'll go along.

Been there, done that, lost the elections.

Howard Dean has shown us the power of grassroots fundraising and online activism. We bloggers are becoming our own media, free of corporate influence.

Al Gore's speeches in 2004 were the greatest Democrat speeches I have heard in decades! And LOTS of people noticed. Guess that's because he's no longer DLC, eh?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Naw, we'll do all the work, like we always have, speaking the truth about

this corrupt administration and the policies that hurt this country and this planet...

...truths that the American people are waking up to- despite the corporate media filter and with absolutely NO help from the DLC gang..

but when they feel the time is right (like now, when Bush is getting creamed in the polls) they'll show up late to the party, jump in front of the parade--- and try to claim that it's theirs.


(And, BTW, Al Gore -as long as he remains the fightin' Al Gore- is at the TOP of my '08 list)

[flpoljunkie]

105. Free Howard Dean!

[LoZoccolo]

111. dominant vs. majority

This is not the same thing. A minority can have disproportionate influence and be "dominant". White people were dominant under South African apartheid despite being a minority.

[bread_and_roses]

101. Long, long ago in a Galaxy far, far away....

...there was an election that put a sad shell of a timid, sail-trimming Candidate up against the Puppet Figurehead of a tyrannous Regime. The "Left," while greatly disappointed in the Timid One, who who disavowed and dismissed them (he plaintively told anyone who would listen that he was not a "redistributionist," etc.) worked for him anyway.

The "Left" considered the Timid One less of a danger to life on Earth than the Tyrants in power, and rallied around him in numbers and Unity maybe never before seen. They organized and donated and door-to-doored and phoned and GOTV'ed for that Timid One. The "Left" set aside any internal squabbles and coordinated with Labor, Environmentalists, Pro-Choice Activists, Peace Activists, and anyone else who cared about the fate of the Earth.

Even the "Left" High Priests, Chomsky and Zinn (my heros, btw), reluctantly blessed the Timid One.

Long ago...the Election of 2004... all these calls for "unity" seem to reflect awfully short memories.

And talk about "damning with faint praise"

I would not exactly call those quotes ringing challenges, especially given the scope of the rapacious extremism of this vicious Administration and the endless ammunition that a real Opposition Party had/has for the taking.

I stand with Zhade, Q, Eloriel, the posters who quoted the DLC's own damning words and financing (sorry, I am lousy with names/nicks) and don't see a need to repeat the points they've made so well.

[Q]

102. Not just us...you stand with millions of other Democrats...

...that are just now becoming aware that 'our' party has been usurped by a SMALL group of "NeoDems" that want to eliminate nearly everything WE have fought to attain for the People in the last several decades. That the DLC grows more desperate with their rhetoric and deeds shows just how successful the 'left' has been and how much of a threat they are to the 'new' Democrats and their Neocon allies.

Here's an interesting 'memo' from Al From and Bruce Reed to 'leading' Democrats where they talk about the 'real soul' of the Democratic party:

DLC Memo
TO:
Leading Democrats
FROM:
Al From and Bruce Reed
SUBJECT:
The Real Soul of the Democratic Party


But the great myth of the current cycle is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Real Democrats are real people, not activist elites. The mission of the Democratic Party, as Bill Clinton pledged in 1992, is to provide "real answers to the real problems of real people." Real Democrats who champion the mainstream values, national pride, and economic aspirations of middle-class and working people are the real soul of the Democratic Party, not activists and interest groups with narrow agendas.

Under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton, the Democratic Party built the middle class, fought for social justice, defended America's freedom, and promoted democracy and free enterprise in the world. The broad prosperity generated under these Democratic presidents has defined the central difference between the two parties, which is that Democrats believe in opening the doors of opportunity for real people everywhere.

What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That's the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one. --- http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=900056&contentid=251690

What the DLC seems to be saying here is that 'real' Democrats are not those who work hard to get out the vote...but those who sit back and allow others (the DLC) to think for them.

They say they champion the causes the 'real people' and the 'working class'...yet they promote and support policies that hurt the working class. They say that 'activists' have a 'narrow agenda'...but that's a lie. It's the DLC that has a narrow agenda and they know it. Activists are working to give a voice to those who have none.

Instead of trying to convince Liberals and Progressives that they have a better idea or way for the party...they have adopted the divisive tactics of the Right.

The DLC calls us the 'elitist, interest-group liberals' for defending those groups and interests that they had to sell out in order to appeal to their corporate masters.

[Zodiak]

109. I stand with Q and many others.

The DLC has got to go.

I like centrists and moderates even though I disagree with them from time to time...this is not about them. This is about right wing moles who wish for the working stiffs to have no voice in this country and have usurped the party of the left to dilute the message.

Dean is a centrist, but he works for normal people's interests, so he is a true-blue Democrat. I can work with him. Gore has become a firebrand who speaks for populaists, so I can work with him.

Leiberman is a "centrist", but he works for the military industrial complex, AIPAC, and credit card companies. I cannot work with him because he represents the interests of the other side.

The other side already has a unified voice with the GOP, so inclusion of these Leiberman types into the Dem platform only dilutes our message. If there is any problem with the Democrats not having a unified message, it is because the media fawns over DLC types and ignores the old guard Democrats when it comes to policy questions. How much face time does Hilary get on TV versus Ted Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich?

The media image in this country is this: Bush is Republican, conservative, and "right"; Clinton is Democrat, liberal, and "left"; and anyone to the left of Clinton is a "loony left-wing liberal elitist Michael Moore/George Soros worshipper". The DLC has replaced the public's perception of "left" in this country, and it comes from the fact that these DLC types are given all of the face time on television and in the print media.

Why does the left have no voice and no influence? Because the DLC has taken over the public perception of the party.

This is why the rhetoric on the internet blogs is virulently against the DLC. The left is fighting for its political future and the hopes and dreams of millions and millions of Americans who do not share interests with large corporations.

The left was unified with the DLC in the interest of electing Kerry, and it didn't work even though the message was as non-threatening to the center as possible. And as a thank you to the left for all their hard work, we get capitulation by centrist Dems on several bills this year that directly hurt average Americans. Now we're mad... and it is not the kind of anger that goes away with a call for unity.

The line is drawn...support progressive policies and fight the GOP to defend average Americans or endure marginalization, ridicule, and accusations of betrayal. The big tent is closing is tiny, pro-corporate, right-wing, nanny-state section to make room for the millions of voters who have left the party in justified disgust.

Sorry for the rant....I really was going to stop at "the DLC has got to go".


ON EDIT: I do recognize that some of the "bad Dems" are not members of the DLC and some of the DLC members aren't so bad as Al From and Leiberman and should be preserved in the party. People join this organization for different reasons, but the ones who do so to promote the ideology and marginalize liberals should be put out to pasture.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. ZI,

:yourock: as much as Zhade!

[Pithy Cherub]

114. Your excellent real life parable underscores

why there will be no more Timid Ones.

Timid Ones II - The RETURN of the Jedi
The Jedi has mastered all the old forms of communication and grassroots activism. The Jedi have used the force to build rebel camps in the unchartertered frontier of the blogosphere. The Jedi have built around the concepts of valuing people, upholding liberty justice and the pursuit of happiness and honoring truth. The Jedi forces have created an independent resource base and have in abundance what the Empire holds as dear as corporate cash, votes and volunteering for free. The Jedi are drawn to those who have the Force and will use it on behalf of the people. The Jedi are clear that there will be no appeasement or bowing and scraping to the relics of Empire or embracing Timid Ones for the position of Yoda.

The Timid Ones are feeling an ebb and exit of leverage and have found that their name is spoken with contempt and derision. They send out messengers to seek a silencing of the Jedi message, but their ineffectual DLC Death Star attempts at eliminating the duly elected Jedi National Council leader in "Revenge of the DLC" have rebounded upon themselves. The Leader grows ever more powerful with independent resources given by the Jedi.

The blogosphere shall continue the story as the Jedi grows rapidly in numbers and resources to start restoring Democracy back to ALL of the people, not coporate personhood.

May the Force be with You, fellow Jedi! :toast:

[TankLV]

126. How soon they forget. It's easy to ignore the reality of the past

when you have 1000 dollar glasses on!

No, sorry, we aren't buying this "unity" bullshit.

WE "liberals" checked our ideals at the door and worked our asses off for the kerry god worshipers IN SPITE OF OUR BETTER JUDGEMENTS!

THEY GAVE US NOTHING! WE did all the "compromising" the last 2 or three times, but especially the LAST time!

And this is how they repay our hard work and loyalty.

[bvar22]

128. Big Tent, Yes!

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT,
but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[OzarkDem]

138. The labels don't apply anymore

The era of "tax and spend" liberalism is gone. Most liberals today understand the need to balance budgets, keeping a strong economy while maintaining services for those who need them and provide a living wage and maintaining a strong national defense.

The stereotype of the wild-eyed liberal who hates capitalism no longer applies. If the DLC isn't aware of that, then they're far too ignorant of the political scene to be giving anyone any kind of advice.

[Q]

140. The DLC has learned one great lesson from the RWing...

...and it's that they can use 'liberals' as a scapegoat for their own failed policies and get away with it. Or at least they used to be able to get away with it. Thankfully...more Americans are beginning to understand that the derogatory use of the word liberal is nothing more than prejudice and disdain for minorities. It's this generation's RWing codeword for Jew or n****r.

Is it then a coincidence that the DLC hopes to disconnect with the 'old' Democrats of the party of the people? To throw away everything that has benefited the poor and middle class alike? Is it any wonder that they can no longer hide their bigotry and hatred for the liberals that fought for these things and against their ruling class oppressors?

There IS NO 'radical left' in the Democratic party...and the DLC knows it. There is simply a majority of workers, women, teachers and minorities that have a common interest in fighting for and defending each other. The majority wants a government OF,BY AND FOR the people. The DLC chose the wrong side.

[bread_and_roses]

142. amen, brother

that's telling it like it is.