Can there not be a balance between two extremes here on DU?

[Douglas Carpenter]

On one hand we have some who would reject any compromise with the DLC and say that they would never vote for even a nominal DLC-Democrat in a general election. They blame every problem the Democratic Party has on the DLC

On the other hand we have some who would defend the DLC no matter how outrageous their antics--even the mad ravings of Al From or Will Marshall. They credit the DLC for every victory and blame liberals for every defeat.

[MrBenchley]

1. Where are the two extremes?

You've got the one extreme on the far far left, happily drawing up enemies lists and smearing people, and thne you've got moderates who object to those sort of luynch mob tactics.

"no matter how outrageous their antics"
What "antics" are these? I've yet to see anything other than mindless gibberish or flat out lies.

"the mad ravings of Al From or Will Marshall"
Please give us an example.

"They credit the DLC for every victory "
Again, please show us an instance.

"blame liberals for every defeat"
And again, whre is this?

[acmejack]

2. Ah Benchley...

What are we to do? I am willing to take a break from happily drawing up my enemies lists, I'll even stop smearing people! What are YOU prepared to do?

I may compromise, but I refuse to sell out my values to a bunch of corporatists. The grassroots will have a voice, whether in the Democratic Party or elsewhere is up to us. We disregard the concerns of those folks at the Party's peril. Of course, if we move further to non traditional sources of funding, I guess those grassroots are not necessary.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[acmejack]

8. Read this and respond, if you can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2315377

[MrBenchley]

10. Yeah, it's the usual crap from the Junior Joe McCarthy Club

Hard to get much lamer than that....

[acmejack]

11. Good work Benchley!

You now stand discredited as nothing more than a megaphone. Lots of criticism of others opinions, plenty of name calling, belittle those who disagree, diss questions as being unworthy of an answer from the side of Goodness and right.

You certainly have done a lot to change my mind!

[MrBenchley]

12. I'm proud to piss on the lynch mob mentality....

whenever I can.

[acmejack]

16. You certainly have convinced me.

Your eloquent and well thought out points have swung me over to your side. But I think that I will do it right and become a republicon, then I can really support the third way.

btw, It must be a real bitch, being the only smart person among a sea of mindless leftist idiots.

[MrBenchley]

17. Yeah, you're a real ornament for "our" side....

"I think that I will do it right and become a republicon"
You'll be right at home; they hate Democrats almost as much as some of our "progressive purists" do....

[acmejack]

19. Don't worry, I am certainly not on "your" side.

I will hold my nose & vote for a lame DLC candidate if there is no more progressive option, but not under any other circumstances. Surely you can insult me further for that. So knock yourself out, Benchley, I always enjoy your enlightening posts.

[MrBenchley]

20. I doubt you fooled much of anyone....

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. This is the point..

I don't think we are going to convince each other on ideological matters.
I could try to come up with clever answers to each of your questions. But,frankly I have to go to work and besides the whole point of this post is to appeal for a little give and take not to provoke more arguments.

And I think you know the answers already.

for a Democratic and progressive majority,
doug

[MrBenchley]

7. "I don't think we are going to convince each other "

Why not? I might be convinced if I ever heard a proposal. But all I ever hear from our "progressive purists" is how e-e-e-e-e-vil other Democrats are.

"for a Democratic and progressive majority"
They're one and the same. And I'm all for it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. good

just please try to understand where the frustrations is coming from and I hope that we can persuade all progressives to support Democratic nominees and work within the Democratic Party which the vast majority already do. I hope the likes of Mr. From, Mr. Marshall and Sen. Lieberman (who as you know I have pointed out has a fairly progressive record on domestic issues) would watch their words a bit more carefully when they are talking about fellow Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

15. I don't see any reason NOT to support Democrats

even far right wing Democrats like John Murtha are worthy of support over their Republican opponents and I am proud to lend a hand. I disagree with his stances on issues such as reproductive choice and school prayer, and I think he stepped on his dingus with his resolution, but I still support him and his right to speak out.

You hear people here wailing about Joe Lieberman constantly, without them even acknowledging
--He's well to the left on pretty much every issue
--He's beating his Republican opponent like a rented mule, with a 69% approval rating among all voters in his home state
--Connecticut Democrats are trying to unseat a popular GOP governor and don't have any desire to rip up their ticket and toss the most popular Democrat in Connecticut off it.

[ieoeja]

25. Even Dean?

You keep talking about "lynch mob mentality" and "purists" of which there are plenty. Here. At DU. A completely unimportant entity which is hardly representative of the Democratic party at any level.

But when it comes to our elected officials....

0 - number of occasions on which Dean has publicly criticized specific members of his party.

478,329,107* - number of occasions on which DLCers have criticized Dean by name.

0 - number of occasions on which a progressive member of the House or Senate has publicly criticized the DLC or other rightwing groups within the Democratic party.

7,489,123* - number of occasions on which DLCers within the House or Senate have publicly criticized the "wacky Left" or "extremists" within the party.


I am well to the right of most DUers. But I know damn well who is attacking whom out there in the real world. And it ain't the fucking progressives or the left wing of the Democratic party. It's the assholes YOU ARE DEFENDING!

THEY are the ones who are being divisive up on the hill. What happens here at DU is unimportant.

[MrBenchley]

26. LOL!

Most of the threads on here I saw criticizing Dean did so after his amazingly inept statement in San Antonio from a pragmatic standpoint, not an ideological one...and it must be noted even Dean and spokespeople did damage control to repair the damage he had done.

"I know damn well who is attacking whom out there in the real world."
Aw, hell, if you want to talk about the real world, instead of the fantasies rattling around the skulls of the Junior Joe McCarthy club, I'd have to admit I don't see much evidence for any feud whatsoever.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

29. So I guess this means, no, you have nothing to back up your claims

"What IS the point of this?"
The point of this thread was to find a balance between two extremes, one of which seems to be no extreme whatsoever. As your post demonstrated.

[ieoeja]

34. Read much?

"What is the point of this," referred to the preceeding paragraph about your penchant for ad nauseum use of specific insulting phrases.

How does my post pointing out that your use of these phrases make you look silly demonstrate that one side has no extreme whatsoever?

As for backing up my claims, are you seriously suggesting that DLC members have NOT attacked Howard Dean repeatedly since his election to the chairmanship of the DNC? Or that they have not attacked the "left wing", etc. I tried an online search, but there are literally millions of links to search. And I don't recall any such attacks this week, so don't have anything ready to hand. I find it difficult to believe, however, that you are unaware of this facet of the DLC. They attack fellow Dems frequently. So I must conclude you are just pretending ignorance.

[MrBenchley]

37. I can't read what isn't there....

And you haven't got anything to back up your claim. Funny, you'd think those REPEATED ATTACKS would leave some trace......No doubt the e-e-evil DLC made the attacks, then removed them from tthe web.....

QED. There's nothing extreme about making a claim that can be supported....and everything extreme about wild allegations unsupported by even a speck of evidence....

[ieoeja]

39. Here you go (with links).

Dear MrBenchwarmer,

As I said, I assume you are only pretending to be ignorant of the voluminous public DLC attacks on their fellow Democrats. But just in case you really have spent 2005 with your head stuck ... (snicker) in the sand, here is some reading for your perusal.


"The Democratic Leadership Council Applauded Peter Beinart's Call (see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/13/16489/4501) To Take Back The Party. 'Beinart's cri de coeur drew applause from the Democratic Leadership Council'". (source: http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/NRSC_press.pdf)

Note: the above source is from The National Republican Senatorial Committee. It features several quotes from DLCers attacking other Democrats. Nice job DLC.


Terry McAuliffe: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/15/142409.shtml

Sen. Joseph Biden, "He doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric, and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats." (source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june05/dean_6-22.html)

DLC CEO Al From: "You've Got To Reject Michael Moore And The MoveOn Crowd." "Rank-And-File Democrats `Are More Like Us Than MoveOn,' Which From Called A Group Of `Elites, People Who Sit In Their Basements All The Time And Play On Their Computers.'" (source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/4/13/16489/4501)

"(A)fter Dean won the endorsement of the 1.5 million-member public employees union AFSCME, the DLC denounced the union as 'fringe activists.'" (source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/berman)

"'We need to be the party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not Michael Moore,' the DLC wrote on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, of all places. 'What leftist elites smugly imagine is a sophisticated view of their country's flaws strikes much of America as a false and malicious cartoon,' the DLC's Will Marshall wrote in Blueprint, the group's magazine, in a rant worthy of The Weekly Standard. 'Democrats should have no truck with the rancid anti-Americanism of the conspiracy-mongering left.' The DLC continued this vitriol into March." (source: ibid)


Eagerly anticipating your next wild lurch.
Sincerely,
ieoeja

[MrBenchley]

41. Wow.... what a load of dishonest crap....

The first DLC attack turns out to be from Peter Beinart, who is editor of the New Republic and NOT IN THE DLC...and in a second hand account from somebody over at Daily Kos, no less/

The second one is from that fount of journalistic integrity, NEWSMAX....

The third "attack", which is also kos, turns out to be the mild comment "Rank-And-File Democrats `Are More Like Us Than MoveOn,' which is probably true.

And the veracity of the fourth attack can be gauged easily....AFSCME didn't endorse Dean until November of 2003, making it mighty unlikely that anyone condemned their endorsement in May, 2003;

http://www.afscme.org/publications/political/pr031112.htm

Nor did the DLC endforse Lieberman...because at least three other candidates in the primaries were DLC members.

[PATRICK]

4. The compromise is in the question

whether there are actually two extremes or not. Certainly the necessarily defensive DLC oxymoron thinks being opposed by the party membership is an extreme. The same issue is considered with the broad brush damning of corporatism or conservatives.

It pays not to lose focus on the actual individuals who are doing the dirt, never held to account and are not elected by anything except the DLC super organization itself. The basic ideology of the new Democrats if not fatally flawed is obsolete and insufficient in such a way as to always impede success.
So while it is a good idea and productive for Dem elected leaders and candidates to cluster for support and link to unity and money, one can hold certain people and ideas to account. That is all. If some of the non-entity might-as-well-be-trolls-for-all-the-spiteful-harm-they-do-to-the-party can be unceremoniously fired and self-defeating accommodation to the evils of our times be edited out of our natural differences then it is not an extreme.

The ones stubbornly "extreming" themselves out of existence are those at war with the progressives and progressively the base of All American voters. Those hiding behind an organization should be flushed out and down and those frustrated with the entrenched flaws of the organization should still keep the focus on the particulars rather than the easy demonization which is putting a lot of good Dems under friendly fire.

The mere mention of From and Marshall denotes specific examples of the main problem hiding behind the lines, behind the effective and committed Dems who are not yet total failures.

[mark414]

6. anyone who makes their mind up on an issue

before hearing what the issue is, is an idiot

a good idea is a good idea, no matter who it comes from. though from what i've seen, the DLC just has a lot of bad ideas...

[mmonk]

9. I will look at the DLC candidate

if one becomes a nominee and listen to their views and examine their voting record if they have one. If it dovetails with the attacks on civil liberties, rights, and neocon policy (or is sufficiently sketchy enough to look like it might), then at that point I will not support them. If they are a near center candidate (in real terms) I can vote for them as long as the as these issues are more in a traditional mode (not neocon).

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. let's look at how the right came to dominate the GOP

I look how the far right working from the aftermath of the Goldwater landslide defeat of 1964 changed the big tent Republicans into a distinctly right wing party; so right wing that poor old Barry wasn't even welcome anymore. But, to do this the right wing did back in general elections candidates and Presidents who were clearly not there ideological soul-mates. Richard Nixon would be a socialist wacko by current Republican Party standards. But, it was the Nixon era that gave real rise to to the longterm agenda of the right wing.

Since we do not have a system such as exist in much of Europe which is accommodating to third parties and there is realistically no possibility whatsoever that will change anytime prior to the collapse of the current order which I do not anticipate will happen anytime soon--we have no choice in my opinion but to work with what we do have.

Furthermore any survey of actual congressional voting records will demonstrate that with the exception of the likes of Zell Miller almost any Democrat including Lieberman and definitely Clinton are still much more progressive than any "moderate" Republican.

Anyway, that's my take on it. We all have to decide for ourselves.

[mmonk]

23. Work with the party in general

but not accept those that further erode the Bill of Rights nor push pre-emptive war. That will be my position since there are some things I just can't throw away.

[MrBenchley]

28. Through a not very well hidden appeal to racism

It was called the Southern Strategy....

Once there they dislodged many moderate Republicans. You might recall the famous photo of Rockefeller giving his fellow Republicans the finger....

[styersc]

13. Easily Done. Evertone should just agree with me.

See how easy that was.

[MrBenchley]

18. I agree with you, but YOU seem to waver

and to betray the principles you believe in (whatever they are) and so are a MINO (Me in name only).....

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

33. So, Douglas, find us the other "extreme"

that spouts stuff like this....

[AntiCoup2K4]

42. Do the words "Junior McCarthy Club" ring a bell?

[MrBenchley]

43. Yup...they describe people who draw up enemies lists and

distort what critics say.

There's nothing extreme about being revolted by McCarthy-style tactics and the lynch mob atmosphere our progressive purists want to foster....

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. obviously I don't agree with that particular post.

but take a look at the abusive tone that comes from both sides of the divide. Calling people "fringe" isn't going to convince people to support, work for and vote for a Party.

Is that not what we both want?

[MrBenchley]

55. And yet you want to pretend objecting to it is an "extreme"

"Calling people "fringe""
Really, do you think that most Democrats in the real world sit around comparing Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to the Klan or cancer?

"Is that not what we both want?"
Funny, I see umpty-ump posts demanding that the party be splintered and the unclean be cast out. (And it's noticeable that most of the Democrats singled out for vituperation are both up for re-election in 2006, and beating their Republican opponents like a drum.) I also see post after post on here of people threatening not to vote Democrat. And they're never from the center....always from the one extreme.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. well. I would rather try to convince people to

vote and support Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

59. So would I

Does that mean those of us who don't think Joe Lieberman is the anti-Christ are supposed to look the other way when we see extremist gibberish like that?

What about outright lies? There have been plenty of those from the "progressive purists"--are they supposed to go unchallenged.

There's nothing "progressive" about enemies lists or dishonest smears. Nor is it in anyway extreme to object to that crap.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. I don't agree with much of that stuff either/

but if people cannot understand or will not accept that there are legitimate criticism of the DLC, well. I pointed out that Joe Lieberman has a fairly progressive record on most domestic matters. But what he said last week regarding the war in Iraq and those who oppose Bush's policy was extreme.

The attacks against Democrats from Al From and Will Marshall are extreme. The attempt to undermine Howard Dean is extreme.

Anyway, if you cannot accept that there are legitimate criticisms of the DLC I don't see how that can be helpful.

Anyway, thank you for helping draw attention to the PDA

[MrBenchley]

63. I didn't think you did....

"there are legitimate criticism of the DLC"
Maybe. But I sure haven't seen much.

"The attacks against Democrats from Al From and Will Marshall are extreme."
The examples I've seen don't even seem to rise to the level of attacks. Most are mild criticism. And some of the examples I've been furnished with are criticisms of MoveOn.

"The attempt to undermine Howard Dean is extreme."
Again, I don't see it. The criticism of Howard Dean I've seen was pragmatic, not ideological, and as far as I can see warranted. Even Howard realized he put his foot in it with the San Antonio mishap; within a day or so he began doing damage control.

I'm happy to draw attention to the PDA. I thought it was disgraceful that the people spending so much time bashing other Democrats for what seem to me to be reasonable plans, seemed unaware or uninterested in their own group. There's acres of common ground in both groups, and no need for a witch hunt.

[mmonk]

24. Truth requires no balance.

[Neil Lisst]

30. Since it's Friday, a show tune is appropriate

from OoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaK-Lahoma!

The Farmer And The Cowman Lyrics

The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
One man likes to push a plough, the other likes to chase a cow,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends.
Territory folks should stick together,
Territory folks should all be pals.
Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,
Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals.
I'd like to say a word for the farmer,
He come out west and made a lot of changes
He come out west and built a lot of fences,
And built 'em right acrost our cattle ranges.
The farmer and the cowman should be friends,
Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
The cowman ropes a cow with ease, the farmer steals her butter and cheese,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends
Territory folks should stick together,
Territory folks should all be pals.
Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,
Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals.
I'd like to teach you all a little sayin'
And learn the words by heart the way you should
I don't say I'm no better than anybody else,
But I'll be damned if I ain't jist as good!
I don't say I'm no better than anybody else,
But I'll be damned if I ain't jist as good!
Territory folks should stick together,
Territory folks should all be pals.
Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,
Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals!

[slackmaster]

31. HELL NO - The authoritarian far left is a bunch of poopy-heads

:nuke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4217141#4217381

[mmonk]

32. I guess it comes down to one's definition of extremes.

Is it a leftwing extreme position to oppose the reauthorization of the Patriot Act? Is it a leftwing extreme position to oppose an illegal war as defined by international law and treaties, United Nations and previous American position on war since WW II?

[kentuck]

35. Can there be a balance between right and wrong ?

Can there be a balance between a lie and the truth?

[Neil Lisst]

36. On election day, how they VOTE is all I care about.

We have to have unity on election day. Settle your scores afterward.

[Marie26]

38. I really don't understand

all the DLC hate. I asked to find out what horrible things the DLC has done, but the response was more or less that they're conservative. I understand that this is a left-wing site, but it seems like that energy & passion could be better directed at the Republican party or Bush Administration rather than attacking other Democrats. It's a little Robespierran. And I wouldn't like if the DLC criticizes the more liberal wing of the party either - it just all seems like wasted energy to me. If there's one thing we should learn from the Republicans' success, it's how to present a united front. Progressives might love to have a left-wing, liberal, anti-trade, etc. Democrat elected President, but given the conservative nature of the country, that probably ain't gonna happen. If we immediatly attack any moderate who's connected w/the DLC, it seems like prgressives would be losing a lot of good candidates. Clinton was a member of the DLC. If someone's from the DLC, they're probably more right-wing, but it seems like maybe it'd be better to look at people's individual positions rather than immediatly attacking them based on a particular affiliation.

[ieoeja]

40. See post #39.

A full summary of the reason DU doesn't like DLC is:

1. The DLC attacks fellow Democrats. Of course, DU is possibly** attacking fellow Democrats when they attack the DLC. However, they are attacking the DLC primarily because the DLC attacks Democrats. More importantly, DU attacks on DLC don't get quoted on the evening news. DLC attacks on fellow Dems ARE.

2. The DLC rise to prominence in the Democratic Party coincides exactly with the drop in Democratic fortunes across the nation. Some of us think this is more than coincidental. We believe DLC politics make the party appear weak and indecisive to voters who like Democratic policies, but don't want a leader who is, well, weak and indecisive.

3. When the DLC moved the party to the Right, the Republicans moved further to the Right. DLC theory is that this would move Republicans out of the mainstream. The last twenty years have proven this theory wrong. Instead, the center has moved Right. If your goal is getting elected then this probably doesn't matter. But if you want to get elected because you want to advance liberal and progressive ideas, then you must first convince the electorate that your ideas are the right ideas. You can veer only so far away from your promises.


**After the DLC's single electoral success a similar group was promoted to control of the Liberal Party in Australia. A couple years ago it was discovered that this group secretly had a Conservative agenda. By moving the Liberal Party right, all politics became an argument about how far right the country should move. Not how far left. Given that the exact same thing has happened to politics in this country, it is not unreasonable to suppose the DLC originated for the same purpose. This would not mean all DLCers were secretly Republican. It means they were simply useful idiots. All of this begs the question: who was Al From before he founded the DLC? And who funded the founding of the DLC?

[MrBenchley]

45. To answer one part of this farrago of silliness.....

"When the DLC moved the party to the Right, the Republicans moved further to the Right."
Not even close to true. Most of the crap being peddled by the Republicans is straight out of the John Birch Society playbook from the early 1960s...and that got into the GOP when Reagan and the Goldwater loonies took over during the 1970s.

[Bongo Prophet]

46. I think we need to EXPAND the political spectrum

A strong progressive front pushes issues forward and gives cover fire to triangulations of a "moderate" nature. Without the active and aggressive promotion on the so-called "left" being a part of the "American Mainstream" (gad, I hate that term) then the right can make even a Zell miller dem into radical lefty. This is how they slide the spectrum constantly further to the right.

By getting more progressive voices heard, it gives cover for DLC to move less rightward and still be in "center" where people often like to think they are. The center of what is another question, and is a malleable and cynically manipulated term.

"By moving the Liberal Party right, all politics became an argument about how far right the country should move. Not how far left."

Yep.

---------------

The right bitches about things loudly.
We will bring honor, cut spending, ...blah blah.
They get in power and steal blatantly.
When caught, they say "All politicians are equally bad" and then go at it again when the eyes are looking elsewhere.

etc. etc.

[Marie26]

77. Summary

Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response. As far as the DLC attacking Dems, it seems like these attacks are against figures such as Dean for their political policies; not personal attacks. I don't like Democrats attacking each other at all - & even if people preceive that they are being attacked by one wing, attacking & tearing down in return is just as bad. While the Democratic Party is busy yelling at each other, Republicans keep winning elections. The party is a "big-tent" - it seems like it should be able to include both moderate & liberal wings without it turning into a civil war.

As far as #2 - correlation does not equal causation. Just because the DLC has become more prominent does not mean that it's the DLC's fault that Democrats are not winning. I think you could probably blame the Democratic leadership for that, as well as the simple fact that the country became more right-wing after 9/11. If anything, DLC candidates seem to have more success than more liberal rivals because they are often perceived as more moderate.

I'm not sure the DLC moved to the right as some sort of strategy to isolate Republicans. I thought DLC members simply tend to be more moderate/conservative of their own accord. Clinton's basic strategy was to appeal to the Independents/moderate Dems by adopting some key conservative issues, while retaining many liberal ideas. And it worked. I think the success of DLC members overall undermines the argument that this org. hurts the Democratic party; instead, they seem to be one of the only organizations having any measure of success anymore. (Though 2006 will probably change alot). Republicans moved to the right because that's where their fanatical base is (fundies & gun nuts) that they can count on in elections. DLC or no DLC, the Republicans were going right-wing after Bush. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the DLC for that.

I simply don't believe the DLC is some sort of mole organization to hurt Democrats. Do you really think Edwards, Kerrey, Clinton, & Sen. Bob Graham are out to hurt the Democratic Party? Finally, are you sure it is hurting the Democratic Party? The members are winning elections, while at the same time liberals like Dean & Kucinich are gathering strength as well. It seems like it could be a win-win for all Democrats, instead of framing it as an either-or argument. Progressives & DLC can both succeed; and I hope they do. People talk about the Patriot Act, or the Iraq War vote, but the fact is that it was Democrats as a whole who voted for these bills, who didn't raise objections, who let Bush slide unopposed. I think sometimes the DLC is a convenient scapegoat for people who aren't happy with what the Democratic Party as a whole has done.

[MrBenchley]

44. You have to ask yourself "cui bono?"

Who benefits from people attempting to divide the Democratic party by demonizing the Blue Dogs or the DLC?

"Clinton was a member of the DLC."
Just so. In the 2005 primaries, so were Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt. Kerry and Edwards seem too right wing to you? They didn't to me.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. Who benefits from "Democrats" who vote a Republican agenda?

Sure as Hell not the Democratic party. Or the American people.

[Marie26]

78. So does this mean

that moderate/conservative Dems should be thrown out of the party? Pretty small tent. People say that the DLC uniformly votes a Republican agenda, but I'm not sure that's true. The list of members seems pretty diverse - from Chis Dodd (questions Iraq War) to Joe Lieberman (war hawk), to state governors & representatives. I'm not sure that the DLC votes uniformly on any issue. While some Democrats do seem to be basically Republicans (like Zell Miller); it seems a little extreme to immediately judge someone based on the "DLC" label rather than knowing their individual records. Of course, it is a lot easier to do that, and maybe that's the point.

[MrBenchley]

83. Worth noting

that if you WERE to pitch conservative Democrats out of the party, you'd have to start with current DU hero John Murtha, who is anti-choice, pro-school prayer, and sponsored a flag-protection Constitutional amendment with Duke Cunningham. (And he's not DLC.)

I see no reason to do that. I'm more concerned with getting Democrats into office than in frisking them to see if they're "pure" enough.

[globalvillage]

47. OK, don't flame me here.

I was going to vote yes, because I'd like to see a bit more compromise, but then I read through the thread and voted no. I think the evidence is pretty clear, although I'm sad to see it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. after reading some of the post this morning-I'm beginning to wonder myself

[xchrom]

49. i had to vote no for mr benchley

:popcorn:

[mourningdove92]

51. I Want The Republicans OUT.

I'll do what ever it takes. We can clean up later. We just need to take back control.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. agree

[MrBenchley]

56. By the way....

This morning there's a thread that looks at Chimpy's illegal spying...but singles out Democrats to scapegoat for it!

Is that the sort of "moderation" you think ought to prevail? Would it be "extreme" to object to that nonsense? Just curious.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. there are ways to get any idea across and there are ways that

do not.

[MrBenchley]

60. That wasn't my question...

Is blaming Democrats for Republican scandals the sort of "moderation" you think ought to prevail? Would it be "extreme" to object to that nonsense?

Is it worth noting that the Democrat singled out for the most abuse is up for re-election in 2006, and beating the GOP like a drum? That sure seems to be an amazing "conicidence" that I see again and again in this Democrat-bashing.

[Zhade]

54. Kinda hard to balance pro-corporate rule with anti-corporate rule.

Tough to strike a balance between supporting the removal of civil rights via the PATRIOT Act (DLC) and total support for civil rights for all (non-DLC).

I mean, you just can't balance some things. One can't be partly in support of, say, not invading illegal countries (the DLC, of course, still supports the illegal war on Iraq). It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing, if one expects one's principles and ethical integrity to remain intact.

Hard, too, to effect a compromise when some of the members of the other side are taking money from groups bent on destroying your side (like, say, the DLC taking money from the likes of the Cato Institute and far right think tanks intent on crushing liberalism).

I'm all for compromise - just not compromising things like our fundamental rights. And, of course, any compromise must be entered into in good faith by all parties involved, and the DLC's track record indicates to me they want submission to their agenda, not cooperation for the betterment of all.

Simply put: I don't trust that organization.

[sandnsea]

62. Feingold supports 90% of the Patriot Act

He's said it with his own mouth. Kinda hard to balance people who get the facts with people who don't. And that's about 90% of the problem, all the way around.

[Zhade]

73. Point out to me where I mentioned Feingold?

Perhaps you're replying to the wrong person?

[LWolf]

64. I see you got your answer

immediately. Response #1.

Compromise would have to include abandoning the attempt to relegate anything left of the DLC as extremist and DLCers themselves as "progressives" and "moderates." The propaganda has to stop to have constructive discussions, imo.

[MrBenchley]

65. Irony IS such a wonderful thing....

[ulysses]

67. while that's certainly true,

I don't see a lot of it in what LWolf wrote. The DLC has been campaigning against liberal ideals in the party for 20 years. Complaining now that those nasty liberals are being mean to them is a bit disingenuous.

[MrBenchley]

68. Again, that's really rich....

"The DLC has been campaigning against liberal ideals in the party for 20 years."
Not even close to true.

"Complaining now that those nasty liberals are being mean to them"
The anti-DLC crowd here is no more liberal than they are mint-flavored.

[ulysses]

69. actually,

"The DLC has been campaigning against liberal ideals in the party for 20 years."
Not even close to true.

It's beyond close. It's right on the money. School vouchers and welfare "reform" are not liberal policy.

The anti-DLC crowd here is no more liberal than they are mint-flavored.

Says who? I'm liberal and I hate the DLC.

[MrBenchley]

70. Again, not even close to true...

Say, what DOES the DLC say about vouchers, I wonder?

Here's DLC head Tom Vilsack: "We already know that the president's congressional GOP allies are showing every sign of wanting to turn the Gulf Coast into a vast laboratory for every dubious conservative policy idea of the last 30 years: private-school vouchers, abolition of environmental regulations, suspension of minimum wage requirements for federal projects, and even big new tax cutsfor businesses and other "investors" in the recovery."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253532&kaid=131&subid=192

Wonder how far out of touch with reality one has to be to se that as an endorsement of school vouchers?

[ulysses]

71. my bad on vouchers, then.

I know Lieberman had supported them as pilot programs when he was DLC chair, but perhaps that was just him.

I note you didn't refute me on welfare "reform". How about NAFTA/CAFTA? Are those liberal?

[wyldwolf]

72. they're both based on liberal policies

Welfare reform has been a topic of proposed Democratic policy since FDR, who said, "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief...dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

I'm not even as hardlined about it as FDR. I do believe the Federal Government does have a role in welfare, but not to the point of lifelong dependency.

Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out."

As for NAFTA and CAFTA, free trade has been a Democratic policy since at least Woodrow Wilson, with FDR, Truman, JFK and, or course, Clinton being proponants of it.

One of FDR's platforms in his first campaign was that of free trade - running against Hoover's protectionism.

Now, this isn't to say that NAFTA and CAFTA have been sterling successes or blazing failures, but their free trade underpinnings were definitely based on traditional liberal/Democratic policies.

[ulysses]

81. I find it difficult to believe

that FDR would have simply slapped a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits, reform or not.

Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out."

And when we have a comprehensive way to give people a hand up out of poverty (other than Horatio Alger myths), it can be that. Without that comprehensive way of addressing the actual problem, welfare reform is nothing but mean-spirited opportunism.

Free trade is certainly a historic Democratic position, but I would submit to you that trade agreements that fuel a global race to the bottom in worker protections and wages is not.

[MrBenchley]

74. Geeze, I didn't even bother

after it was apparent you hadn't a clue about the DLC.

[ulysses]

82. Lo, I am wounded!

:eyes:

I admitted my error on vouchers. If you'd like to retire from the discussion, I can't stop you, but you haven't addressed the issue.

[MrBenchley]

88. Actually, I thought that settled the issue

[ulysses]

91. you've been wrong before

so this isn't the first time.

[mopinko]

66. raygun's 11th commandment

was the door through which the neocons marched.

especially in the democratic party, and doubly especially when it comes to stopping the neocon take-over of our party. fill the jello pit, i am ready.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. Well...

we're already seeing at least one of those sides playing itself out on this thread and illustrating your point extremely well.

For the record, I have a generally very negative view towards the DLC, but I won't reject an individual politician out of hand over affiliation with that organization. I would prefer to judge them as individuals, and there are a few that I'm okay with on an individual basis.

I stay out of these fights for the most part, because they generally turn into non-productive shit slinging contests.

I think that theoretically, there could be peaceful coexistence, but it would involve people on both sides treating each other with a certain measure of respect, and that doesn't look like it will be happening any time soon. Maybe there needs to be a few more DU spin off groups. :shrug:

[Adelante]

76. How about a time out?

It would be like Excedrin for the rest of us, if the two sides in this obnoxious civil war just shut the fuck up for 30 days.

[chicagiana]

79. When it comes to debate ..

When it comes to debate, I think you should welcome all comers. This is the place to trade ideas and hopefully find out something that you weren't aware of or didn't know.

This is a place to say that your candidate of your faction is better than the other faction. At the same time, I think if we all acknowledge that both factions are WAY preferrable to a Republican, than it should be OK.

You cannot take the approach of Ralph Nader and claim that there is no difference. There is a difference between a Republican and a DLCer. Sometimes they will be subtle. But there is a difference. And $5 in the whole is better than $50.

I oppose the nomination of Bayh, Clinton and other DLCers. I opposed the nomination of John Kerry. But I supported Kerry as the Democrat. Any DLCer (with the exception of maybe Joementum) is WAY preferable to ANYONE that the Republicans could offer up out of primaries dominated by the fundamentalist christian right.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. I would still say Liberman is still much - much better

Now don't get me wrong. I am no friend of the DLC. Mr. Benchley and Mr. Wyldwolf will vouch for me on that. Nor am I a fan of Joe Lieberman. I particularly resent some of Sen. Lieberman's recent absurd comments about the War in Iraq and Democrats who oppose Bush's war policy. And I am definitely NOT a Hillary in 2008 supporter. But don't take my word for it. Compare their records on a broad range of primarily domestic issues. Let's just compare the records of Lieberman, Clinton and Mr. Moderate Republican himself, John McCain

This is courtesy of project vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
_____________________

"2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League 0 percent in 2004.
__________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 78 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 83 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 22 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 75 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 35 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 83 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 33 percent in 2004.
_________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 110 percent in 2004

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 92 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 9 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 85 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Education Association 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Education Association 35 percent in 2003-2004.
______________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 88 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 25 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 100 percent in 2003-2004

2001-2002 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 94 percent in 2001-2002.(for some reason 2003-2004 was not available for Sen Lieberman)

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 15 percent in 2003-2004.
___________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 95 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 14 percent in 2003-2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 25 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 0 percent in 2004.
__________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Family Research Council 67 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.
_____________________________

2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 0 percent in 2004

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 72 percent in 2004.
____________________________

2003-2004 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 7 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 8 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Concerned Women for America 100 percent in 2003-2004."

______________________

for McCain link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0061103

for Clinton link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=WNY99268

for Lieberman link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

[chicagiana]

84. Thank You ...

I like your analytical approach. Though debate on Joe for President is probably moot since he is about exciting as staring at a rock and waiting for it to grow. Same goes for Evan Bayh, who seems to impersonate a robot at every opportunity, though he doesn't have the same irritating annoying drone of Lieberman that reminds you of every bad teacher you've ever had.

[Douglas Carpenter]

86. well yes, I remember seeing him on Blitzer about a month before the

2004 election. He was trying to assure the country that Sen. Kerry was coming around to Bush's position on the war in Iraq. I want to scream he upset me so much.

[madfloridian]

85. Not with the front page article at the DLC today.

I just posted about it. Spreading Democracy is not my thing.

[AntiFascist]

87. Maybe it all boils down to this....

Forget about Al From for a minute and focus on the really big DLCers.

Bill Clinton supported nation building. PNAC is all about nation building, using a detailed plan of aggression. I'm not sure if Hillary has specifically stated where she stands.

Can we accept this as, what seems to me, to be one of the basic foundations of the DLC?

[madfloridian]

89. That is what it is about now.

That is the Third Way...and it is time to decide if it is acceptable.

[AntiFascist]

90. Here is the neocon influence, from the DLC website itself....

second to last paragraph:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=450004&subid=900020&contentid=252439


...

But when it comes to offense -- building democracy, political transformation, winning the war on ideas -- that mission is buried down in the second and third echelon of the State Department where it will never receive the leadership, attention, and resources required to succeed. Therefore, President Bush or his Democratic successor should create a Department of Democracy Promotion headed by a Cabinet-level official. Our governmental capacity to help build new democratic states must be as great as our capacity to destroy autocratic regimes.



Orwell lives, even amongst the Democrats.