May I kindly tell you the difference between DNC and DLC?

[madfloridian]

Many of us try to post it on threads where everyone is deciding to leave the party because of the DNC...yet the thread is about the DLC.

The Democratic National Party is the official party recognized by the government. It is the opposite of the RNC which is the Republican National Committee.

Just today I have seen several posts, and throughout the week many more, which show that the poster is unaware that the DNC is not the DLC.

The DLC is a think tank, not even a party. It is officially called the Democratic Leadership Council. There is nothing official about it, you can't withdraw from it and withhold support unless you belonged anyway.

I won't post an article about it, as there are so many here today anyway.

Governor Dean is chairman of the DNC. He was at one time affiliated with the DLC, or least worked with them. He is not especially on their good side since he criticized them last year, intimating they were the Republican wing of the party.

He is aware that the DLC gets most of its funding from corporations. That was done on purpose when it formed in the late 80s.

He is trying to rebuild the DNC with smaller donors, such as us, such as actual people in the party. If he can do that, the party will not need to turn to the corporations to be funded as much. Thus they will not need to pursue their corporate agendas.

I hate to see here at the Democratic forum so many people claiming they will not donate to the DNC until he fixes it. He is NOT chairman of the DLC, it is not a party, it is a think tank.

Most of the members of the DLC are members of the DNC, but not all.
Recently it appears the new officers are taking their stand mainly with the DLC. Don't know that for sure, but it looks that way.

DNC website
www.democrats.org

DLC website
www.ndol.org

If you are not going to support the DNC, that is your right. It is a shame though.

[texpatriot2004]

1. The DNC ROCKS. GO Dr. DEAN!

The DLC...not so much. They need to get on the clue bus ASAP.

[napi21]

2. I'm surprised you had to even post that note. I would have thought

EVERYBODY on DU would have known the difference!

[madfloridian]

3. If you read the threads, you will see they don't really know.

It gets very confusing. Then we have the progressive groups whose only agenda is getting out of Iraq, and they are going to leave the party and bring it down.

Me, I have all kinds of issues I want taken care of by my party. Women's rights, health care, so many.

I want out of Iraq, but I am willing to work with the party not harm it.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Nominated so more people get the benefit of your explanation

[StatsBabe]

5. Thanks for your clarification!

I knew that they weren't the same, but did not know anything about the DLC being a think tank. Also knew that Dean was at odds with them, but not the reasons. This does clear some things up for me.
:applause:

[madfloridian]

7. You are welcome.

He was a centrist like them when he governed VT. I guess he still is very moderate, more than I am on some things.

The difference between him and the others is that he see problems, and he changes. He is pragmatic and will not keep believing in something that does not work.

He feels the funding and the structure of the DNC needs changing, and he is willing to take it on.

:hi:

[firefox]

6. Who founded the DLC and when?

Al Gore was a prominent founder but who else made it such a "respected" organization with power to define the mission of the Democratic Party? What year was it founded?

Having it out for the DLC has nothing to do with wishing for the destruction of the Democratic Party. But here, when you say you cannot stand your sister's boyfriend, some illogical statement will come that says you hate your sister.

[madfloridian]

8. Was it 88? Not sure.

Clinton and Gore were among the founders. People were just not aware when they changed the party agenda so that they would not rely on the traditional base.

Yes, they got more money that way. But that left the needs of the people out in the cold. Some carry it further than others. There are extremists in any group.

That is why we are in Iraq, they pushed very hard for this war. They pushed for the bankruptcy bill. They did back down, the New Dems did, on CAFTA, but the Blue Dogs got it through.

Now they are another story, and the two groups intertwine.

[firefox]

12. Started in 1985

Here are Yahoo search results for FOUNDERS, DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL- http://tinyurl.com/cqted The first result is Wikipedia. The following is about the founding of the DLC from the Wikipedia entry.

The DLC was founded in 1985 by (mostly Southern) Democrats who were concerned that traditional liberal positions would doom their party to permanent minority status. The organization started as a group of forty-three elected officials, and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall. Their original focus was on influencing internal Democratic politics so as to secure the 1988 presidential nomination for a Southern moderate such as Sam Nunn or Chuck Robb, both of whom were early DLC supporters. But when the DLC's pet project, the Super Tuesday primary, turned out to be a boon for the Reverend Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, the group realized it would have to advocate its ideas publicly. In 1989, Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank which ever since has turned out policy blueprints for the DLC.

Boy those DLC Southern Democrats have done wonders in returning southerners to the Democratic Party. Screw the DLC who gave us the candidates that are called by pundits "Republican Lite" and that is truly bad when the Republican Party of today should be called the American Fascist Party.

[Neil Lisst]

9. Listen my children and you shall hear

The Democratic Leadership Council was created 20 years ago by Al From and a few other guys, who felt that the party had become hopelessly bogged down by activists who were so far left their ranks could never produce a winning presidential candidate.

Some party activists don't realize how badly local Dems get killed in an election year where local Dems have to bear the weight of a Mondale or Dukakis at the top of the ticket.

The people who created the DLC wanted to see the party NOT leave behind the middle that wins elections. Our party is beset by far too many liberal Kamikazis, who value going out in the blaze of glory over victory.

The DLC gets its money from the same people every other DEM cause does. Don't tell me that labor money is any cleaner than corporate money. Everyone in Washington takes corporate money, which should be disclosed, and is.

I can never understand the liberals in the party who haven't learned their lesson yet. Look around you. Do you see Dems winning anything anywhere? And yet you make the focus of your anger Democrats who don't meet your litmus tests.

Get over it. We're the big tent party, and we're losing because we have liberal activists have too much influence in the presidential process. Eliminating the Iowa caucuses entirely would be a good start.

----------------------------
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[madfloridian]

10. Ah there you are with the old activist thingy....straight from Al's mouth

LOL

You have posted that a lot today. And they did screw labor and minorities badly because they sold them out to corporations. Sorry, but that dog don't hunt no more.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

15. That sounds a bit threatening. How will you do that?

I am not sure I care for the tone of that.

[Neil Lisst]

17. I was being facetious, relax

I won't use your name, but I use what I experience in writing a political comic read in 50 countries.

You might say I'm sick of the Democratic party being less than it can be, and I'm talking about that.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[madfloridian]

19. Well, then feel free.

I am equally passionate about the people of the party having a voice. I think that working with the DNC and DFA we can make the party stronger and make it stand with us.

[Neil Lisst]

22. I'm loyal to WINNING

There is no national election. Even the presidential election is really a bunch of state elections. We have to allow politicians in every part of the country to be electable and be a Democrat.

When my party is shut out of control of the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the courts, I'm ready to get the votes to win. We can't possibly get there by MORE intraparty haggling.

I'm a yellow dog Dem, and if it takes blue dogs to take down the prey, well then let's make a deal and be done with it.


-----------
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Mr_Spock]

52. Don't you know that it is more important to be right 100% of time than win

?

:sarcasm:

[Mandate My Ass]

62. Me too! Let's live the neocon wet dream

under those who have a (D) after their name. That'll be much better than what we have now. :eyes:

Yellow dog, my ass.

[the_spectator]

65. Of course, you being

a "nihilist" (har de har har) aren't you really loyal to nothing at all?

[Neil Lisst]

79. ah, but what's in a name?

the_spectator -

nihilist?

NOT LITERALLY!!

It's a darker look at political humor, more editorializing than searching for guffaws. Besides I'm not really Neil Lisst, I'm the person who uses him as one vehicle. I'm cynical, but I know we can win in 2006, and that is my focus here and in Neil Lisst.


------
TERROR ALERT!
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[Neil Lisst]

20. BTW, for an explanation ...

Most days, I'm busting on Bush, or DeLay, or Fox News, or such.

But the past fews days I've been ranting about the Democratic party, the party I've worked for long and hard.

In a few days, I'll write a comic that includes this message board on a computer screen in the background, and Neil Lisst will be commenting on something here. I will link this site, and maybe some new members will show up here.

I wouldn't mention you by name, or anyone else here. I'm sure it will be a positive mention of the site.


http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

[madfloridian]

21. Yes, I am very sure it will be positive.

I think something in all this is ringing a bell. I'm game, not my forum.

People organize from all over and come here. That is Democracy with a big D. I am sure if your mission gets out of hand the mods will handle it.

Peace.

[madfloridian]

53. This statement of yours....sounds odd and ominous at same time.

"In a few days, I'll write a comic that includes this message board on a computer screen in the background, and Neil Lisst will be commenting on something here. I will link this site, and maybe some new members will show up here.

I wouldn't mention you by name, or anyone else here. I'm sure it will be a positive mention of the site."END QUOTE

[Neil Lisst]

81. You must be joking, madfloridian

Odd and ominous?

What is odd and ominous about a political comic that draws upon every day events? Neil Lisst was created by me as a vehicle to address political and social issues of the day. I'm a lifelong Democrat who has been in the trenches more than he cares to remember.

We must win the House back in 2006. Everything else is a detail to that necessity. We're losing the country, and we can't wait another election cycle. It's 2006.

Have you read the Neil Lisst comic? Have you seen Neil reading online and mentioning News Hounds, Texas Monthly, Paul Burka, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, Dave McNeely? Instead of being judgmental, why not practice what liberalism really is? It's supposed be being open-minded.

[Chan790]

11. I'd argue the inverse

we no longer win elections because of the DLC, the move to the middle it has orchestrated cut the legs out from under everything this party stands for.

[Gronk Groks]

23. The trouble is that you are both right at different times...

...back in '85 we were too far to the left of the rest of America and we did need to get back to the center. To many separate agendas where splitting up the party and we needed to consolidate it into a manageable whole.

Trouble is that the DLC was too successful!!! It over-corrected and lost the Democratic "soul" in order to be electable. But it got us 8 years of Clinton, not a bad result.

However we ended up being owned by the corporations that also own the Republicans. Oops!!! Now Dean is trying to regain control of the Democratic Party from the corporations by getting the average Democrat (you & me) involved.

It is NOT an easy balancing act. One thing about the reThugs, it is easier to be a party with the worse of human principles driving you, greed in all its forms.

Of course looking at yourself in the mirror if you are a reThug these days has to be quite the experience...

[madfloridian]

25. Nice post, fair assessment.

Balance is everything. I think the way Dean is suggesting is practical for now, and I think it will work. It will take time.

[Gronk Groks]

27. It is the Democratic base that has GOT to make it work...

...like the people here at DU. The trouble with THAT is the fact that most of us are struggling to keep our head above water.

We are NOT the money men...and we don't have alot of time to turn this around!!!

[madfloridian]

29. But look at it this way...

Governor Dean says that if 2 million pledge 10 dollars a month to the DNC operation, that is 20 million a month. That is his goal to do smaller increments.

Since a lot of us who can give more (at least for now...who knows what the hell's coming down the road for all of us), there can be over 20 million.

We have to be the money men. Of course there has to be corporate money, but the balance could sway the power.

[Gronk Groks]

34. OK, you got me...

...ya $10 a month is do-able. Can we get 20 million to actually do it??? Ok DU, time to pony up...

[madfloridian]

37. Only 2 million need to donate if the math is correct.

20 a month would double that.

[MrBenchley]

56. But how many have that sort of disposable income

who are not executives with a corporation?

[guruoo]

43. Agreed - People need to start approaching this...

as a marathon, rather than a series of single-issue sprints.

[Selatius]

18. Its over-reliance on corporate donations is a major concern

It is true that many politicians take some amount of corporate cash as well as union cash. It may be true that Mondale or Dukakis were milquetoast candidates the Democratic Party decided to put forward, and it is also true there are "kamikaze liberals" who are so ideologically driven that they've become blinded to the reality of life.

However, the question is to what degree do politicians rely on corporate cash. The argument is that over-reliance on corporate cash means that the interests of the working class are drowned out in favor of the interests of the financial elite. Regardless of Mondale or Dukakis' performances, I would say there is also some weight to the notion that few if any could have defeated Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, and I would point out that there are just as many "kamikaze conservatives" on the right who are also blinded by ideology.

The problem I have, in general, with the way business is conducted as usual in the US is the tolerance for special interest money of any kind in the election process and the decision-making process. In an election system where candidates must solicit money for their campaigns, the ones with the most money and the most resources will have a competitive advantage. Nevermind the issue of corporate media control over the flow of information needed to make an informed judgment at the ballot box.

Ideally, every one should be equal, but with the way things go today, the ones with the biggest bankrolls seem, in effect, to be "more equal" than the poorest among us.

[Gronk Groks]

24. The Supreme Court decided that money = free speech...

...never figured that decision out. The result is that all politicians are beggars to men of money. The trouble is how can you keep ANYONE from being corrupted by such a process.

The reThugs just embraced it wholeheartedly. Democrats keep trying to be principled, but it is an uphill struggle.

[napi21]

28. Unfortunately, your last line tells the real story!

Ideally, every one should be equal, but with the way things go today, the ones with the biggest bankrolls seem, in effect, to be "more equal" than the poorest among us.

I'm not sure there's any way to get BIG $$ out of politics, and like it or not, we NEED the corp money, just to try to keep close! You and I just don't have enough money to do it alone!

Where would we have been last year without George Soros?

We also have to think about the term "special interest". A long time ago, I was an officer in a streetrod car club in Pa. The state was passing more and more laws to regulate what you could and what you couldn't do to them. Our cars were all pre-1948 models with modern drivetrains. We didn't want to be classified as Antiques because they were only allowed to operate during daylight hours, and if we ran a regular plate, we would have to conply with all the current new cars. We got together with several other car clubs in the Pgh area, and paid a lobbyist to go to Harrisburg to argue for a "streetrod plate". We succeeded! I thik it cost us all of $1,000 so we're not talking about big boys here.

The only reason I told the story is to show that not all lobbyists are bad, or are they all fighting for bad things. AARP has them, Unions have them, groups fighting for more funds to care for disabled kids have them.

We as a Party have to come together and agree on some basic positions. It will take concessions on all sides, but if we ever want to be a majority party again, we better get started on that, and get our positions out there in the mainstream!!!

[madfloridian]

30. You are right.

One famous saying of our chairman of the party is that congress is not going to change the rules on money in politics...so we have to just do it ourselves. This is his method for getting change knowing they won't change the rules.

[DemonFighterLives]

26. The problem is the rollover republican lite "democrats"

The party has been infiltrated by the right wing and everyone is just going along to enrich themselves and kow tow to dubco. When someone with a spine comes along, the battle will be joined.

Democrats are not kamikazees and there was nothing wrong with Mondale or Carter or Clinton, no matter what the DLC and the bushbots and Rushbots say.

I give the neocons no quarter and the republican lite centrist BS is just that. Apparently the big compassion party doesn't have the morals or the pride in the US to keep us strong. A real party that stands it's ground and sticks up for the rights of all people and support a return to the values that makes this nation great, is what is needed.
Throw the bums out!
:freak:

[MrBenchley]

54. This is the kind of post that just makes me shake my head and snicker

"there was nothing wrong with Mondale or Carter or Clinton, no matter what the DLC and the bushbots and Rushbots say."
Wonder what Bill Clinton has to say on the subject...

"Thank you very much and good afternoon. Mayor O'Malley, congratulations on being the Esquire cover boy. I hope it's just the beginning of greater things to come. Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Representative Tauscher, Representative Meeks; John Sexton and the NYU family, which now includes two of my former administration members, Jack Lew and Cheryl Mills; and all the others here who were part of our team, Mack McLarty, my first chief of staff and special envoy to Latin America, Don Baer and Tom Freedman; Al From, Bruce Reed, Will Marshall and all the DLC family: I thank you for welcoming me back. I may have to take my glasses out this morning to read my handwritten notes. When you're not the president anymore, one nice thing is you don't have to say what anybody else wants you to say. So, I wrote this speech out this morning after coming back late from Mexico last night and I may or may not be able to read it without my glasses.
I am enormously proud to be a member of the DLC, to have been there at the beginning, to have done the work that we did between 1984 and 1992, work based on a vision of America at the turn of the century with opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and a community of all our people."

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/12/06/clinton/

It's especially rich to see people repeating mindless silliness and castigating other Democrats as "Bushbots"....it brings to mind not any sort of "bots" but of rickety tin windup toys, toppling overr while clashing little cymbals...

[DemonFighterLives]

67. Yeah, I'm snickering too

Speaking of silliness! The poster I was responding to made it sound like their was something wrong with our candidates. Mondale was ok though not the biggest firecracker. And it is possible to like Clinton and at the same time see his faults. I am a democrat, but not a blind democrat.
:dem:

[LWolf]

49. What lesson am I supposed to be learning?

{i}I can never understand the liberals in the party who haven't learned their lesson yet. Look around you. Do you see Dems winning anything anywhere? And yet you make the focus of your anger Democrats who don't meet your litmus tests.


Please tell me how successful we've been "winning" presidential elections by going with the supposedly "electable" candidate Kerry? Liberal activists have listened to this argument ad nauseum, held their nose, and pulled the lever for candidates they didn't want, listening to mainstream democrats on their bully pulpit.

Sorry. I won't be doing that again. I also won't shoulder the blame for dem losses. If I back a great candidate, organize, work hard, and lose, I'll lose graciously. I won't be "losing to win" again.

If the Democratic Party wants to continue to rake in votes from liberal activists, they might start by standing for something. They might start by actually opposing republicans in word AND deed. They might start by formulating a platform that goes beyond "we'll do what republicans do, but we'll do it "right."

The lesson I've learned is that I can't count on Dems to actively oppose bad policy, legislation and decision making on capital hill. I can't count on them to stand for a damn thing but "winning," and they don't do that well.

[MrBenchley]

55. One wonders why somebody who hates the Democratic party so much

would stick around...

[LWolf]

58. One wonders who hates the Democratic party.

I don't, and I've certainly NEVER said that. I'm sure you aren't inferring that I do; that would be a false statement. I'm a Democrat. That doesn't mean I don't recognize dysfunction and ineffectual organization when I see it.

One wonders how mainstream Democrats hope to ever win if they react to valid criticism of party leadership by inferring that activists, that those who disagree with the direction party leadership has chosen, those who don't drink the dem version of koolaid, ought not to "stick around." In reality, a large number of "liberal activists" blamed in this thread for their terrible influence on the Democratic Party have already done just that. For just that reason.

What kind of party is left if all of the activists take up the offer to "not stick around?"

[MrBenchley]

59. One of us was sure claiming the party didn't stand for anything

and it wasn't me.

Nor do enthusiastic Democrats make slurs about the party platform being "koolaid" in my experience.

"What kind of party is left if all of the activists take up the offer to "not stick around?" "
We'd be left with millions of people who aren' t sitting around pissing on Democrats.

[LWolf]

63. That was certainly me.

Criticizing the party is not an act of "hate." It's the act of a party member with some integrity, who wants the party to have some integrity, as well. I don't see any difference in "D" koolaid or "R" koolaid. When the party comes before principles; when the party can do no wrong and must be supported no matter what; when the party is above criticism and those who disagree are no longer welcome; when criticism or disagreement is "pissing;" that's "koolaid" to me.

I don't claim to be an enthusiastic Democrat; but I'm a Democrat just the same. If "liberals" and "activists" took your bluster literally, you'd be left with fewer campaigners, fewer donors, and fewer voters at the polls.

Brilliant strategy.

[MrBenchley]

71. So again, why would someobdy ranting about "koolaid" WANT to stay?

"I don't see any difference in "D" koolaid or "R" koolaid."
Ah. One of those....And Nader said there was no difference between Bush and Gore, too.


"If "liberals" and "activists" took your bluster literally, you'd be left with fewer campaigners, fewer donors, and fewer voters at the polls. "
Sez you. But I sure don't see many liberals around here who rant about "D koolaid."

And it's telling that the only answer to my question you can come up with is that you want to piss on the Democrats, but you don't want other people to criticisize you for pissing on Democrats.

[LWolf]

72. Perhaps recognizing a dysfunction

and wanting to heal/change/reform/resolve it rather than throwing up hands and walking out is actually showing more respect than enabling dysfunction by pretending it isn't there. That's not "pissing" on anything. I know I've never expressed a need to "piss" on anything. "Piss" is your negative spin on criticism, not what I "want to do."

BTW, there are plenty of liberals around here, or formerly around here, who rant. Not necessarily about "koolaid." That's my perspective. It's not groupthink. As DU has grown, it has evolved. It, like the rest of the party, has moved to the center. Some "liberals" left to rant elsewhere. Some just quit speaking up here. Why? Look at your own responses for a clue. Some of us with a thicker hide still speak up; it's the democratic thing to do.

There are those of us who see a problem and want to do something about it, and those of us who close our eyes and ears and keep marching.

If there are Democrats who don't like the direction the party leadership has taken, it is their Democratic responsibility to speak up about it, rather than to slam out of the party in a fit of pique. Other factions in the Party that would rather they just shut up and march along (or drink the koolaid; pick your metaphor), or prefer the "my faction's way or the highway" mentality, are doing more damage to the Democratic Party than those of us offering up valid criticism.

[MrBenchley]

78. Again, what I see is well beyond "criticism"

"If there are Democrats who don't like the direction the party leadership has taken, it is their Democratic responsibility to speak up about it"
Esepcially when they rant about "koolaid" and the like.

"Other factions in the Party that would rather they just shut up and march along (or drink the koolaid; pick your metaphor), or prefer the "my faction's way or the highway" mentality, are doing more damage to the Democratic Party than those of us offering up valid criticism. "
Yeah, it would be a real shame if we had anything like party loyalty breaking out.

"Some "liberals" left to rant elsewhere. Some just quit speaking up here. Why? Look at your own responses for a clue."
Again, I don't see many liberals in an uproar about any of this. Which LIBERALS are in any uproar about Max Cleland? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton?

I look at my responses over the weekend and I find myself responding to someone who compared Hillary Clinton to Hitler (and who then went on to compare Bill and Hillary to Juan and Eva Peron).

I find myself responding to someone who denies there's any such thing as an average American...

I find myself responding to someone who is declaring folks like John Kerry and the DLC are just like Spongebob Dobson and his American Taliban.

I find myself responding to someone who thinks Ron Paul is a leftist.

I find myself responding to somebody who says Harry Truman was one of America's worst-ever presidents because he deprived us of all the fun of being allied with Chairman Mao.

I find myself replaying to a guy who thinks we should emulate a non-Democrat whose party evaporated from under him.

I find myself responding to someone who calls Democrats money-grubbing baboons.

I find myself responding to someone who implied that Democrats were ignorant and dishonest.

[LWolf]

80. But I am none of those people.

Why are you attributing my personal pov to them? Are you just reacting negatively after some negative conversations?

Are you trying to lump me in with other posters?

Do you truly believe that the party's current state and current direction are fine and don't need any changes?

Are you uncomfortable with questioning leadership? Dissent?

I believe that my original post in this thread was a response to your bashing of liberal Democrats. "Pissing on" your own fellow party members is ok, as long as you don't "piss on" the party itself?

What is the party if not the people?

[MrBenchley]

83. Nor did I even hint you were....

You just asked me to look to my responses, and I reported honestly what I responded to.

"Do you truly believe that the party's current state and current direction are fine and don't need any changes?"
I sure don't see that there's anything to refer to as "koolaid."

"I believe that my original post in this thread was a response to your bashing of liberal Democrats."
What I see is bashing of liberal Democrats....by people who seem to hate liberals.

Again, one wonders who would wish to stay in a party they seem to dislike so intently. Especially since they don't seem to know the party platform and angrily declare that the party "stands for nothing."

"What is the party if not the people?"
I don't have any problem with Democratic people like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry...you, on the other hand, sure seem to.

[LWolf]

87. A written platform

is not a foundation if the "leaders" aren't actually standing on it.

"Seem to dislike?" lol

Either there is a constructive reason to be a Democrat, or the party is defunct. I haven't left; you are suggesting that I should. If I used your model of faulty inference, I would infer that, since you are "suggesting" that I leave the party, you think the party is defunct.

If you are truly a supporter of the Party, shouldn't you be bringing more people in, rather than "suggesting" that some should leave?

Or are those who disagree about the direction the party taking, those who express a desire for change, not welcome? In other words, those that don't "fall in line," "march in step," or, in my opinion, "drink the koolaid?"

[MrBenchley]

88. Again, I'm not suggesting anything...

Just asking why anyone who expresses such open contempt for Democrats would want to remain....

"Either there is a constructive reason to be a Democrat, or the party is defunct."
And you are certainly hinting loudly that there is no such reason...


"If you are truly a supporter of the Party, shouldn't you be bringing more people in"
I got no problem bringing people in....but then I don't rant about "koolaid" or pretend Democrats don't back the Democratic platform.

[LWolf]

90. I don't know, either.

Of course, I haven't expressed contempt, open or otherwise. To continue to attribute contempt to me is a falsehood.

I think I've made it clear that to me, there is a constructive reason to be a Democrat. That reason is to work to determine the direction the party goes. If that requires criticizing leadership, so be it.

[MrBenchley]

91. Better go back and look at your posts

This sure looks like open contempt to me....

"Liberal activists have listened to this argument ad nauseum, held their nose, and pulled the lever for candidates they didn't want..."

and

"If the Democratic Party wants to continue to rake in votes from liberal activists, they might start by standing for something"

and

"I can't count on Dems to actively oppose bad policy, legislation and decision making on capital hill. I can't count on them to stand for a damn thing"

and

"the dem version of koolaid"

[LWolf]

92. Criticism is not contempt.

The two are not synonymous. Spinning what someone else says to portray it as something other than what they are communicating lacks integrity. It's one thing to misinterpret. It's another to stick to a misinterpretation when you've been told numerous times that it's incorrect.

[MrBenchley]

93. Contempt is contempt

"Spinning what someone else says to portray it as something other than what they are communicating lacks integrity."
I'm reacting to your own loaded words. If you don't like what your words connote, perhaps you ought to use less abrasive and decisive tones.

Otherwise a Democrat like myself is likely to think that I'm listening to yet another third party whoopster mindlessly tearing down the Democrats to further his or her own agenda.

[LWolf]

94. You're reacting,

but you're loading the words with your own baggage, not mine.

I'm fine with what my words connote; your reaction is your issue. I'm a fairly decisive, and blunt, person. It usually isn't meant to be abrasive, but I'll allow that some take it that way. Again, that's the taker's issue, not mine. I think the difference is that when I say something, I'm not really looking for anyone to agree. If I think it's bullshit, I'll call it bullshit. If I disagree, I'll say so. If I don't like something, I'm going to be as clear as I can about it. I'm not going to pretend I'm ok with something when I'm not. If that means that some Democrats think I'm "mindless," they might want to check their own beautiful minds. My pov comes from observation and thought; it doesn't spring from what someone, or some group, thinks. And, of course, your damned right about furthering my own agenda. My agenda is peace, social and economic justice, and environmental responsibility. The Democrats have done some good work on these issues over the years; that's why I am one. If I think the Dems have blinked on these issues; if I think they haven't done everything possible to move those issues; if I don't feel comfortable or confident about where those issues are on the party's priority list, or what they are doing to address them, you are damned right I'm going to say so. I don't see that as tearing down the party. I see that as addressing party apathy, inefficiency, and corruption. That, in the long run, is good for the party as a whole.

You, and other "Democrats like yourself," are of course welcome to assume what you will. For the record, I've never belonged to a "3rd party." I have spent many years as an independent, affiliated with no party at all. It was the work of fellow Democrats to invite me in, since we were working on many of the same issues. That's the point, for me.

I don't see you and I as opponents, except in your perceptions. I see differences. I'm an issues person first, and a party person 2nd. You have convinced me that you place party before issues. Two different perspectives on how to achieve the same goals. Is there no room for both? Is the party not a big enough tent any more to include dissent, different povs, or different ways of addressing challenges? This is an honest, sincere question. It's not meant to spark a rebuttal, but a sincere, thoughtful answer. If I were to go by your responses to my posts, I'd conclude that you don't think the party is big enough for all. I disagree with that. I also disagree with the way the party has opposed, or not, the Bush administration since the 2000 selection. I don't think expressing disagreement, frustration, or anger over that is "pissing." I think it is expressing disagreement, frustration, or anger. Instead of attacking me for the expression, why not address the underlying reasons for the frustration? Why not go after the poster I was responding to for blaming liberals for the downfall of the Democratic party? Don't you want to engage that poster for "pissing" on liberal Democrats? Isn't that where this all started?

[LincolnMcGrath]

70. One wonders why some folks feel that only they have the right to

criticize the Party. One is left wondering whether they have a right to question the DLC without being attacked and accused of hating the party, or asked to leave the party.

:shrug:

[LWolf]

73. Points well taken.

At least by me. :thumbsup:

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Crazy ain't it.

:thumbsup:

[AntiCoup2K4]

96. One wonders why someone who personally attacks so many Democrats here.....

....is allowed to stick around.

[Samantha]

69. That's your opinion -- here's mine

The Democrats are losing elections because they fail to differentiate themselves from the Republicans. The DLC is in fact Republican-lite, prostituting itself for the Corporations -- following the example set by the GOP. The Republican party has become better organized than us, getting out more of the vote. The DLC has alienated its base and has failed to attract the moderate Republicans and the independent vote.

If the DLC comes up with ANY strategy that beats the GOP in 2008, it will have to do it without its base. It obviously does not care if it alienates its base because having run the numbers, it knows there are more independent votes to be had than base liberal votes. And that's what it is going for -- not the issues, simply the numbers.

Good luck to the DLC -- the party elite that forced out of the 2004 campaign the only candidate that could have whipped George W. Bush's political ass. Remember Barney Frank and the public message to Gore to "get out of Kerry's way." He spoke on behalf of the DLC which was trying to get its members to publicly distance itself from Gore.

And speaking of publicity, the DLC was not shy about being quoted in The Washington Post, words to the effect that while it did not pick the party candidate it had a lot of influence over who that candidate would be. Half of its members did not want a Gore-Bush* rematch. EXTREMELY POOR POLITICAL JUDGMENT.

The DLC reminds me so much of the elitist founders of the Constitution who insisted the states must choose the POTUS because the people were too stupid to be allowed to do so. Fortunately, not everyone agreed, and thus the Electoral College was formed, giving the people at least some say in the matter.

I remain a registered Democrat so I can participate in a primary but I will never, never look to the DLC for a strategy on winning elections from the GOP.

Al Gore stood by Al From's side when he announced the formation of the DLC in the 80s, and yes, it was to cement the relationship between the party and the voters of the South. However, just as Gore has distanced himself from the DLC inasmuch as it condemned his 2000 campaign as a populist, so will the base of the party continue to distance itself from this political dinosaur.

[LoZoccolo]

74. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[MazeRat7]

13. I think this will be helpful to the uninformed. Thanks.

I have seen this line blurred so many times I just don't bother to try and participate any longer.

MZr7

[madfloridian]

16. Thanks, people really don't understand.

.

[linazelle]

32. Thanks. I know more now, I didn't understand. nt

[kster]

31. DNC,DLC, RNC BLA, BLA, BLA

Which ever party goes after the vote stealing machines and stands up against them NOW will get my money and support (period)

[madfloridian]

33. DLC and BLA BLA are not parties.

But your message is obvious. Fix it then I will donate.

[kster]

35. Bla Bla isn't a party?

This is where I'm at with these f*ckheads

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=49&pos=5

[madfloridian]

38. Love that song.

That was a true grassroots effort.

[Spiffarino]

36. K&R for truth and knowledge - Support the DNC!

Contribute generously to the DNC if you really want to make a difference. The DNC is about winning at every level and in every state. The DLC is about turning our party into Republican-lite. Huge, huge difference.

Get a brain! Morans :D

[kster]

41. Secret vote counting only a morAn

would let that happen,in the real world the Republicans Friday voted with the Democrats, only to have their arms twisted Behind their PINK skirts,and change their votes in favor of the neocons. Hope the Republican men can explain that to their sons some day.

[crispini]

39. Also an important point: Who elects the DNC chair?

The DNC chairman is elected by the members of the Democratic National Committee. They are elected at each state party level, during presidental election years, at the state convention. Your DNC members represent you as a Democrat.

I am constantly amazed by people who get on here and go "I'm a Democrat blah blah blah" but who do not have any iota of an idea about how their Democratic party works.

As Dr. Dean said, "Just voting gets you a C."

[kster]

42. Dr. Dean forgot to mention

Diebold,ES&S and Sequoia vote stealing machines even tho he witnessed first hand ON TV how the votes could be manipulated by these machines . I do not respect Dr. Dean he is not playing fair and or honest.

[mandyky]

47. Dean had talked about BBV BUT

The Congress has to pass laws. Realistically, what do you expect Dean to do? He is one man, he is not a lawmaker, and he is working on the BBV issues at state level. So, I ask again, what else do you want him to do - scream? LOL

[ElectroPrincess]

76. Doctor Dean has been partially assimilated into the Corporate

money machine. There is little to no attention to workers' rights and plans to cease the outsourcing of our jobs. Dean, if he ever cared about the middle class, doesn't give a damn now. It's all about $. The only pleasure I will have over the next few years is the "cleaning house" of our DINOs. Whatever acronym or definition you wish to use for those who are money-grubbing for the elites or common folk, the are not the Democrats I knew in the 70s ... they care for the CORPORATIONS first and always.

"If "liberals" and "activists" took your bluster literally, you'd be left with fewer campaigners, fewer donors, and fewer voters at the polls."

You got that right! :thumbsup:

[BigBearJohn]

40. Thanks for posting this. You cleared some things up for me.

I never could figure out why Clinton supported NAFTA... now I know.

[OnionPatch]

44. Thanks for posting this!!

I know most people at DU know the difference, but you wouldn't believe how many knowledgable and active Democrats I know who get these two groups mixed up!! I'm constantly trying to explain to people that the DNC is NOT the DLC. The poor DNC is really getting screwed out of a lot of needed support because of this unfortunate mix-up.

Please People, whether you think the DLC is the devil or whether you think we need them, please make sure your friends and fellow activists at least know the difference!

[mandyky]

45. Thank you MadFloridian!

Reminds me of the movie Philadelphia when Denzel's character kept saying - "explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old". Excellent explanation.

[madfloridian]

51. Thanks, but it doesn't seem to matter.

This is the place that they are going to form a new party, paying no attention to the fact that we have someone on our side.

I belong to progressive groups besides the DNC, there is room for both.

But it appears some are trying stop donations to the party now in favor of their own group.

It is being fueled by one group especially.

[mzmolly]

82. That's a good recipe for losing ey?

Why should the Republicans attempt to divide and conquer - when so called progressives will do it for them?

Sometimes I wonder if these progressives are for real? I think some are Rovian republican plants.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. There's also a lot of people who don't want to donate to the DNC either,

because of dissatisfaction with the candidates and overall performance of the party, positions in Iraq War etc., in fairness... I don't think you can lay all of this on just confusion between DLC/DNC.

[madfloridian]

50. I didn't lay it just there.

In fact I think most of the ones withholding support are themselves Democrats aligned with progressive groups who are angry about the war.

I am angry, too. But I don't see how in the world you can think it is helping to rebuild the party from the ground up to take away support from a chairman who said it was a wrong war.

It is being done deliberately to pull the party to the left because of the war. Ok, under some circumstances I might go along with that.

But right now those people withholding support don't have anything anywhere near powerful enough to fight the tactics of the DLC. They have money, and they have power. They have Hillary and the others who support the same position that got us into Iraq....they still advocate for it. It is a little nicer than the way Bush is doing it, but the goal is the same.....to spread Democracy throughout the world. It is "progressive internationalism."

You know, people can do whatever they wish. But many here are angry with the DLC policies which hurt average people....BUT they are blaming it on the DNC...and I am trying to show the difference.

As to the ones who won't support the DNC because of the war...that is their business. I consider they are hurting us as well. The chairman opposed it and is trying to change the dialogue so we will have a voice.

[MaineDem]

48. And the DNC is "us"

There are many many regular people on the DNC. Your state has at least 4 members. The State Party Chair and Vice Chair are DNC members as are at least one other woman and man from each state.

The state party web sites usually list these people. If you have questions about the directions or actions of the DNC why not contact one of them? Give them your thoughts.

FYI, the next meeting of the DNC will be the first weekend in December in Phoenix.

(madfloridian, I'm not directing this at you. I was just adding to your post. Thanks for the reminder.)

[madfloridian]

57. Thanks, you are right to point it out.

I just began to realize that people really did not understand what the groups are.

That should be an interesting meeting in Phoenix.

[madfloridian]

60. Here are their statements of what they stand for: DNC first.

This is our party itself. This is the group that many have been yelling they will not support. This is the group with Howard Dean as chair. Some of these are DLC. Some are not. If you are angry with Schumer for example, call the DSCC. Some of us have. The DCCC chair is Rahm Emanuel.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/ourorganization.html

Our Organization
The Democratic National Committee
The Democratic National Committee plans the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating convention; promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support; and works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.

The Democratic Governors' Association
The Democratic Governors’ Association was founded in 1983 to support the candidacy of Democratic governors throughout the nation. The DGA provides political and strategic assistance to gubernatorial campaigns. In addition, the DGA plays an integral role in developing positions on key state and federal issues that affect the states through the governors’ policy forum series.
http://www.democraticgovernors.org/

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
The purpose of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate. From grass-roots organizing to candidate recruitment to providing campaign funds for tight races, the DSCC is working hard all year, every year to increase the number of Democratic Senators. http://www.dscc.org/

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee serves as the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fundraising, communications, and management consulting.
http://www.dccc.org/

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee provides strategic services and financial assistance to Democratic leaders and candidates at the state legislative level. For nearly a decade, DLCC has been an integral part of the continued success Democrats have had winning at the state legislative level.
http://www.dlcc.org/

State Democratic Parties
The State Democratic Parties work to elect local, state, and federal candidates in their states, as well as supporting the state campaign for the Democratic presidential nominee.
Learn more about your state party

[madfloridian]

61. Here is the statement of the DLC about themselves.

I think the DNC and DLC can work together, but they first have to get over their attitude toward what they call "activists." They usually add the word fringe. If they quit that, there is more hope.

I must give credit to Tom Vilsack. He is trying to bridge a gap. He posted a nice diary at Kos today. I think that was a good step. The ideal is for cooperation. Trouble is no one wants to compromise on anything at all.

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

The Democratic Leadership Council is an idea center, catalyst, and national voice for a reform movement that is reshaping American politics by moving it beyond the old left-right debate. Under the leadership of founder and CEO Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non bureaucratic, market-based solutions. At its heart are three principles: promoting opportunity for all; demanding responsibility from everyone; and fostering a new sense of community.

Since its inception, the DLC has championed policies from spurring private sector economic growth, fiscal discipline and community policing to work based welfare reform, expanded international trade, and national service.

Throughout the 90's, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton helped to produce the longest period of sustained economic growth in our history, the lowest unemployment in a generation, 22 million new jobs; and helped to cut the welfare rolls in half, reduce the crime rate for seven straight years, balance the budget and streamline the federal bureaucracy to its smallest size since the Kennedy administration.

Now, with the help of Chairman Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA), the DLC is promoting new ideas at the local, state, and national levels; working through a national network of reformers and practitioners; and offering an approach to governing that is distinctly different from traditional liberalism and conservatism to build the next generation of America's leaders.

The DLC publishes Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century, an innovative policy journal aimed at identifying the central ideas and policies that will guide American politics in the 21st century. The DLC also provides political commentary and analysis through its online newsletter, "The New Dem Dispatch," which is circulated by email to thousands of opinion leaders and policy makers in Washington and around the country.

The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, former Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma, former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana, former Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, former Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia, and former House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri.

DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders."

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. Terry McAuliffe was head of the DNC during the Primaries and chose Kerry

as his winner waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the primaries were over. I'll NEVER forget what he said on Face The Nation where it was made quite clear the DNC had already chosen OUR candidate for us (He couldn't wait to watch the KERRY and BUSH debate). I'll be damned if the DNC gets another penny from me and yes, I realize Dean is not MCAuliffe, but it's the same organization. I'll be donating to individuals from now on and ONLY those individuals who represent MY FAR LEFT VIEWS. The DNC didn't get another cent from me after that stunt and that's the way it going to stay unless Dean does something miraculous with it, like moving it to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party...TO THE LEFT.

[madfloridian]

66. You are not going to help change things at the party?

You expect him and the rest of us to do the work so you can benefit?

We work locally with the DEC and DFA, and do what we can in other ways.

It is like teachers who did not want to pay to join our union, but they got the benefits anyway.

Just challenging you. Of course it is your decision. You don't have to help change things, enough of us are going to do so.

[in_cog_ni_to]

68. Change things? That's funny.

I've been waiting for the last 5 freakin' years to see the Dems change. It ain't gonna happen. Just last week Chuck Schumer threw out a snide remark about the "far left" of the Democratic Party (ME). They aren't gonna change, but if they do, as I said, they may get my money. From what I read, the party wants to move more to the center. I'm NOT going there. Period.

How exactly are the rest of you changing things at the DNC, DEC or DFA? What we do locally doesn't mean jack shit as long as the DNC wants to fix elections and choose our candidates for us. Look at what they did to Dean. Geez. McAuliffe wanted Kerry, the DC politicos wanted Kerry and that's who we got. How obvious could it be? The DNC is NOT on my side. Dean MAY change that and I will wait and see.

[AntiCoup2K4]

97. And everybody knows exactly who Terry McUseless really worked for....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

75. My take:

Half of these posts are just an issue of the poster being misinformed or accidentally confusing the two, and the rest of them are disaffected green party disruptors who are trying to confuse the issue.

[ElectroPrincess]

77. So If you support the Greens, you are a disruptor ...

Although both parties are "owned" by the multinational corporations, I will NOT stop speaking up for workers' rights and the end to outsourcing jobs.

No, I'm an American for THE PEOPLE first. Too bad neither of our parties have such integrity as they receive payola galore under the table. Shameful! :puke:

[MrBenchley]

89. Um, yes....

[AntiCoup2K4]

98. But if you support PNAC signators like Will Marshall & Joe Biden......

....everything's cool, right? :eyes:

[Horse with no Name]

85. Then the DNC needs to abort the DLC

If this is the case--they have the capacity to cut them off at the knees.

[oc2002]

86. Dean needs to purge the DNC of all DLC insiders and plants.

Untill he does so, the DNC is just a tool. Incompetant, Disorganized, bunch of insiders doing the bidding of the DLC.

[meow mix]

95. Mercury rising towards hottest year on record

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=47235

i love it when the DLC attacks the "Green Extreme"
FU DLC

[sepia_steel]

99. Thanks for the clarification

I was really getting depressed about how many people thought they were the same thing.