DLC praises Hillary for "echoing" DLC chair Harold Ford

[draft_mario_cuomo]

On the surface, the ideas HRC and Ford are talking about seem to be solid. Still, with the DLC involved you have to wonder what the true agenda of the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party" is.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=207&contentid=254246

==DLC | New Dem Dispatch | April 13, 2007
Idea of the Week: Government Reform

More than six years into one of the most mismanaged, inefficient, and corrupt administrations on record, a Democratic Congress is working overtime to shine a light of accountability on a wide-ranging number of Executive Branch agencies (most recently the VA Medical System and the Justice Department), making up for the indifference if not complicity of the prior Republican management.

While this long-delayed oversight is critical, Democrats must also keep focused on the need for a reform agenda that ensures the abuses of the Bush era do not recur, and makes the honest and efficient performance of the federal government once again a national priority. That's why we are glad that Sen. Hillary Clinton today devoted an entire speech to this topic, at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, echoing DLC Chairman Harold Ford's recent call for a sharp reduction in the number of private contractors attached to federal agencies, and more broadly demanding reforms that would measure government performance and ensure transparency in their operations.

"We have to bring the government into the 21st century," Clinton said in prepared remarks. "We expect to be able to go to an ATM machine, stick a card in and get money, but we can't figure out how to get medical records from the Department of Defense over to the VA. It makes no sense."

She also proposed as part of her effort to measure the performance of federal agencies a "corporate subsidy information system" that would identify public programs that serve special interests rather than the broad public interest.==

Here is an article about the speech. Some of the rhetoric bashing the federal government (Channeling Ronald Reagan: "We know government isn't the answer to all our problems,") in it could come straight from the mouth of a Republican candidate for president. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/13/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-White-House.php

When she said "We know government isn't the answer to all our problems," it implies there are some people (read: progressives) who do believe that government is the answer to everything. This is exactly the line Republican candidates use. They won't directly criticize progressives in many cases but will do so by implication in this way.

[AtomicKitten]

1. what exactly is your beef here?

The Dems are going for:
* accountability
* transparency
* oversight
* The purpose of computerized medical records systems is to provide at a doctor's fingertips a patient's past medical and surgical history, family history, allergies, medications, etc., etc., to cut down on the myriad of mistakes that occur in hospitals. It is information that is already out there but scattered; this system brings it together.

What is your point? It is clear you despise Hillary, Harold Ford, and the DLC; is that your point?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. The ideas seem to be solid

My main objection is to her thinly veiled attack on progressives--the base of the Democratic Party that DLC'ers like Joe Lieberman are at war with--through her Republican line about "government not being the answer for everything." That line could have just as easily come from Giuliani, Romney, or Bush.

I have no problem with Harold Ford. Only a DLC-type Democrat can win in TN and having him in office would have been much better than six years of Corker.

[wyldwolf]

7. except "progressives" are not "THE base" of the Democratic party.

[Alexander]

11. Sure they are.

What the DLCers forget is that their organization only came to power 15 years ago, and even then only because Bill Clinton won the presidency. They are not a majority, or even a plurality, of Democrats; not even close.

[wyldwolf]

13. no, they are not. They are part of it, but not THE base

What progressives forget is that they never came to power at all. Minor third party progressive runs in the 1930s against FDR went no where. Henry Wallace's Progressive Party run against Truman was a joke.

"Progressives" opposed the nomination of JFK, sat out the 1968 election, and when they finally got someone who resembled one of their own nominated in 1972, it was an electoral disaster.

"Progressives" swung the election in 2000 to Bush and even today threaten not to vote or vote third party.

[cmkramer]

33. I think it's more leftwingers than progressives

The DLC considers itself in the progressive camp - "center-left". I'm always puzzled when I read rantings about how rightwing they are because for the most part they espouse the same things most Democrats do.

Anyway, I do believe progressives are an integral part of the base. It's leftwingers who are more of a fringe element.

[mtnsnake]

36. Well said

Hopefully some of these ranters who run around accusing people of being DLCers, as if they're witches, will read what you said and wake the hell up. Maybe they can learn something from you if they open their minds. It's as if they've taken some course in High School Politics 101 and they think they're experts who can preach DOWN on everyone else.

[mtnsnake]

35. The type that's pissing and moaning to you here are not true progressives

...nor are they part of the base as they so proudly claim. They are whiny leftist atagonists who have nothing better to do with their time than run around from thread to thread attacking real Democrats like yourself. They sow the seeds of hatred and division better than most RWers can. In that respect the two extremes have so much in common. These persistant whiners would never lift a finger to actually help the party in any constructive way, although they'll claim otherwise while trying to make a case for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

37. the point is, they THINK they are, or rather, they think they have sole ownership

...and you'll notice my use of "quotes" on "progressives."

[ulysses]

12. who *does* make up the base?

I've never gotten that answered...

[wyldwolf]

14. I've answered it many times

Have a discussion with anyone in the leftmost regions of the Democratic party and eventually they will invoke “the base,” a mythological group of liberals who are the “true Democrats” and of which he or she is “obviously” a part of. The “I’m a real Democrat and everyone else is a heretic” mentality exhibited by the blogosphere betrays a misunderstanding of the term “base” in regards to a political party. Simply put, “the base” is the single most reliable block of voters. Period. It has little to do with ideology.

Writer Will Pitt said it best right here on DU:

I hear a lot of stuff on DU about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and Kerry better not piss us off, or Kerry better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I’m going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball’s chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That’s where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don’t feel bad; I’m a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I’m out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn’t stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, “OOOOkay…let’s look elsewhere.”

See, the base of the party are working class men and women of differing races and levels of “liberalness.” Many are regular church goers and many shop at Wal-mart.

Rank and file Democrats are not one issue voters. Our base - our most reliable voting block - are only aware of the “progressive” crutch of “corporate malfeasance” from news reports about Enron.

Who is the “base?” Democrats get most of the homosexual vote. Democrats get most of the black vote. Yet more blacks than whites DISAGREE with gay marriage (a Pew research survey found 43% of African Americans didn’t rank gay marriage an important issue with 60% opposing it.) African Americans also more likely to oppose abortion according to an ABC news poll.

Who is the base? Blue collar union workers - often very religious, often anti-abortion. Women, most concerned with health care, education, their children, jobs and the economy.

See, the base is a hodgepodge of beliefs that conflict with the “progressive” mindset displayed so often in the blogosphere. Parts of the base are religious. Parts are anti-abortion and pro-gun rights. Parts are anti-gay marriage. Yet the base consists in part of women and gays.

If the base was “anti-corporate progressives,” as often floated here, corporations would not be flourishing as they are in blue states. With the country pretty evenly split, I don’t believe only Republicans are doing business with corporations.

To state it bluntly - if anyone within the Democratic party IS NOT the base, it is the “progressive” types. They voted third party against Harry Truman in 1948, would not support John Kennedy in 1960, sat out the 1968 presidential election, led the party to ruin in 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988. In effect, “progressives” look at politics the way they do Indie music. In their mind, they have superior music tastes and everyone else is a sell-out.

But politics is not pop music.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. The base of the GOP is conservatives. Our base is progressives.

You are spinning history. Why did they not support JFK? Because he was running against a progressive icon, a man of great principle who took the lead on civil rights in 1948--before it became popular--Hubert Humphrey. Humprhey was not one of those fake "leaders" who slavishly adhere to the polls...In 1972, and 1984, and 1988 the progressive candidate won the nomination. So you are saying progressives "led the party to ruin" in those years. The key word is "led." How can you claim a group that you say is essentially irrelevant managed to lead the party? You can't have it both ways. In 2004 Kerry was also a progressives.

Speaking of leading the party to ruin, let's look at the DLC record: losses in 1994, 1996 (congressional), 1998, 2000 (prez and House). Aside from Bill Clinton, the DLC has achieved nothing. What has the DLC done without him? Their poster child Harold Ford couldn't even win in a very favorable year in 2006.

[wyldwolf]

24. Sorry, it is you with no grasp of history

Why did they not support JFK? Because he was running against a progressive icon, a man of great principle who took the lead on civil rights in 1948--before it became popular--Hubert Humphrey.

Uh..no. Wrong. Because he was running against Adlai Stevenson. Of the A-list candidates in 1960, Humphry got the least delegates. He wasn't even a player.

In 1972, and 1984, and 1988 the progressive candidate won the nomination. So you are saying progressives "led the party to ruin" in those years.

The worst electoral disasters in our history.

In 2004 Kerry was also a progressives.

In 2004, Kerry was a member of the DLC, and many "progressive" sources spoke of his anti-progressive sources, including people on DU.

losses in 1994, 1996 (congressional), 1998, 2000 (prez and House). Aside from Bill Clinton, the DLC has achieved nothing. What has the DLC done without him? Their poster child Harold Ford couldn't even win in a very favorable year in 2006.

1994: Every political historian blames the loss in 1994 on electoral shifts, specifically, the shift that had been occurring on the Federal level since 1968. (Philip A. Klinkner and Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress.) You can find NO serious documentation of the DLC causing election losses in 1994 or 1996.

1998: Democrats picked up seats on the congressional level.

2000: "Progressives" cause the loss of the presidency with their Nader votes.

2006: Tennessee. Enough said. But in 2006, the DLC did pick up 16 House seats.

draft_mario_Com, you're not on this board with amateurs. You can't rewrite history and not get called on it.

[renie408]

34. I wish you could recommend a post that is mid-thread.

Cause this one deserves it.

[papau]

8. government is not the answer for everything - HRC has it correct - but major functions are

governments responsibility - and she seems to have that correct also.

Now if she endorses single payer national health - Medicare for all - she most likely gets my vote in the primary. Until then a few others are a bit ahead of her.

[rinsd]

40. Bingo. Gov't not the answer for everything but is the answer for the big things!

[cleveramerican]

2. could come from any candidate from either party because......

its so safe, the political equivalent of coming out in favor of mom and apple pie.

nothing to complain about here except for a wasted opportunity to say something meaningful, instead of just so much hot air.

[Clark2008]

4. Edwards was DLC, too, though.

Can't seem to say that often enough.

When he was a senator - he was DLC. The only reason he is NOT DLC now is because he does NOT hold an elected position.

What's so hard to understand?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. So was Gore

Clearly neither is DLC now.

[wyldwolf]

39. Not so clearly in Gore's case

[SaveElmer]

5. I see nothing at all there to argue with...

Looks solid...

[wyldwolf]

6. For someone who supports a third party candidate like Cuomo, it isn't surprising you're wrong ...

... in the very first line of your post.

with the DLC involved you have to wonder what the true agenda of the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party" is.

A very ignorant charge.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Mario Cuomo isn't a third party member. He is a Democrat. A real Dem...

You wrote earlier about progressives. It was progressives who had Cuomo demolishing the field, including Clinton I, in the polls in late 1991. Too bad he didn't run. We would have had eight years of progressive government and his VP probably would have won because Cuomo would not be fooling around with interns. What would this mean? No Bush II. No Iraq war. None of the disasters of the past six years. And, yes, probably no HRC since her last name would mean nothing in New York if Bill didn't become prez.

Howard Dean, now chairman of the DNC, made a similar comment about the DLC. ;)

[wyldwolf]

27. Why did he run third party against a Democrat in '77?

It was progressives who had Cuomo demolishing the field, including Clinton I, in the polls in late 1991.

No, sorry. It was Democrats who had Cuomo in the lead in '91.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Why did Clinton choose Cuomo to deliver the nominating speech at the 1992 convention?

Yes, it is true Mario was popular among many segments of the Democratic party, which is why he was far ahead of the pack in the polls in 1991. Still, the base of his support was among progressives. This was also the group that was the most skeptical of Clinton I, whose support came from DLC'ers. In order to assauge the concerns of progressives Mario Cuomo was asked to give the nominating speech.

[wyldwolf]

30. Maybe because he LIKED Cuomo?

Because Cuomo stated Clinton would be a fine President?

The same reason Zell Miller keynoted in '92?

Yes, it is true Mario was popular among many segments of the Democratic party, which is why he was far ahead of the pack in the polls in 1991

BUT... you just said it was "progressives" who had him there... ? Right? Now it is because he "was popular among many segments of the Democratic party."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Each candidate has a base

Cuomo's base was progressives like Clinton's base was the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

32. LOL! Right

Show me a measured statistic on that little ditty.

[Tellurian]

41. ALL blm talking points.. the Big IFs

all speculation, none of it based on factual evidence..

[karynnj]

23. If Cuomo is not a Democrat - who is?

He gave one of the best key note speeches ever laying out what Democrats were at one of Clinton's conventions. He was a Democrat in the FDR tradition. This is as silly as it would be if an anti-DLCer posted that Bill Clinton was not a Democrat or a DLCer posting that Kennedy is not a Democrat.

What Hillary said is not controversial - I would think any reasonable person in either party would agree - it is more anti-corruption than anything else. I think it is important to hear her say this as one concern I have was the secrecy that she had wanted on the Clinton Health plan. I am happy that she now sees the value of openness and transparency.

[wyldwolf]

25. Cuomo left the Democratic party and ran third party when he lost the mayoral nomination to Koch...

Kinda like Lieberman. He couldn't accept he'd lost in the primary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. It is ironic to see a Clinton fan criticize a progressive for not being a real Democrat

Let's take a poll here and ask people who they think was more of a real Democrat, Mario Cuomo or either of the Clintons (remember the Gingrich-Clinton welfare "reform" that attacked the weakest members of society for political advantage?). :)

[wyldwolf]

28. Does the fact he ran third party disturb you? No one has said he wasn't a "real" Democrat...

...but he did leave the party and run on a third party ticket. You're really trying to divert away from that fact.

[SOS]

9. "We know government isn't the answer to all our problems,"

Since the takeover of our representative republic by the Fortune 500, government has become the cause of our problems.

Banking deregulation leading to usury and billions in fees.
Telecom Act of 1996 allowing six Republican corporations to control 95% of television.
Tax laws where a single person making $10 an hour pays more tax than 2/3 of all corporations combined.
Massive Social Security tax hike in 1983, coming right out of our pay, "borrowed" and squandered. (Gore was right!)
Preference for insurance company profits over the health of American citizens.
Drug companies writing the Medicare prescription law.
MBNA purchases "bankruptcy bill" destroying American families who recieve outrageous medical bills.
Auto industry tells Congress "no CAFE standards". Lapdogs say "Yes Master!"
Worst income inequality since 1928.

It goes on and on.

Government could be the solution to many of our problems, if it put the welfare of the American citizen first.
Instead they kowtow to Wall Street and shaft us every chance they get.

At least Edwards has made this grotesque sell-out of the average American the cornerstone of his candidacy.

[AtomicKitten]

10. government sure as hell wasn't the answer to Katrina

before, during, or after

[seasat]

15. I really like the Clinton/Gore reinventing government iniative

Most Repugs won't admit it but Shrub Inc has increased both size of government both in numbers of people and layers. They've hid some of it by privatizing sectors through contractors. The result is less efficiency. Gore's work on the other hand reduced the size and increased efficiency. I hope that all our candidates focus on this issue. It's not as "sexy" as other issues but goes directly towards how well our government operates in response to emergencies like Katrina and how frugally they spend our tax dollars.

There is a lot of duplication of services in the government and they need to be eliminated. The problem is that agency groups tend to fight to preserve their power structures. We need someone who can eliminate that waste.

Shrub Inc has doled out billions to contractors with little oversight. We need to move away from using as many contact employees and transfer responsibility back to government employees. We have greater oversight with them.

We need to pay lower level government employees more. It actually costs more when you pay them less because of training and retention. In dealing with the State of Florida, I've noticed some of the better employees get frustrated with the poor pay and benefits and move of to private sector jobs. I've worked with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and found that entry level technicians are paid hourly with no benefits and no chance of overtime for up to three years on the job. The job starts off with a salary less than unskilled positions and requires at least a bachelor's degree in a related science field. Good employees regularly jump to environmental consulting firms instead of staying with the DEP. This is what is happening on the Federal level too.

We need to drastically reform the military. It's a bloated feed trough for defense contractors with little real benefit to those folks who lay their life on the line for our country. We don't need new nuclear weapons or a silly ineffective "Star Wars" system. We need better health care for our service people and better equipment so that they can secure Afghanistan without getting killed.

We need to get completely out of Iraq. The humanitarian issue for leaving Iraq is most important but there is added benefit of freeing up 100s of billions of dollars that are need for more important issues. Imagine if we had taken that money and instead invested it in reducing international poverty. That would go a lot further in reducing radicals prone to terrorism than any bombing campaign.

I'm glad Hillary is talking about this. All the candidates need to focus more on these types of issues. It'll help in response to national crises, help balance the budget, and help government better address individual needs. The result will also be more money available to reduce poverty and provide for universal health care.

Here's Hillary's full statement:

"We know government isn't the answer to all our problems," Clinton said, but then added that the current administration often looks at federal programs with disdain and disrespect. "By denigrating our government, we undermine our capacity to work together to solve these problems."

[madfloridian]

16. Another view of the role of government.....

that it is responsible to its people.

There is a role for government in our lives for those who are needy and destitute.

You know, a lot of people said our campaign was about anger; they never did quite get it right. What this campaign is about is hope. Hope for Americans. Americans really do want their country back, they want the country they believed in, a country that's a fair country, where middle class people can make a decent living and not have to worry about how to send their kids to college. Where ordinary Americans can depend on government. Did you hear what I said, Ronald Reagan? Can depend on government, for basic needs of health care, and shelter, we can depend on each other. We will undo what the right wing has done. Rugged individualism was great, 100 years ago on the frontier. We are in this together, and we are responsible for each other. And we will take our community back, because this country belongs to US and not the right wing of the Republican Party.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Dean_Seattle_Speech_18March04.htm

[snowbear]

17. Right on M/Florida and btw..

I will be in your beautiful state on Monday morning (4/16)..

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is what Republicans and DLC'ers criticize...

...when they say "government is not the answer to everything." Implicitly they are saying people who share Dean's progressive views are those who believe "government is the answer to everything."

[rinsd]

43. Howard Dean diagrees with this?

"recent call for a sharp reduction in the number of private contractors attached to federal agencies, and more broadly demanding reforms that would measure government performance and ensure transparency in their operations"

Somehow I doubt it.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Al Gore's National Performance Review was doing quite fine, thank you

until the Bush regime took over and derailed the entire process. To make matters worse, the Bush regime proceeded to dismantle the professional civil service by infusing large numbers of ideologues throughout the bureaucracy with the sole mission of ensuring that there be no dissenting voices on Bush's initiatives, or wars.

Hillary doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, that's just campaign bullshit to make people think that putting her in the White House will make a difference. It won't!

Democrats need to do a 180 on everything that Bush has done from the day he took power in 2001.

[Tellurian]

42. While you've been spoon fed propaganda like a lap dog by draft_mario_cuomo

you've never challenged anything he/she has said. So, where does that leave you?

Hillary doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, that's just campaign bullshit to make people think that putting her in the White House will make a difference. It won't!

I guess, you should thank your lucky stars there is a competent candidate by the name of Sen Hillary Clinton, with the wherewithal to put this country right again. From what I've read in this thread, the regulars here have been wallowing in self-aggrandizing information for so long, they've become stagnated in their own delusional BS.

[mmonk]

38. I have no interest in either but thanks for the information.

I always keep my eye on that movement since its ascendancy and power plays.