Do you approve or disapprove of the DLC?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Do you approve or disapprove of the DLC?

To its supporters the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) helped formulate policies which moved the Democratic party from the "far left" to a more mainstream image and helped elect the first Democratic president since Jimmy Carter.

To its detractors the DLC has moved the party too far to the right and has made it in many instances indistinguishable from the Republicans--the party lost its identity and now stands for little.

Do you approve or disapprove of the DLC?

[Ninga]

1. DLC = Dem Lite

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. DLC = Won the primary

The DLC two candidates with the most votes and delegates were allifiated with the DLC.

[sangh0]

19. The DLC also won the last three Presidential elections

1992, 1996, and 2000

[Exgeneral]

55. The DLC didn't win anything.

Bush LOST 92. Republican Party LOST 96.
and DLC strategy lost Gore his double digit lead, and got * close enough to steal it.

Great strategy, that.

[CTLawGuy]

59. 1992...

Bush loses, by pissing off his base (raised taxes after promising not to) and Ross Perot puts a monkey wrench in things. Who knows how well Clinton would have done without Perot.

1996. Bob Dole runs as a moderate, multi-term senator, War hero to contrast with the current president's lack of military service. The Republicans were unified and hell bent on getting rid of the current president, and wanted the most "electable" candidate. (this sounds REALLY familiar) Dole was also uninspiring, and ends up losing decisively.


2000. Gore struggles because his DLC handlers turn him into a product of madison avenue, designed to have maximum appeal to the swing voter. It comes at the expense of his credibility in the eyes of many people. Gore picked up steam by running a Dean-like campaign of "people vs. powerful". But it ended up being too little too late.

[sangh0]

68. NIce hallucination

but the facts clearly show that a DLC candidate won the Presidential elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000.

104. Hallucinations and Facts

The real facts show that the DLC candidate won the nominations in those years, but the DLC connection had very little to do with their POTUS victories.

Exgeneral is correct, not having "hallucinations" as you so smugly suggest.

As the infamous Democratic Party Boss Tweed from New York once said, "I don't care who does the electin', so long as I do the nominatin'."

http://www.historyhouse.com/uts/party_conventions/

[jonnyblitz]

64. The DLC is why we have the Greens and Nader

You can thank them for that...

[sangh0]

69. Actually, both the Greens and Nader were around before the DLC began

What you said sounds nice, but it never happened on this planet. The facts reveal that the Greens and Nader (and other fringe leftists) are the reason why we have the DLC.

[mdguss]

100. No the Greens and Nader are why the DLC is Necessary:

nt

[Colin Ex]

2. It's cool with me.

Nothing that says that you can't form a coalition to get members of your party elected.

They are perhaps a little more conservative than I'd like, but hey. No skin off my back.

-C

[SiliconMethod]

3. It makes no sense to me

Why do we bow to the DLC's agenda to moderate ourselves for the sake of getting votes, while the Republicans work as hard as they can to push themselves off the right edge of the spectrum by catering to the Christian Coliation's whims?

[Ninga]

4. Your point is well taken. The Dems

as champions of the less fortunate, protectors of the environment, and leaders for strong public education, are practically non existent.

[lovedems]

11. I strongly feel that push to right they are making is going to push them

over the edge. It will be their downfall.

Unlike the conservatives, I still think there is room for moderates in our country.

[On the Road]

5. The DLC Was a Positive Influence When it Started

but it's not only a negative influence now, it's an active opponent of the progressive agenda, and has way too much influence.

[wryter2000]

7. And furthermore

I think the DLC's ability to get Dem candidates elected is over-rated, anyway. Aside from getting Clinton elected president, they haven't done all that well. It seems entirely possible that Clinton could have done that on his own.

If I want a Republican, I'll vote Republican. What I want is Democrats.

[no name no slogan]

17. Thanks for bursting the bubble!

It's true that the DLC brags about its ability to get candidates elected, but look at the record: lost the US Senate, lost the US HOUSE (after 40 years), lost more state legislatures (Dems at lowest level in state houses since 1962), lost more governorships and local officials....

I sure as hell wouldn't want to "campaign" on that issue!

Also, take a look at 2002. The DLC-controlled DNC threw its $$ primarily to so-called "moderate" Democrats who didn't oppose the war, supported corpo-friendly economic policies, and generally didn't "make waves" by appealing to the liberals too much. The progressive/liberal Democrats who voted against IWR didn't get nearly as much financial support from the party.

And what happened? The DLC candidates mostly LOST, while the progressive/liberal Dems who showed some spine WON. Democratic voters know when they're being scammed by some corpo-friendly suit who claims to be a Democrat. They know a Republican when they see one.

The DLC has done NOTHING for this party except alienate more of our base support among working people. Their trade policies have done more to eliminate well-paying blue-collar jobs during Clinton than even twelve years of Reagan-Bush.

With "friends" like the DLC, who needs enemies?

[sangh0]

20. Actually, it's the progressives who lost those elections

If you look to see which Dems won and which lost, the DLC candidates fared much better than their more liberal colleagues in the party.

[no name no slogan]

28. No they didn't

As they say, "Follow the money". The DNC-favored candidates (who got lots of cash from the national party) who modulated themselves to appear Bush-friendly LOST more often than the left-progressives did.

[sangh0]

33. Wrong, it was the non-DLC candidates that lost

like McGovern. Landreau, a moderate DLCer won.

[no name no slogan]

44. McGovern didn't run for ANYTHING in 2002-- you make no sense

But those Democrats who broke with the party's leadership on economic and war issues DID.

Cripes, McGovern lost in 1972-- that's OVER thirty years ago! And that was because Nixon was a crook and the Humphrey/Muskie/Daly/Meany axis didn't endorse him until October. Get over it already.

[sangh0]

70. McGovern ran for Senator after Wellstone dies

WHen talking about politics and elections, it helps if you know something about politics and elections

[IrateCitizen]

77. That was Mondale, not McGovern

Mondale lost because he was a horrible candidate on the stump who told people he planned to raise taxes.

WHen talking about politics and elections, it helps if you know something about politics and elections

Indeed.

[sangh0]

78. Excuse me, Mondale

A liberal, who lost.

WHen talking about politics and elections, it helps if you know something about politics and elections

Indeed.

Right, NNNS said that DLCers did badly in 2002 and liberals did well. Mondale, a liberal, lost.

I got a name wrong. NNNS got entire race wrong. Tell me again about how NNNS knows so much about politics, and I'm the ignorant one.

IC, in other posts, NNNS has said that only Dems can vote in the primaries, which is obviously wrong. For some odd reason, you seem only interested in my flubs. Hmmmm

[IrateCitizen]

80. It's because turnabout is fair play, sangha

After all the times that I have found you enter into one of my discussions, pick out one detail and divert all discussion into a senseless debate over that one detail, I have to admit a certain amount of perverse pleasure in being able to do the same to you.

But don't worry -- it's my last post on this matter. I'm not going to try and draw the entire thread off on this tangent.

[sangh0]

81. Who won and who lost in 2002

is not "a senseless debate over that one detail"

Whether it was Mondale or McGovern, is since both are liberals.

[IrateCitizen]

86. No, that's not the topic at hand

The topic at hand is whether it was McGovern or Mondale who took over Wellstone's campaign after his death. I don't know why you're trying to shift the debate, unless you fail to notice the importance of such a detail.

[sangh0]

91. Check again

It's about the DLC, and some people have incorrectly stated that the DLC caused Dems to lose in 2002, so yes, it is part of the topic at hand.

[no name no slogan]

88. Mondale is hardly a "liberal"-- and certainly not a progressive

I got a name wrong. NNNS got entire race wrong.

Once again, I ask in all sincerity, :wtf: are you talking about?

The 2002 MN Senate race was originally between Wellstone and Norm Coleman, ex-mayor of St. Paul. Wellstone died in a plane crash in late October, and was replaced by former Vice President WALTER MONDALE.

George McGovern isn't even a MINNESOTAN, ferchrissakes! He's from SOUTH DAKOTA! Contrary to what you coasties belive, it's not "all one big state" between D.C. and San Francisco.

Mondale, while a suitable last-minute replacement, was certainly NO Paul Wellstone. He did NOT inspire people, he could barely get them to show up at the polls. I knew a number of people whose sole reason for voting in 2002 was to send Wellstone back to the Senate (and guarantee that hack and ex-DFLer Norm Coleman got a solid beating, too).

Furthermore, Mondale may seem "liberal" if you're a DLC Democrat, but here in Minnesota he's establishment DFL-- one of the "party elites" along with Skip Humphrey and Mark Dayton who come from the "hack" wing of the DFL. They're the types of guys who drive around downtown Minneapolis in their BMW convertables with "Humphrey for Governor" stickers on them. I used to see them regularly when I used to work downtown, and they are HARDLY liberals on most issues-- especially on economics.

As a native Minnesotan, I've grown up with Mondale and the Humphreys. They are certainly NOT from the progressive wing of the party. They're "establishment" types who've been in control for too long, and have been leading our party to defeat for the last twelve years. This year, Mondale backed Kerry, and Hubert H. "Buck" Humphrey IV was the MN chair for Kerry's campaign. IIRC Ted Mondale (Walter's son) was the Liebermann campaign's chair this year.

I'm a Minnesota NATIVE who has lived here all but seven months of my 35 years. I was even a PoliSci major in college-- a local MINNESOTA college, I might add. I knew Paul Wellstone when he was still a college professor from Northfield, and worked at DFL functions where I waited on Humphreys and Mondales.

I think I know a little bit more about Minnesota politics than you do.

NNNS has said that only Dems can vote in the primaries, which is obviously wrong

That is NOT what I said. I said that Dem Party activists are the ones who TEND TO VOTE in the primaries and attend the caucuses more often than non-party types-- which anybody who's done any work in politics can tell you is true. I NEVER said that only Dems can vote in the primaries, even though that is the rule in states with "closed primaries" that have strict party registration.

Please if you want to argue, at least dispute what I actually SAY, not what you want me to say.

[sangh0]

98. Mondale is a liberal, and always has been

which explains why you can't point to one non-liberal position that Mondale has taken

Furthermore, Mondale may seem "liberal" if you're a DLC Democrat, but here in Minnesota he's establishment DFL-- one of the "party elites"

So is Kennedy, and he's also a liberal.

I said that Dem Party activists are the ones who TEND TO VOTE

And you also that non-voters would vote if they had a real liberal to vote for. They HAD a REAL liberal to vote for, and they stayed home. Ergo, you are wrong.

[no name no slogan]

106. Compared to the DLC, Mondale is a liberal

But I would hardly put him farther to the left of the political spectrum than John Kerry or Wes Clark. Compared to Shrub, he's freaking Che Guevara, but then again so is Olympia Snowe.

And once again, you REFUSE to read what I've posted-- MOST GENERAL ELECTION VOTERS DO NOT VOTE IN PARTY PRIMARIES. Even in my own state, which had a 70% turnout in 2000, our caucuses and primaries attract maybe 25% of the eligible electorate. Any political scientist or journalist can back this up.

And as I've stated previously, THE PEOPLE THAT VOTE IN PRIMARIES OR ATTEND CAUCUSES TEND TO BE PARTY ACTIVISTS WHO ARE PART OF THE PROCESS ALREADY-- NOT GENERAL ELECTION VOTERS. They are also the ones who tend to back the party hacks who care more about their own personal gain than what's best for the party or our members.

And, for the record:


THIS IS WALTER MONDALE


THIS IS GEORGE MCGOVERN

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Absolutely!

The way its leaders told the anti-war people to sit down and shut up, they way they attacked Howard Dean and Dennis Kuncinich -- those things were what broke the camel's back for me.

They were attacking fellow Dems more than they were attacking the Bush agenda -- that should tell you a little bit about just where they stand and who is now behind this group.

In my book they are the "money" wing of the DNC, and we all know money has no loyaties but to itself.

[On the Road]

16. I Agree -- Al From's Attacks on Dean were Deeply Disgusting to Me

and really changed my mind for the worse on the current DLC leadship.

Having said that, I still think it was a positive movement when it was started. Look who's been a LDC member: Gore, Clinton, Dean, even Kerry, I believe -- you name it. The party was on the wane in the 80's because of an increasing image of being pro-bureaucracy, high-tax, weak on defense, and fiscally irresponsible. Even if a lot of it wasn't true, it still cost the party elections.

The DLC gave the party an advantage in many of the issues today. Those have to be employed as a political weapon rather than used as a base for further appropriation of the Republican agenda.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. But perhaps his attacks changed people's minds about Dean

Al From isn't running for office, so he can afford for some people to have a negative opinion of him.

[ewagner]

6. Voted "Not Sure"

Why?

Because of Jim Hightower's book:There's Nothing in Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos pp:40-41 "Vernon Jordan's Dream" To sum it up, Vernon Jordan told a group of Democrats at a breakfast that his job was to bring industrialists in to meet the President. His dream was that he would bring them in to meet a Democratic President . The implication being that corporate America should love Democrats as much as they love Republicans.

I've been troubled by that for some time and it has kept me from wholeheartedly embracing the DLC.

[liberalnurse]

8. The DLC's primary mission, the one they chose to accept

is very simple....Job Security ......not Job Performance or Representation for the Democratic Party members as a whole group..... just the few who want to keep their jobs even if they are bad at it.....

[eyesroll]

10. Most members of the DLC are decent people

Their leadership is terrible, though.

[Gman]

12. Many people here confuse a political party

with an ideological purity society. Any political party is nothing more than a bunch of coaltions coming together because of their mutual interests. They agree on some ideals and disagree on others.

[sangh0]

71. Many people here confuse EVERYTHING

with an ideological purity society

[Guaranteed]

14. ....

:thumbsdown:

They just look like weak Democrats. Democrats ashamed of themselves.

Weakness will lose us this election. Weakness HAS lost us elections, for the past ten years, very consistently.

ENOUGH with the DLC garbage.

[Mountainman]

15. Wanting the Dem party to make a strong left turn is like voting for Nader

So many of us believe that if the Greens had voted for Gore than Bush would not be in the White House.

I think the same is true about those who want the party to turn more to the left. If that is done then we will not win in November. There simply aren't enough left leaning voters to get Kerry elected.

We must appeal to enough voters to win or else you will have a solid repuke government for years to come.

We must have our left wing of the party and their voices must be heard but we also need our moderates.

Also an extreme position be it left or right has a very narrow view of reality. The country cannot survive with either extreme in power because the other side will start a revolution.

[no name no slogan]

18. But only 50% of the electorate VOTED in 2000

Do you know what that says? It says that 50% of the population saw NO REASON to vote because their choice DIDN'T MATTER.

A good portion of that non-voting 50% leans Democratic. They're working folk, many of them poor, who respond well to our issues. If given half the chance, they would vote for a REAL liberal who's not afraid to take stands that are opposite of the Republicans. They support health care reform, oppose so-called "free trade" agreements that favor corporations over workers, and believe in spending more money on education than on another pointless weapons program that won't work anyway (SDI, anyone?).

Unfortunately, we keep serving up Democrats who are not different enough from what the Republicans offer, or only differ on issues that are important to "soccer moms". The visions are the same from both party's candidates: "more of the same, but not quite as much as the other guy".

When you need water but your only choices are dust and sand, you can see why more people would just go thirsty.

[sangh0]

22. That's just BS

Do you know what that says? It says that 50% of the population saw NO REASON to vote because their choice DIDN'T MATTER.

When did you acquire the magical power to read the minds of 100 million non-voters?

A good portion of that non-voting 50% leans Democratic.

And a good portion lean Repuke. They're working folk, many of them poor, who respond well to the Repukes issues. If given half the chance, they would vote AGAINST a REAL liberal who's not afraid to take stands that are opposite of the Republicans. They oppose health care reform, support "free trade" agreements that favor corporations over workers, and believe in spending less money on education than on another pointless weapons program that won't work anyway (SDI, anyone?).

Unfortunately, we keep serving up fringe leftists who are too different from what Americans want in a candidate, and never agree with avg Americans on issues that are important to them. The visions are the same from both party's extremists: "yell a lot more, and don't worry about losing again"

[JI7]

23. they had a wide range to vote for in the primary also

they could have voted for kucinich, or gephardt who is anti nafta and other trade, or sharpton. and i'm tired of this thing about people not voting because they don't have choices . i have been voting since i was old enough to. 2000 was the first time i was old enough to vote for president and i voted for al gore. i knew he would be a lot better than bush. i didn't like every single thing about him and had a few differences, but overall, he would have done a lot more in putting the nation in the right direction.

[no name no slogan]

31. At least you've still got that naivite

At least you felt that Gore was different enough to vote for him in 2000. Unfortunately, many of us have been around the block enough with the Democrats to know that sometimes there's not ENOUGH difference between them.

The last Democratic presidential candidate I voted for was Clinton in 1992. It was my second presidential election, although I had not been active in the party since Wellstone's senate victory in 1990.

Clinton came in in 1992 promising to throw a couple of bones to the liberals who got behind him and helped him defeat Dubya's daddy and Perot. To say he disappointed us greatly in his first two years is an understatement.

What did he give us? NAFTA, one of the most destructive trade agreements in our history. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which has actually led to MORE gay and lesbian people expelled from the military for their sexual identity. His "Universal Health Care" plan (a BIG issue in 1992) served the interests of the five biggest insurance companies in the nation more than that of the uninsured population.

The final straw for me was "welfare reform", which did almost NOTHING to bring welfare mothers out of poverty, but put millions of them back to work at dead-end low-wage jobs earning minimum wage. It was a program that could have been taken from Newt Gingrich's "Contract On America", it was so regressive.

Al Gore promised to be more of the same-- the same losing economic policies of Clinton/Greenspan that held workers wages down and widened the gap between rich and poor while the middle class got the "trickle down" after the rich got their share.

Gore NEVER addressed this issue: instead, he gave vague platitudes about how he would continue the Clinton Legacy that valued balanced budgets over people, profits over fair trade and corporate greed over healthcare for all.

I sincerely hope that Kerry will be different-- but I'm not giving up the fight when he's elected. He's still going to need pressure from the left to get him to stand up for Democratic issues.

[sangh0]

34. LOL! no name no slogan left out any mention of DK

I wonder why?

:shrug:

He's still going to need pressure from the left to get him to stand up for Democratic issues.

I'm sure you and the handful of DK and Nadir voters will be able to exert a great deal of pressure.

[no name no slogan]

43. BZZZT!!! WRONG!!! Thanks for trying!

DK got 17% of the vote in my state, and 45% in my city. And it's not just DK supporters who are on board with us, either. We're getting support from former Dean, Clark AND Edwards supporters to our ongoing efforts to support the ten points Dennis put forth in his campaign. And I know for a FACT that there's efforts in other states, too, to keep Kerry accountable to those of us on the left who've helped him win.

People may not have liked the candidate, but they liked the issues Dennis brought up-- many of which more "mainstream Democrats" are afraid to even MENTION, much less support, lest they be seen as "weak" or "radical".

What's so radical about living wage jobs? Or adequate healthcare for EVERYONE? Or trade agreements that put workers' rights over corporate profits? Or an end to pre-emptive wars, and a foreign policy based on cooperation instead of domination?

Never did I think I'd see the day when so-called "Democrats" would ridicule those who've upheld our traditions of jobs, justice and sanity in our international relations.

And yet, those of us leftist Democrats will STILL vote for another "centrist" who's more concerned about kissing corporate ass than in standing up for what used to be our core principles, and the platform that gave us such leaders as Hubert Humphrey and Paul Wellstone-- leaders who WEREN'T AFRAID to be Democrats first, and politicians second. Un-freakin-believable.

And to add insult to injury, you and your ilk have the nerve to marginalize us-- the ones who have repeatedly voted for the Democrats, even though we have yet to benefit from their "leadership".

Instead, you keep on asskissing the "swing" voters who DON'T help the party and probably won't vote for a Democrat for any other office. While we're out busting our asses for you, you're busy "triangulating" to appeal to Republicans and sweeping us under the rug, lest we seem "loony".

Gore 2000 was only a wake-up call. You can continue to ignore the left wing of the party, but don't expect their grassroots networks to help you out if you do. Many of us are sick and tired of the piss-poor attitudes of fellow Democrats who seek to marginalize us in our own party, despite the fact that we're the ones doing the gruntwork that wins elections.

IF Kerry loses, you'll only have yourselves and your cavalier attitudes to blame.

[sangh0]

72. LOL!

This may surprise you but getting 17% of one state and 45% of one city does not add up to much in a Presidential contest.

Never did I think I'd see the day when so-called "Democrats" would ridicule those who've upheld our traditions of jobs, justice and sanity in our international relations.

Never did I think some poster on an Internet board would be ridiculous enough to argue that jobs, justice and sanity is *HIS* tradition, when the truth is you've done nothing for those but whine.

And to add insult to injury, you and your ilk have the nerve to marginalize us-- the ones who have repeatedly voted for the Democrats, even though we have yet to benefit from their "leadership".

And we're not going to give you any benefits in the future either. My political fight is for people who can't afford a computer and an Internet connection. Don't expect me to cater to your selfishness anytime soon.

IF Kerry loses, you'll only have yourselves and your cavalier attitudes to blame.

Don't worry. I learned long ago that the loony left can't be held responsible for their actions and statements.

[G_j]

101. great post

I couldn't agree more.
:toast:

[JI7]

66. i am NOT naive, and as i said they could have voted kucinich

you went into a whole thing about those who don't vote being liberal but needing someone to vote for. and i said they could have easily voted in the primaries where there were candidates which represented a range of ideas. they could have voted for kucinich. but they didn't. how do you explain that ? why didn't they vote for kucinich ? you talk about the 50 percent that don't vote because they aren't represented, if they had all voted for kucinich he could have won the nomination . but it's not my fault they didn't vote.

[goobergunch]

48. I live in Pennsylvania

We had our primary on Tuesday - although only about 25% didn't vote for Kerry, it's a bit late for it to make any sort of difference, even if Kerry had only gotten 1% of the vote.

[G_j]

24. "we keep serving up fringe leftists"

you mean like Ted Kennedy or Paul Wellstone? Who are you talking about?

[sangh0]

26. Kucinich could be described as

"a REAL liberal who's not afraid to take stands that are opposite of the Republicans. They support health care reform, oppose so-called "free trade" agreements that favor corporations over workers, and believe in spending more money on education than on another pointless weapons program that won't work anyway"

According nnns those non-voters support liberals like DK, but for some unexplained reason, they did not support DK by voting for him.

Face it, the argument that people don't vote because "there's no difference" is just a big fat ole lie. DK is DEFINITELY different, and if non-voters want different, they could have voted for DK.

They didn't.

[no name no slogan]

30. They didn't for a variety of reasons.

Not only was he marginalized by the media, he was further marginalized by the party itself.

I've actually heard ELECTED OFFICERS of state-level Democratic Parties who've not only dismissed Dennis outright, but also stated that he was "not a Democrat" and would "drop out of the party and run as a Green" in November. This was NEVER said of any of the other candidates, not even Dean or Sharpton.

With "friends" like that in the party, who need enemies?

In the places where it WAS possible to get Dennis's message out, he did VERY well. In my own city, he got over 40% of the primary vote, despite an indifferent press and no support from "party regulars" who'd hopped the Kerry bandwagon a year earlier.

Kucinich's issues resonated with a majority of Democratic voters once they'd heard them. However, the overwhelming FEAR fostered by the pink-tutu Democrats who control the party machinery reigned supreme. We were more concerned about that nebulous factor called "electability" versus what we knew were the right positions on the issues.

And why don't you just admit that the Democratic party as a whole is too damned AFRAID of the Repukes to even put up a fight? The Kerry fix has been in since 2002, when he was annointed the next presidential candidate by the DLC-controlled DNC. It's been pretty clear, especially given the comparitively kid-gloves treatment he was given by the media during the primary season.

Unfortunately the party is in serious need of a gonad transplant. Even when those candidates who dare to call out the Republicans as not only misguided but just plain WRONG get slapped down by other Democrats for fear of appearing "too radical" or "too loud".

[sangh0]

35. Do you realize you changed your story?

A short while ago you said they didn't vote for a Dem because "50% of the population saw NO REASON to vote because their choice DIDN'T MATTER" You also said "If given half the chance, they would vote for a REAL liberal who's not afraid to take stands that are opposite of the Republicans."

But now, after I've pointed out that DK did give them a chance to vote for "a REAL liberal who's not afraid to take stands that are opposite of the Republicans", you change your story.

Now, it's "Not only was he marginalized by the media, he was further marginalized by the party itself"

If you won't stick to your arguments, then obviously, they are very weak.

[no name no slogan]

47. I didn't change anything-- those are two separate issues

Only DEMOCRATS vote in the primaries-- and usually only those who are "party activists". Furthermore, the current party leadership ITSELF has done all it can to either marginalize or stifle any sort of real DEBATE. John Kerry was chosen long before this March to be the party's candidate in 2004 by the DNC. Even though it looked like Dean may have upset the applecart in February, it was clear that he wasn't that much different from Kerry on the issues: only he would be a more vocal critic of Shrub's misdeeds.

Why was Kerry annointed? Because he's a good boy and will do the bidding of the corpocrats who currently run the party. He won't rock the boat by promoting such things as a full-employment economy, true single-payer healthcare, and an end to the American empire. That would upset the big insurance companies, Bob Rubin's Wall Street pals, and the defense industry. Can't have that.

So, voters will be faced with the choice between Shrub and somebody who's "not quite as bad" as the Shrub on many (formerly) CORE DEMOCRATIC ISSUES.

With the choice of the evil of two lessers, it's easy to understand why almost half of eligible voters in this country stay home. Will Kerry or Bush get us out of Iraq ASAP? Will they even SUPPORT a universal single-payer healthcare system that removes insurance company profit from the equation? How about a living wage for every working person in this country?

HELL NO! Kerry's even to "afraid" to talk about half of these things, for fear of alienating the 5% of the eligible electorate known as "swing voters". Instead of actively courting a fraction of the 50% who don't even vote, Kerry and his DLC minions are more than happy to fight over the fickle 5% who might vote for him, but will vote straight Republican on everything else.

This strategy is not only useless, but bankrupt. This party risks falling into obsolescence if it DOESN'T try to get even a TENTH of that non-voting 50% to the polls. Unfortunately, some Democrats seem to think the strategy of the last dozen years has somehow worked. IT HASN'T.

If you think appealing to Republicans will win, then keep at it-- because more potential voters agree with the Democrats on the issues. How about a party that appeals to DEMOCRATS for a change. Or maybe that's too much to ask for, since we don't want to piss off the DLC's pals on Wall Street and in the boardrooms.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

73. You changed your story, and now you change it again

You said they didn't vote because the Dems werent running any REAL liberals. When I pointed out that DK was a REAL liberal, you changed to "it was because the media told them to vote for Kerry". Now that I've shown how hypocritical your switch is, you deny it, and offer a THIRD excuse - the primary voters were Dem activists. Let's take a look at your newest excuse.

Anyone can register to vote in the Dem primaries, even Republicans. These non-voters who are looking for a REAL liberal could have voted for DK. Instead, they stayed home. Why?

Only DEMOCRATS vote in the primaries

NO, anyone can register to vote in the Dem primaries. You seem to unfamiliar with even the most simplest of facts concerning elections. You think only DEMS vote in the primaries, and you seem to have forgotten that McGovern ran for the Senate in 2002 (in a post up above), yet that hasn't stopped you from talking about the 2002 elections even though you seem to know little of the subject matter

Maybe you should find a hobby you're better at

[JI7]

76. i registered Democratic so i could vote for John Kerry

john kerry was my first choice. i was registered republican because i wanted to vote in one of their primaries a while back during a time when i was satisfied with all democratic choices. but i took the time to change my registration so i could vote for kerry. and others who wanted to vote in the primary for any of the candidates running could have done the same. also, some states had open voting. i believe iowa and new hampshire allowed same day registration to vote. so those who were not democrats could register as democrat on the day of voting to vote for any of the democratic candidates. they were also allowed to switch back to whatever party or no party right after they voted. also, why treat votes for kerry as if they are less than for others. he wasn't annointed. he won those states because people like myself voted for him.

[AntiCoup2K4]

90. So you admit Republicans voted for Kerry.

Good. That's a start.

Now the only question is WHY they did so.

[sangh0]

92. Are you denying that Repukes voted for Dean?

.

[AntiCoup2K4]

97. Probably some did. But there was a big difference.

Pukes who voted for Dean would have done so because they, like Dean's supporters, were fed up with what their party had become. Though the whore media tried to portray Dean as a "hard left liberal" simply because he opposed the Iraq invasion, his record of fiscal conservatism as Governor of Vermont was something that moderate repubs could believe in.

On the other hand, Pukes who voted for Kerry fell into three different categories:

1) Those who actually thought Kerry's moderate right views were better than Juniors.

2) Those who voted on orders from the GOP in an attempt to stack the primaries with the weakest candidate, to help Junior win.

3) Those who were scared shitless of Dean doing everything he said he would do.

Out of those three groups, only one of them will be voting for Kerry in the general. So if the campaign is counting on Republican crossover to help them in November, based on what happenned in the primaries, they will be sadly mistaken.

[sangh0]

99. Repukes voted for Kerry because

they "were fed up with what their party had become"

Pukes who voted for Dean fell into three different categories:

1) Those who actually thought Dean's moderate right views were better than Juniors.

2) Those who voted on orders from the GOP in an attempt to stack the primaries with the weakest candidate, to help Junior win.

3) Those who were scared shitless of Kerry doing everything he said he would do.

Gee, making crap us is not only easy; It's also fun!!

[no name no slogan]

29. Go read the studies, look at the polls, and you'll find

that most of this country STILL agrees more with the liberal ideals of the Democratic party than they do with those of the Repubs.

* Most Americans agree that so-called "free trade agreements" are negotiated for the benefit of corporations, not those of the workers.

* Most Americans also support a single-payer healthcare system over the mess we currently have.

* Most Americans also believe in building up our educational system, even if it means increasing taxes or foregoing tax cuts.

* Most Americans also agree that large corporations hold too much power in our government and civic life. Unfortunately, they also feel that no matter who is in power, this situation will not change.

Are these really "fringe" positions? Or are some Democrats too busy buying into the right-wing Talking Points instead of listening to what people are REALLY saying?

The problem with the DLCists is that they've fallen prey to the right-wing Wurlitzer that says that Americans support unbridled corporate control of their country. Hence, they "adapt" themselves to these mistaken principles in the hopes of "winning" an election or two instead of fixing what's wrong with the system.

Given that situation, I'd almost favor the Republicans at some points. At least I know they're a bunch of selfish bastards who are out to screw us over. I KNOW they're rotten, and I won't let down my guard because of this.

With the DLC, it's hard to tell. Sure, they'll talk up their populist Democrat issues, but when they get elected they fold like a house of cards whenever the Repubs attack them. They'll smile and wave at you while they send your job overseas. They'll promise more aid to schools and then approve another porkbarrell war-profiteering weapons project for their pals in SillyCon Valley.

We already HAVE one party for rich elitists in this country. We don't need TWO.

[sangh0]

36. There's no need to look at those things to know you are wrong

All we have to do is watch how you change your arguments from one post to the next.

One minute it's "People don't vote because the Dems don't give them the choice to vote for a REAL liberal"

The next minute, it's "People didn't vote because of the media"

[no name no slogan]

45. Yes, facts are such troublesome things

Why don't you address the content of my post: MOST AMERICANS AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THE BIG ISSUES, despite what the DLC and its apologists say.

[sangh0]

74. Here's some troublesome facts

1) You were wrong to say that McGivern didn't run in 2002. He took Wellstone's place on the ballot after Wellstone died

2) You were wrong to say that only Dems can vote in the Dem primaries. Many states allow ANYONE to vote, and if they don't, anyone can register as a Dem and vote in the primary.

3) You were wrong to claim that people don't vote because the Dems don't offer any REAL liberals to vote for. DK is a REAL liberal.

4) You were wrong to say that DLC candidates have done poorly in elections. It's the liberal wing of the DNC that has been losing elections.

[no name no slogan]

89. Get your story straight already!

1) I LIVE IN MINNESOTA, and have for 35 years. I think I'm pretty damned sure it was MONDALE who replaced Wellstone on the DFL ticket. At least he was the guy who showed up at the last debate.

Furthermore, Mondale is/was no McGovern. Mondale, while a good centrist liberal, was certainly no Wellstone or McGovern on the issues.

2) Once again you triangulate yourself into a corner, based on half a phrase which you misinterpreted. I NEVER said the "only Democrats can vote in primaries". What I said was that Dem Party activists tend to vote in primaries-- NOT the general electorate. A little context goes a long way.

3) Okay, we agree DK is a liberal. But is he running against Bush this year for President?

You left out all context of what I said. I said in GENERAL ELECTIONS, the Dems don't tend to run liberal candidates-- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. Go back to each of those races and you'll see that EACH TIME a liberal was not chosen (Kennedy, Hart, Jackson, Brown, Bradley, Kucinich, respectively). And in each race, the Dems have lost ground, and more and more of the electorate "stays home" because WE don't differentiate ourselves enough from the Repubs.

4) History speaks otherwise, sang0/a. Since 1992, this party has lost the US House and Senate, lost more governorships, and now has the lowest number of Democrats in state houses since 1962. Oh, but we've won the presidency, TWICE, and our president has sided more with the Repubs than his own party on most issues. Not to mention the DLC-backed candidates who supported Shrub's war in 2002 who got sent home because they REFUSED to stand up to the Thief In Chief.

Facts are such troublesome things.

[sangh0]

94. Mondale was a liberal

and not a DLCer. Mondale also lost, while DLCers won.

2) And again, you offer no explanation why. You keep saying those non-voters would vote for a REAL liberal, but they had a chance, and they stayed home. When I pointed that out, you changed your story.

3) Yes, DK is running against Bush* for President. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed seeing as how interested you are in REAL liberals.

I said in GENERAL ELECTIONS, the Dems don't tend to run liberal candidates

That's because in PRIMARIES, the DLC and moderate Dems tend to win, while the more liberal candidates tend to LOSE. I guess it's because all those non-voters don't want to have a choice. Either that, or they expect the more moderate Dems to hand-deliver the liberal candidates.

4) Since 1992, the Dems losing their seats have tended to be the more liberal Dems, and not the DLC Dems. YOu can point to Dem losses, but that does your argument no good if the ones losing are the more liberal Dems, and not the DLC Dems.

Facts are troublesome things.

[claret1995]

67. JUST OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS

* Most Americans agree that so-called "free trade agreements" are negotiated for the benefit of corporations, not those of the workers.

* Most Americans also support a single-payer healthcare system over the mess we currently have.

* Most Americans also believe in building up our educational system, even if it means increasing taxes or foregoing tax cuts.

* Most Americans also agree that large corporations hold too much power in our government and civic life. Unfortunately, they also feel that no matter who is in power, this situation will not change.

ANSWERS

1) MOST PEOPLE STILL SHOP AT WAL-MART

2)MOST PEOPLE WILL NOT WANT TO PAY THE PRICE OF SINGLE PAYER PLAN--THEY WILL LOOK FOR GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE UNCOVERED COSTS
IE; PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS

3)IN MY AREA NEW TAXES ARE REPEATEDLY VOTED DOWN FOR NEW MONEY FOR SCHOOLS

4)MOST WANT ONLY THE OTHER CORPS TO BE OUT OF WASHINGTON POWER NOT THE ONE THAT THEY WORK FOR

[no name no slogan]

93. They ARE open-- where are yours at?

1) So what? I shop at Target because they're the hometown company, they give 5% of their profits away to charity, and they pay their employees a fair wage.

They may shop at Wal-Mart, but they also know that so-called "Free Trade" agreements also cost them good-paying jobs at home. So, given the choice between McJob and no job, they'll take McJob every time. Since McJob doesn't pay well, they're forced to buy cheap crap at Wal-Mart. Vicious circle, no?

2) Most people don't even KNOW the price they'd pay for single-payer healthcare. The Repukes and DLC Dems have them so afraid of "socialized medicine" that they won't even LISTEN to the facts: single-payer is CHEAPER than the current system, it will cover EVERYTHING from medical exams to prescription drugs, cut down on bureaucracy and expenses, and ensure that EVERYONE will be taken care of.

Just look at Medicare. Most people don't even REALIZE that it's a universal healthcare plan for seniors. It is more efficient than its private counterparts, provides necessary coverage for almost everything, and (despite RW talking points) is run very efficiently.

Currently, businesses are paying 12%+ of their expenses for medical coverage for their employees. A plan like Dennis Kucinich's cuts that down to 5%, and expands coverage to include dental and optical, too.

We're already paying for universal single-payer healthcare, we're just not receiving it.

3) So you're saying that, in your area, given the choice between making the schools better and a big tax cut, most people choose the tax cut? It very well could be. Look at Mississippi and Alabama for examples of how that works.

It may be true in certain areas of the country, but overall Americans favor their public schools-- at least, THEIR public school. Most Americans know the value of a good education, and they're oftentimes willing to forgo another tax break for millionaires to improve their schools.

4) You've just reinforced my point: most Americans think that big corporations control the government and public life-- even if they think the one they work for doesn't.

Americans are NOT dumb people. Unfortunately, they can be misled easily by the fearmongers who tell them that they don't need a voice in the system. Even though they pay way too much for medical coverage, they're afraid of "socialized medicine". Even though they curse the quality of their schools, they're afraid to raise the taxes on the undertaxed rich because they somehow think of THEMSELVES as financially "rich", even if they live paycheck to paycheck and drive ten-year-old cars.

[SW FL Dem]

87. I respectfully disagree.

* Most Americans agree that so-called "free trade agreements" are negotiated for the benefit of corporations, not those of the workers.

* Most Americans also support a single-payer healthcare system over the mess we currently have.

* Most Americans also believe in building up our educational system, even if it means increasing taxes or foregoing tax cuts.

* Most Americans also agree that large corporations hold too much power in our government and civic life. Unfortunately, they also feel that no matter who is in power, this situation will not change.

Are these really "fringe" positions? Or are some Democrats too busy buying into the right-wing Talking Points instead of listening to what people are REALLY saying?



I beg to differ on at least two of your points and I am a lib Dem. I don't think a majority of Americans even know what NAFTA is, let alone think that Clinton intended it to benefit corporations.

I also have a real problem with your statement that a majority of Americans think large corporations hold too much power. Most Americans have no clue about the role of corporations in our lives. The only time they focus on corporations is when they are personally affected. They like corporations when their 401Ks go up, they don't like them when they or a family member gets laid off. If a majority of America cared about big corporations, Michael Powell would not be the head of the FCC and media consolidation would have been killed.

Most Americans focus only on themselves. As long as they have a job, can pay the rent/mortgage/car payments, put food on the table and can settle into the Barcalounger after dinner for an evening of reality tv, they are happy. They may answer a survey about their concerns for insurance, but in reality, they don't care unless they are uninsured. Most Americans "say" they care about education, but when it comes to voting to approve a bond measure that will increase their property taxes, many Americans think "I don't have kids in the public schoools, why should I pay more taxes?". The sad truth is that only a very small minority of Americans pay attention to politics. Some people are stupid enough to vote against their own economic interests. Other people don't take the time to educate themselves on the issues. I agree with you that some people think that there is no point in voting. I disagree, however, with anyone that holds that belief.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Other - I neither approve nor disapprove of the DLC

People have the right to form political organizations and advocate for their viewpoints even if I disagree with them. It doesn't require my approval or disapproval.

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. In January 1995 Al From and Will Marshall called the 1994 election.....

a "liberation". The very election which put Congress in Repuke hands and set the stage for the neocon fascism which has since taken over the entire Federal government. Marshall is now, literally, a PNAC'er and is exporting neocon fascist foreign policy into John Kerry's platform.

This is what the DLC is all about. It is a cancer on the Democratic party, and like all cancers, it must be cut out from the body or death will be the result.

[sangh0]

27. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

An argument based on the DLC's using the word "liberation"

Obviously anyone who uses the word "liberation" is a Repuke.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. Obviously they are if....

..they consider an election which set the stage for the total marginalization of the Democratic party to be a "good thing".

The DLC shitballs despise FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, and Carter as much as the Repukes do. Coincidence? I don't think so.

If not for FDR, this country would have become a fascist state in the 30's just as Germany did. And the Democrats held off these traitors for decades. Until these shitbags finally realized that as Republicans, they would never defeat us. But as moles working within this party to destroy it, they might have a chance. Add corporate consolidation of the media to this picture and it becomes complete.

Now the only question I have, is of the 23 DLC operatives here at the moment, which of you KNOW you're advancing fascism, and which of you actually didn't realize how deeply embedded with the enemy you truly were?

I don't believe everyone who has ever been involved with the DLC are neocon Repuke infiltrators. But those in charge of it now are clearly just that. And for those traitors, there will be no mercy.

[sangh0]

37. Ha ha ha ha ha

You sure can read a lot into that one word, can't you?

[ulysses]

38. that would be "disapprove"

:)

[Bill Todd]

39. Funny how that opinion appears to be in the strong majority

despite all the frantic bluster of a couple of respondents here.

- bill

[ulysses]

40. ah, but that's just proof

of how "out of the mainstream" DU is, don'tcha know. They alone hold the keys to reality. ;-)

[sangh0]

42. Well, on DU we all know that being part of a small minority

is the very definition of "mainstream", right?

[ulysses]

51. you're *still* cute

when you try to put words in my mouth. :D

Try again, sangh*.

[Forkboy]

84. Would that be a quip

or constructive criticism?

[sangh0]

95. You're the quipmeister

No one can take your place

[Forkboy]

110. Not with attempts like that

:P

[sangh0]

41. With a total of 87 votes

I suspect someone needs a lesson on validating statistical info.

[Bill Todd]

58. And I suspect someone may need lessons of a considerably more basic nature

For example, in English and/or logic.

Unlike some here, I made no generalization: I simply observed a fact - accurate at the time, and to all appearances still accurate now - relating to the distribution of poll responses.

Nice try, though.

- bill

[sangh0]

83. I suspect you're right

Someone who thnks an INternet poll reveals any "facts" needs extensive lessons of a very basic nature

[Bill Todd]

109. Oh, my - the point seems to have escaped you yet again

The 'fact' in question was the poll result itself (which still seems comfortably consistent as returns keep coming in, with 70% of respondents disapproving of the DLC).

Of course, each individual is free to make of this result - which indeed qualifies as 'fact', unless you believe that it has in some way been tampered with - what they will.

- bill

[goobergunch]

46. 26% approve of the DLC on DU?

I never thought I'd see the day. *shakes head*

[no name no slogan]

49. You too, huh?

Apparently losing both houses of the US congress, the lowest number of Democrats in state houses since 1962, and a party leadership more concerned with money than putting our issues out front isn't that important.

[goobergunch]

52. Heh - no, I'm anti-DLC

and agree completely with what you just said.

[no name no slogan]

60. Sorry-- I wasn't clear

I was trying to say that I too am suprised to see the DLC getting as much support on DU as it did. My how times have changed... :)

[Classical_Liberal]

103. I am not surprised at all

.

[AntiCoup2K4]

50. Sickening isn't it?

26% of Democratic Underground aren't even Democrats :puke:

[G_j]

82. has the "underground" gone elsewhere?

:shrug:

[LSdemocrat]

53. As a think tank, they occasionally have good ideas, but

in terms of political strategy they are remarkably incompetent. Al From also needs to retire/move on, because he is incredibly obsessed with furthering his own ego (see his vicious attacks on Dean).

[salonghorn70]

54. I Approve of the DLC and I AM a Democrat

I did not particularly care for the comment that the 26% approving of DLC are not Democrats. I personally have never voted for a Republican in my life. Is that Democrat enough? Bill Clinton helped start DLC. Is he Democrat enough? A political party is about winning elections. Winning elections is about building coalitions. I don't agree with some Democrats but the idea is to band together on those things that we do agree on.

[goobergunch]

56. Given Clinton's support of DoMA and the Welfare Act

sometimes I question whether he's Democrat enough.

*dons asbestos*

[Kanary]

57. It was a very clever way for the RW to divide the Dems.

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Oddly enough, A Republican friend of mine...

said that the only democrats who care about America are Zell Miller and the DLC.

[Kanary]

65. They sure don't care about poor people of "America"

They'd just as soon that we all die and get out of their way.

Kanary

[sangh0]

79. I work for a charity that helps the poor

and there are more DLC types working here than there are Naderites and Kucinich supporters. For all your blather, I don't see any sign of your "deep concern for the poor" here where the rubber meets the road.

I have heard you complain about how much help you want to recieve. I haven't heard your concern for the poor has led you to do anything that actually helps the poor.

[bushwakker]

62. It's a big tent folks*

[jonnyblitz]

63. we only need one right wing party. they need to come out

of the political closet and admit what they really are...

[ACK]

75. The DLC took all the wrong lessons from Clinton

The DLC failed to understand that Clinton's great appeal was not that he stood on the mushy middle of every issue. If anything, that hurt him but he was able to live as a candidate beyond this. Bill Clinton was tough in his campaigns and understood how to paint the Repukes as the radical extremist dogs they really are. Clinton was a success because he talked to the people in a voice that they no only could understand but could not force themselves to ignore.

Listen, every other article talks about a nation divided.

Well, many times the Dems are a party divided on itself. If we as progressives in general cannot find inspiration and instruction in events like Wellstone's grassroots org., Warner in Va, Clinton in his re-election campaign, and Dean in his ability to use new media to back grassroots efforts the horrible trends will continue. I am here to say that this is not a forgone conclusion even with voter fraud.

That is right we are a nation divided nearly evenly in two. Repubs have the advantage of organization, discipline in the ranks, money and media savvy.

Still, that is no excuse for not having either house of Congress or the Presidency. Dems have bungled the great opportunity of the prosperity of the Clinton years gave us in a idiot's attempt to avoid being associated to Clinton and his scandal.

We do not get back the Congress by being Repuke-lite.

We do need new leadership in the DNC and the DLC.

We need to understand the gut issues of guns and the death penalty and move on.

BUT, we need to keep our progressive heritage in all other positions.

We just have to frame the discussion in a populist voice.

We have to find appealing candidates for the future willing to go into civil service. This sounds cynical but the candidate has to be appealing and I am sorry because that sucks ideally.

We need to, as Michael Moore said appeal to the common man, and let him know why it is in his/her self-interests to vote progressive and Democratic.

It is in the common person's self-interests.

Too many people see this as pandering the selfish but we must understand that so many people out there have lost sooo much that there first concerns MUST be their own family and interests.

We must find the populist voice to our progressive values to appeal to the population of this country.

We have to organize on a grassroots level and build a movement.

We have to utilize our base not piss on it. You can't have a movement without a base.

We have to utilize new media or the mass media will never even recognize you are there.

We must find candidates that will appeal to voters and has the voice to appeal to the nation.

That is all.

+

[camero]

96. DLC= Dems Love Corps

They had best shed that label if they still want to be identified as the party of the working class. Which I really doubt they do.

[MAlibdem]

102. 3rd way group in the Democratic Party

I think a balance between 3rd Way populism/fiscal conservatism (DLC) and old school FDR liberalism is the way to go for the party. Clearly there will be tension, but the best ideas (and ways to get votes) will win and we'll be better off.

[Zorra]

105. What is the purpose of the Democratic Leadership Corporation anyway?

:shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

107. Their purpose is

...for Republican neocons to infiltrate the Democratic party and destroy it from within. It's the classic "frog in a pan of water" theory. As long as you turn up the heat (go to the extreme right) gradually, the frog (or should I say donkey?) doesn't realize he's cooked until it's too late to get out.

[MAlibdem]

108. uh, the neocons started in the democratic party

they got driven out by the vietnam war.

the Third Way (blending market capitalism with the safety net of socialism) isn't all bad. Works pretty well IMO.

[Zorra]

111. This is a nice ideal.

However, history consistently shows that once economic special interests such as market capitalists gain enough power in a legislative entity they assume control over it and then use that legislative entity to primarily serve the interests of the economically priveleged, to the subsequent extreme detriment of the majority of the respective population.

The last three and a half years under Bu$h have shown us exactly what market capitalists do when they assume control of a government.

Market capitalists are interested only in profits, not in people. They have irrevocably proven that they cannot be trusted. It will take many years to undo the damage that market capitalists have done to our country over the past three and a half years, if undoing this damage is even possible.

I want the Democratic Party, and my government, to be run by people, and not corporations. I want my Party and my government to have the best interests of people, and not corporations, as its goal.

The DLC talks a good game, but they are plainly full of shit. Yes, they throw us little bones like professed belief in Jeffersonian principles and promotion of some social programs. But their "Third Way" mission statement is a rhetorical mealy mouthed document that never plainly states what the the goals of the DLC really are. Because their primary goal is to insure that there is no effective opposition to corporate control of the US government.

Compromise, or blending of market capitalism and socialism, is not effectively possible due to the very nature of market capitalism. Just as Communism is not effectively possible due to human nature. The market can only be trusted when it is closely monitored and restricted by the people from doing harm. And the only possible way to do this is to keep market capitalism seperate from government.

We need seperation of commerce and state just as much as we need seperation of church and state.