General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn response to some posters implying Kerry was a DLCer still in 2006....
A sort of response of mine to some comments on the post about DLCErs spoilling libs' campaings...
Well, first of all, Obama has never been a.DLCer. Never ever. You won't find his name in
Secondly, John Kerry, has had been for a few years listed in the DLC's memebers, and was yes, invited to give the keynote adress once.
But when he was the Dem nominee, and moreover, way far after, in 2006, he was not a member anymore of this leading commitee.
In fact, he never fitted in, and never acted like a D LCer, through all of his Senate career. To speak the truth, it was the whole contrary situtations. In the 80's, when Kerry-Brown under-comitee cracked first the BCCI/Iran contra scandal, JK found NO support from them, and fierce opposition, because he was dertinined to expose all the names involved in, even some of powerfull dems lobbyis, close to the DLC, suck like Clarck Clifford.
For that he payed the price and was ostracized for years in DC powerstructure. He never felt at ease within this organization
Then, remember 2003 primaries. Kerry had one point to mortgages is house to fund his campaign, because, even if not only, DNC wasn't willing to help him: in fact the were almost happy to witness his bid fading.He won the nomination not by the help of the power circles, only by working hard and connecting deeply with voters, and conviced them.
So yes, he wasx a DLCer, but opposed many ways to their pushes, and really did act diffently from them. He was maybe endorsed, but the endorsment was unsincere. Do you remember that was he who odvocated for public campaign funding, when the powerstructure nwere so opposed?
Im finishing know, and I hope my little points had given you the opportunity to learn more.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The rest is just as ludicrous.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)He has inherited a lot of money since 2004. His mother was both a Winthrop and a Forbes, when she died (in 2003), Kerry and his siblings became beneficiaries to both of these trusts.
In 2004, he did not have much in the way of liquid assets - so he took out a mortgage. (The other Democrats had claimed that Teresa could not give more than any random person to his campaign -- something they never did in any other race.)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)karynnj
(59,501 posts)You do know that Kerry and Russ Feingold were the ONLY Senate Democrats who refused to endorse Lieberman against Lamont in the primary.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)You do very, very well
What is 'DLC?'
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)and DLC is the Democratic Leading Council. Or something like that. The party's administrating concil.( or Political national council, call it what you want, or the executive office of the party....)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)although the members were comprised of elected Democrats. It was a group started by a guy named Al From in 1985 with the goal of moving the Democratic Party to the right, or as they say 'to the center', away from liberal and progressive policy toward a business friendly, more traditionally Republican stance. They pushed welfare reform, opposed single payer health care. Supported social security privatization, NAFTA, CAFTA, NCLB.
This weeks top point of interest in DLC history is that they lobbied Democrats not to filibuster the nomination of Alito to the SCOTUS. We see what his work is like this week.
Other than the Clintons, John Edwards and John Kerry, it's fun to note that Joe Lieberman was a big DLC guy right up until he endorsed McCain/Palin.
The DLC was dissolved in 2011 and no longer exists. In it's place is an organization called 'The Third Way' which has similar policy views and goals for moving the Democratic Party rightward.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)mylye2222
(2,992 posts)And voted against Rice nomination.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Biden. 25 Democrats voted for filibuster, but it was not enough.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)They did not get enough votes - but it was not for lack of trying. Biden did vote for it, but he was not the one who led it. (Biden also gets very little credit because he was one of the last to agree to vote for the filibuster - and he told the media he would do so just "once".) Many who voted for it, like Clinton, were completely behind closed doors against the filibuster -- but knew that it would be unpopular in the Democratic party to have voted against it. Obama was not a leader on this.
Both Kerry and Kennedy tried to enlist both DU and Daily Kos to get people to lobby their Senators. That was the first time I saw any Senators get that personally involved with the blogs. Skinner actually pinned the request so it stayed at the top. Their offices included a nice description of why Alito was out of the mainstream and the phone numbers for Senate offices. (It is hard to find posts in either place from 2006, but here is one Kerry wrote on filibustering Alito.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/01/26/181678/-Filibuster-Alito
It is true that the DLC in 2006 did lobby the Democrats not to filibuster Alito. Part of it was because they feared a Catholic blacklash if he were filibustered. Kerry was thoroughly trashed in the media for leading this effort - because so many did not want the nomination filibustered.
Kerry had not been on the Judicial committee which did an awful job at the hearing for Alito. However, he and Kennedy led on fighting Alito. Kennedy said in his remarks before the vote:
First of all, I thank my friend, Senator Kerry, for his strong commitment on this issue and his eloquence, passion, and support of this position. This is a time in the Senate that a battle needs to be fought. This vote that we are casting with regard to Judge Alito is going to have echoes for years and years to come. It is going to be a defining vote about the Constitution of the
United States, about our protections of our rights and our liberties in the Constitution of the United States.
Here are excerpts of Kerry's comments that day:
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of my colleagues rely on the ABA's determination that Judge Alito is ``well qualified'' as a reason--sometimes as reason enough--to vote for his confirmation. But there is a reason why an ABA ranking alone is not all that is required to be confirmed to the bench, let alone the highest Court in the land.
With a decision as fundamental--as irrevocable--and as important to the American people as the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, it is important we tell the Americans the full story about the ABA and those rankings.
When making its determination, the ABA considers analytical skills. They consider knowledge of the law. They consider integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. But United States Senators must consider more than these criteria.
What the ABA does not look at is the balance of the Supreme Court. What they do not look at is ideology. What they do not look at is judicial activism. What they do not look at is the consequences of a judge's ideologically driven decisions for those who have been wronged and who just want to get their day in court. No matter how smart he may be, no matter how cleverly his opinions may be written, no matter how skillfully he manipulates the law, their standards don't consider the impact of his decisions on average Americans. In short, they don't measure what will happen to average Americans if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito . That is our job.
None of these measurements consider whether Judge Alito routinely cuts off access to justice for the most disadvantaged Americans--those that need it the most. They don't ask whether he consistently excuses excessive government force when it intrudes into the privacy of individuals. They don't consider that the only statement he has ever made about a woman's right to privacy is that she doesn't have one.
These are things that we must consider here in the United States Senate. These are things that are on the line in this vote this afternoon. And these are the things that I believe most Americans want us to consider. We have to consider whether a judge we confirm to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court will undermine the laws that we have already passed that benefit millions of Americans, like the Family Medical Leave Act. We have to consider whether Judge Alito will place barriers in the way of addressing discrimination, whether he will serve as an effective check on the abuse of executive power, whether he will roll back women's privacy rights or whether he will enforce the rights and liberties that generations of Americans have fought and bled and even died to protect. None of the rights we are talking about came easily in this country. There were always those in positions of power who fought back and resisted. What we need in a Justice is somebody who is sensitive to that history. Senator after Senator has described specific cases and the way in which Judge Alito has had a negative impact in these areas--often standing alone, in dissent against mainstream beliefs.
This long record is a record that gave the extreme right wing cause for public celebration with his nomination. That just about tells you what you need to know. The vote today is whether we will take a stand against ideological courtpacking.
Nothing can erase Judge Alito's record. We all know what we are getting. No one will be able to say, in 5 to 10 years, that they are surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President and Congress need to take a stand now.
I understand that, for many, voting for cloture on a judicial nomination is a very difficult decision, particularly on this Supreme Court nominee. I also understand that, for some, a nomination must be an ``extraordinary circumstance'' in order to justify that vote. Well, I believe this nomination is an extraordinary circumstance. What could possibly be more important than this--an entire shift in the direction of the Court?
This is a lifetime appointment to a Court where nine individuals determine what our Constitution protects and what our laws mean. Once Judge Alito is confirmed, we can never take back this vote. Not after he prevents many Americans from having their discrimination cases heard by a jury. Not after he allows more government intrusions into our private lives. Not after he grants the President the power to ignore Federal law rather than protecting our system of checks and balances. These questions do not arise out of speculation. They do not arise out of mere statement. They arise out of the record the judge has carved for himself.
These issues and the threat that Judge Alito's nomination poses to the balance that the Supreme Court has upheld in all the years that Justice O'Connor has served there--all of this constitutes an ``extraordinary circumstance.''
I understand that many Senators oppose this nomination, and I believe the vote tomorrow will indicate that if we are not successful today. They say that they understand the threat Judge Alito poses, but they argue that somehow a vote to extend debate, when there have been a mere 30 hours or so of debate, is different. I do not believe it is. I believe it is the only way that those of us in the minority have a real voice in the selection of this Justice or any Justice. It is the only way we can fully complete our constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is the only way we can be a voice for those Americans who do not have a voice today. It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel will certainly cause irreversible harm to the principles and values that make a real difference in the lives of average Americans. It is the only way we can keep faith with our belief, and the Constitution's promise, of equal justice. That is a position that we can and we should defend anywhere, at any time.
I thank those who have stood to be counted in this effort and who will continue to take a stand with their vote. I particularly thank my senior colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)His voting record never looked like the rest of the DLC. He, like Kennedy favored single payer - something Bernie Sanders says that only about 10 Senators did.
He was absolutely against privatization of social security - and accused Bush (who denied it in 2004, but pushed it in early 2005) of wanting to so so. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-17-kerry-florida_x.htm
He voted against CAFTA and worked on the Finance committee to add a provision that the AFL?CIO, thought was good.. Most of my old links went to Kerry's Senate site, but here is one - http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Statement-of-AFL-CIO-President-John-Sweeney-on-Bus
As to 2006, Kerry was clearly thinking of running for President again - yet Al From speaking of the DLC members running listed them as Hillary Clinton, Vilscak, Bayh, and Warner. Other than Clinton, Kerry outpolled them, yet was not listed.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)He never acted as a DLC sheeple.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)the DLC is a neo-liberal group.
Obama claims to be a "New Democrat."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19862.html
The "New Democrats" are a neo-liberal group directly connected to the DLC. In 1990, the DLC changed the name of their magazine from The Mainstream Democrat to The New Democrat. The "New Democrat Network" split off from the DLC in 1996. They are still closely connected neo-liberals.
So while we were reminded ad nauseum throughout the '08 primaries that Obama is not DLC!!!!!!!!, anyone who paid attention saw that he was a neoliberal, and a good fit even if he wasn't an official member. As a matter of fact, one of DU's staunchest DLCers and HRC supporter mentioned on at least one occasion that I remember how funny he found that claim, since Obama was such a good fit for the DLC.
John Kerry was not just a DLCer. He was also a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)The RW média POLITICO
LWolf
(46,179 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Another world famous "this is how things are because I say so" post.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)is that infantile.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)President Barack Obama firmly resists ideological labels, but at the end of a private meeting with a group of moderate Democrats on Tuesday afternoon, he offered a statement of solidarity.
“I am a New Democrat,” he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session.
The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a “pro-growth Democrat” during the course of conversation.
