We need the DLC

[ringmastery]

Or would you rather the 20 or so senators and 100 or so house members bolt and become republicans? How would we ever get a majority in either house then?

[w13rd0]

1. We need the DLC...

...so that we can keep those pork barrel snarfind corporate whores in our tent. Yeah, we need the DLC...to poop on. F'k the DLC.

[Alerter_]

27. the DLC lost Congress, but the real danger of the DLC is this...

By aping the Republicans, we have opened up letting the GOP dump Bush and running someone like McCain. Since we haven't drawn sharp lines between us and the GOP, the only issues we have are anti-Bush sentiment and social issues (read, abortion and gay marriage) which hurt us as much as they help us.

[ulysses]

2. ...like we need a hole in the head.

Party moderates and centrists, fine, but we need to be ever closer to Republican talking points in a time when the Republicans are foundering under the weight of their own hubris and stupidity?

No.

[ringmastery]

4. again

how would we get anything passed if the centrists feel marginalized and bolt for the republican party?

How does a republican filibuster proof majority in both houses sound to you?

[ulysses]

5. check out Zorra's post #3. n/t

[sangh0]

11. #3 is not an answer

it's a question

Also, Zorra asks about Democratic politicians, while the post you responded to spoke of centrist voters.

[Zorra]

29. How can the topic question be answered if no one understands why

these Congresspeople would become republicans if it were not for the DLC?

[sangh0]

32. You're confusing two different ideas

1) Moderate Democratic politicians would bolt for the repukes

2) Moderate *VOTERS* would bolt for the repukes.

wrt #1 - I don't think that DLC politicians will convert to repukes if the DLC disappeared. I just don't think the DLC is going to disappear so long as there are moderate Dem politicians who agree with the DLC's moderate policies.

wrt #2 - It's happened before, and it can happen again

[Zorra]

46. What are the policies/ideas that the DLC espouses that moderate Dem

politicians agree with?

Why would moderate voters jump ship and vote republican if it were not for the DLC?

What specific ideals and policies does the DLC espouse that attracts moderate voters and keeps them voting Democrat?

Thanks.

[sangh0]

48. The DLC's main points were

1) Be strong on military power. Don't be afraid to use military power to protect/maintain.extend our interests

2) Gun control - don't push it too much. It's hurting Dems with moderates and independents

3) Welfare - same as #2

[Zorra]

53. Thanks.

[NashVegas]

63. You Forgot Media Consolidation, Technocracy and Other Corporate Giveaways

..

[sangh0]

68. Not their main points

.

[NashVegas]

73. Not Their Campaign Points

But their governing MO.

[sangh0]

76. Pay attention

Zorra wasn't asking about "governing MO"

[bigbillhaywood]

100. #1 read "our" as "corporate" nt

[Zorra]

144. Is # 1 the reason why the DLC endorsed the invasion of Iraq?

And do you think most moderates agree that the invasion was justified?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=65&contentid=252474

[Az]

12. Fine

It will wake a few people up. Here are your choices.

A long slow slide into oblivion all the while losing members to the left (Nader et al) while the republicans control the agenda.

Or a stand for what we really believe in. We may lose some seats initially but the excesses of the right will wake enough people that their time will be done. And if we are seen actually standing up for what we claim to represent then the nausia people associate with Dems currently (ask some non dems what they think of us) will begin to disipate.

What the center and all those nonvoters want is for someone to stand up and really champion ideas that make sense. The DLC has us twisting ourselves into contortions trying to appease people with no clear sense of what they want. This can only mean that we wind up having no clear sense of identity.

Add to this the begging for money from the corporations that would love to see nothing better than the voice of the people silenced and you have all you need for a new Feudal system to take hold. All the while preserving a few wins for the name Democrat if not the ideals.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. I don't believe this marginalizes centrists.

. The DLC represents corporate money. Not centrists.

[Zorra]

3. If these members of Congress are Democrats, why would they become

republicans if there were no DLC?

[librechik]

84. we don't have either house, even with the DLC.I say throw it up in the air

and let the chips fall to the right or the left.I don't care which side they fall on--as long as it ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THEIR CONSTITUENCIES.

Maybe we should start over from scratch. If I have to pander to Bush-lites just to get them to stay in the oldest and fairest party in the country, they're whores, so screw em.

[jpgray]

6. They need to be defeated and removed in the primaries

Not simply replaced with Republicans--that's the real trick, and in the meantime we are so divided on policy, the bolstering of our numbers in Congress they bring seems more and more worthless.

(one of those many problems jpgray has not the smallest scrap of an idea how to fix)

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. Should Kerry be defeated?

He is a New Democrat.

[jpgray]

14. No, Kerry should be elected

Kerry won the primary. If progressives were unable to win out among only other Democrats, it's pretty likely that the general election will treat a moderate better than an outright progressive. But it rests on Kerry to start moving this country back to the left, and if he doesn't do it, he will be in trouble come 2008. His campaign should be moderate, as that seems to be what wins in this country right now, but he should govern to the left as much as possible.

But Kerry does not really match my views on most issues--but I want him to help get the debate leftward so I can get a candidate in that I agree with more. And considering where the country is right now, we could do a lot worse than Kerry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Perhaps Clinton's model of campaigning and governing

is the best to follow. It was quite successful.

[Classical_Liberal]

20. He's to the right of Clinton.

. Particularly on foreign policy.

[jpgray]

21. Not entirely--Newt's acquisition of Congress took place in those years

Not to mention the Republicans acquired a majority of governorships, all in 1994--a nasty year for Democratic incumbents. Clinton was skilled enough to ride this out, but many others were not. Then we are dealing with the problems of media consolidation right now, part of which began under Clinton.

This is not to marginalize Clinton's presidency or his accomplishments, but his presidency was not marked by significant strategic gains for Democrats.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. The DLC (From & Marshall) called 1994 a "liberation"

Why is it that everytime the neocons "liberate" something, it turns into a fucking disaster which causes great damage to this country?

[jpgray]

25. Well, they had to call it something

'We all screwed up' doesn't have much of a ring to it.

[ulysses]

18. two things, both of which have been pointed out

repeatedly by DU's moderates and centrists:

1. Not all DLCers are alike. Quite.

2. We're left with the choice we're left with.

Should Kerry be defeated this year? No. Should we, and can we, do better? Yes.

[el_gato]

7. It's time they step aside, they are destroying the party

The DLC is responsible for the state of the Democratic party
today.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. That's right

..and it's no accident either.

[wyldwolf]

15. what state is that?

[sangh0]

17. They won the last three Presidential elections

along with numerous seats in the Senate and the House, which seems to really piss off some DUers.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. What branch of government do we currently control?

?

[sangh0]

33. The liberals lost the elections

that's why we don't control the govt. Blame Nader is you need someone to blame

[Classical_Liberal]

37. Nader didn't lose congress or the SC in anyway.

. Al Gore polled strongest after his populist speech and the convention. Then he ran to the corporate center, and the election drew close. Nader wouldn't have been a factor if Al Gore hadn't chickened out.

[sangh0]

41. So what

,

[w13rd0]

58. What is it with Republicans....

...why can't they ever accept responsibility for their own stupid decisions? Why always blaming Clinton, or the liberals, or the gays? What's up with that?

Oh, wait, we're talking about the DLC. Oh, wait, never mind...

[redqueen]

59. LMAO

Looks like economic policy isn't the only way the DLC parrots repubs!

[Ardee]

132. you have really lost it, havent you?

Won numerous seats my fat white ass......

[redqueen]

31. "numerous seats in the Senate and the House"

Really? I was given the distinct impression that the losses the Democrats suffered in Congress during the years you speak of were historically at or near an all-time-high.

Can anyone clarify?

[sangh0]

34. Sure

It was the more liberal Dems who lost during those years, not the DLCers.

[redqueen]

36. Possibly

But to take that at face value is rather foolish. The media is heavily skewed toward the right and their apologists, which could explain the results.

If that's even true, that is. :)

[sangh0]

40. Look at the Dem primary candidates

Many of them DLCers. All of them won their last election. Edwards, Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt.

[ibegurpard]

39. That's completely bogus.

The "more liberal" dems come from safe districts. The ones that got booted were from the south and moderate to conservative leaning districts. Do you even believe half of what you write or do you just enjoy being contrary?

[sangh0]

43. Like Mondale?

Who ran for Wellstone's seat. Obviously, they would vote for a liberal, but they didn't elect Mondale.

Remember Cynthia McKinney? I guess she was one of those southern "moderate to conservatives" DLCers who lost.

[ibegurpard]

44. VERY bad examples

Those elections had NOTHING to do with policy and EVERYTHING to do with inflamed rhetoric. Now, if Wellstone had lived and lost (Mondale being last minute replacement coupled with the manufactured Republican outrage over the Wellstone funeral were BIG factors) and McKinney had never said the "controversial" things she said and lost then you might have an argument. But they didn't and you don't.

[redqueen]

45. DLC candidates are 'whore-media friendly'!

:hi:

[sangh0]

50. LOL

You dont point out the liberals who won or the DLCers who lost, but you think my examples are "bad". You don't have a leg to stand on, so all you'll do is attack.

Mondale being last minute replacement coupled with the manufactured Republican outrage over the Wellstone funeral were BIG factors

I see, you want a liberal who never says anything liberal (ie "controversial")

[redqueen]

55. How about an admission

that as long as corporate whores control the vast majority of mainstream media outlets, only fellow corporate whores will receive anything even slightly resembling fair treatment?

[sangh0]

60. Like Wellstone

Wellstone won several elections and I don't think he was a corporate whore.

I think the world is a little more complicated than that.

[redqueen]

67. Is he not the proverbial "Exception which proves the rule"?

I think yes.

[sangh0]

69. You want more names?

There are liberals in Congress. They are not all "corporate whores"

[redqueen]

71. As you said, the world is a complicated place

That complexity should not be used as an excuse by those who wish to ignore reality.

Do you believe the media to be biased towards or against liberals, sangh0?

[sangh0]

72. I think the media

is biased against liberals and Democrats.

[redqueen]

74. But if you split Democrats into two groups -

DLC'ers and the more liberal variety...

are they both treated equally unfairly?

[sangh0]

78. No can do

You can't split the Dems into two groups. The Dems are already split into several groups. The Democratic Party is a coalition.

IOW, life is not that simple

[redqueen]

87. Agreed

But, for the purposes of this discussion, in which we're observing some of the features of the political landscape after the takeover of the Democratic Party by the DLC, we must. Or, we can abandon discussion.

:shrug:

[sangh0]

91. Then maybe we should

because I don't think the DLC is in control of the party. I think their influence is on the wane, and has been for several years.

[redqueen]

96. You may be right

Perhaps their attempt to control the outcome of the primaries (nasty memos about Dean and the like) was their last, dying attempt to control the party.

[ibegurpard]

57. Sorry

I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless Sangha circular argument.

[sangh0]

61. Translation

"I can't even name one liberal who won"

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

70. Translation

"All I can do is call sangha names"

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[Ardee]

134. Mary Landrieu

and she did it when the DLC withheld campaign funding because she refused to toe the DLC right wing line...unlike some who did indeed toe that line and went down to defeat.....

Though responding to Sangha is such a waste of time......a leading neoconservate apologist for the decline and fall of the democratic party.He cares not a fig for the way the rightward turn is destroying his party, just as long as it stays to the right all the way down............

[mot78]

79. THey didn't vote for the Mondale because of the Wellsonte funeral

Which it's was distorted by the RW.

[sangh0]

81. Can you name the liberal

who won't have their positions distorted by the RW?

[redqueen]

88. So because mainstream media

is dominated by souless cash-only whores, liberals should give up and cede ground to centrists?

[sangh0]

92. No

.

[RapidCreek]

112. Can you name the liberals who won't have their positions

distorted by the DLC?

RC

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. In the House, at least, it was the less liberal people who lost

The members of the progressive caucus, except for Cynthia McKinney, did just fine.

[TreeHuggingLiberal]

8. Is the DLC one of the parties in our two party system..

or am I missing something. If any of the "DLC" elected officials would bolt to the Republicans we don't need them anyway.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Don't want them to be repubs but must all of the leadership

be mainly moderates? Why are there not more Dennis Kuciniches in that group calling the shots?

[sangh0]

16. Because

most people are in the middle somewhere, and in a democracy that leads to most elected politicians coming from the middle too.

Why are there not more Dennis Kuciniches in that group calling the shots?

Please review the primary returns

[Bandit]

28. The middle has steadily moved to the right the last couple of decades

What was the middle under Eisenhower is the far far left by today's standards. We need to move the middle back to the middle and then I will agree with you.

[sangh0]

38. talk about

non-sequitors

[Bandit]

49. Kind of like the meaning of "is"

We need the middle but we also need to nudge it leftward. It once was there and can be again. Unless you feel it is in the proper position and then I would have to strongly disagree with you.

[sangh0]

51. more

non-sequitors?

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. The primary returns mean diddly about true voter preferences

unless the DNC was using ranked voting and I missed somehow that fact.

For example, I am voting for Kerry in November. Does that mean I want him or support his policies? No. So the numbers will be skewed by me and others like me who are voting against Bush rahter than for Kerry.

[sangh0]

35. weak argument

The primaries are qualitatively different than GE's. You had plenty of choices in the primaries.

[GreenPartyVoter]

47. No, you have the exact same arugment in the primaries

as in the generals.

"Who do I think can best beat the GOP"?

That's how Kerry got the early coronation. Not because a slew of people were dying for him to be president on his own merits but just because he is not Bush and because people were told he had the best chance against him.

This is not a slam against Kerry, mind you. He is ok in his own way and I would prefer him to Bush. I am just pointing out that you really can't determine what the electorate wants because we have a screwed up system for determining that fact.

[sangh0]

52. No you don't

"Who do I think can best beat the GOP"?

You can vote for whoever you want, and for whatever reason you want.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. And technically you can in the generals too

"You can vote for whoever you want, and for whatever reason you want."

[sangh0]

62. Yep

.

[ibegurpard]

26. We need centrists

to help bridge the gap and formulate good public policy between the left and the right. Both parties need them. What we don't need is an organization of people trying to dump both people and past issues on policy that are important to large constituencies for the Democratic Party.

[GreenPartyVoter]

107. Yeah, I have no problem with moderates unless they:

1) are corporate-owned

2) take up more seats in Congress than they represent ratio-wise. If the electorate is more progressive/liberal it ought to be reflected by the elected officials.

[Cheswick2.0]

42. to disintegrate and blow away like dust

[Q]

56. Supporters of the DLC...

...act like they're a separate friggin party. What's up with that? I thought we were ALL Democrats? But the DLCers talk about liberals and progressives as if we were the ENEMY.

- And then we have some suggesting that DLCers in DC would go to the GOP if the DLC's influence was removed from the party. Now we know why they call themselves 'new' Democrats: they're trying to start a 'new' party by removing all the old progressive voices. In other words...they're creating a second Republican party.

- The DLC and their RWing enablers are going to be in some deep shit after the next election. They won't have the ABB excuse to cover their asses and will be FORCED to earn votes by pissed off progressives.

[sangh0]

66. Opponents of the DLC...

...act like they're a separate friggin party. What's up with that? I thought we were ALL Democrats? But the anti-DLCers talk about Democrats as if we were the ENEMY.

- And then we have some suggesting that anti-DLCers in DC would go to the Nader if the anti-DLCer's influence was removed from the party. Now we know why they call themselves 'old' Democrats: they're trying to start a 'grand old' party by removing all the new non-progressive voices. In other words...they're creating a second Republican party.

- The anti-DLCers and their RWing enablers are going to be in some deep shit after the next election. They won't have the DLC excuse to cover their asses and will be FORCED to earn votes by pissed off Americans

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

89. snicker

The DLC might as well pack their bags now. They're gone after we vote ABB in November.

Yeah. You'll personally see to it!

[sangh0]

95. Be careful, wyldwolf!!

- Q might call you arrogant

- Then Q will do to you what he plans to do to the DLC

:scared:

[wyldwolf]

82. It is always anti-DLC'ers who start flame threads like this one

[bigbillhaywood]

105. Eh, self-delete

[Ardee]

135. If you bothered

to look at the thread starter rather than stare into that mirror you might note it was a prop for your beloved DLC......anybody else thinking ...."moran"?

[redqueen]

65. About the DLC...

This was posted in another thread... too good to miss so I'm sharing it here as well.

http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
The Progressive, October 2000, by John Nichols

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

more... much more...

[Q]

77. This is EXACTLY the groups the DLC has abandoned:

"organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians."

- As the Black Commentator has written on many occasions...they see the DLC as the 'right wing' of the party. They're bringing back the old racial fears and using the rhetoric of the far right to scare the faithful away from those who support the aforementioned groups.

- But many are wondering why the DLC is encouraging Democrats to abandon the VERY GROUPS that helped create the party in the first place?

[sangh0]

83. MOst of those groups aren't liberal

labor, blacks and minorities tend to be fairly conservative, particularly on most social issues. Furthermore, with exception of welfare, the DLC's candidates tend to be the strongest on their issues

[Q]

90. Labor and Blacks are conservative?

- That's another mistake in judgment by the DLCers. The DLC is betting that Labor and Blacks will give up their principles so that conservative dems can win...and then go on to ignore them. You must not get out much. Try reading the Black Commentator and similiar websites. Try reading the Union websites. You'll see they want NOTHING to do with the DLC or those who want to trade THEIR hard-earned rights for more DLC power.

- You're making this shit up. Unions and Blacks (from what I've read) don't want anything to do with the right wing pandering DLC.

[sangh0]

97. Don't you know any blacks or union members?

Blacks are pretty conservative on a number of issues, such as school vouchers, GLBT rights, abortion, charter schools, and prayer in schools.

Union members, many of whom are Catholic, are conservative on a number of issues like abortion, welfare, and most importantly, gun control.

[bigbillhaywood]

99. I'll speak to this...

I'm a union member and I'm pro-gun rights. I don't think this is necessarily a "right" or "left" view, it just so happens that in this strange land we call America, the right-wing Republicans have championed the cause of gun-ownership rights (look around the rest of the world and you won't find the same sort of ideological split on this issue-- of course we also may be the only country with something like the 2nd Amendment).

We have a saying when one of our members wants to vote Republican on the gun rights issue--"Fine, but are you going to eat your gun?" Bascially for us economic issues regarding the working-class in general and our members in particular are top priority. And you will find no Democratic Party constituency more progressive on economic issues than unions. You'll also find no consituency that turns out votes for the Dems like we do.

And the DLC has betrayed us and people of color on those basic economic issues. They allow the corporations to maintain a stranglehold over the party, and minimize the influnce of labor and ethnic minorities. Fuck the DLC!

[Q]

101. What stereotypes are these?

- What you're suggesting is tantamount to a 'chicken voting for Col. Sanders'. I'm convinced that the DLC must think that Blacks and Workers are stupid.

- I'm not going to sterotype Blacks like you're trying to do. Instead...I prefer to look at what they write and say...how they perceive a world still trying to oppress them.

- I've been a union supporter for as long as I've been a Democrat...about thirty years now. There ARE NO 'conservative' unions. It's a contradiction in terms...and if conservative unions DO somehow exist...they're working FOR THE COMPANY and not the worker.

- You're still making shit up. You and the DLC want us to think America is turning conservative so WE must join. America may LOOK conservative at times...but that's only because THEY own the media and they've taken OUR voice away and replaced it with empty promises and propaganda.

[bigbillhaywood]

103. Well...

There are unions that are conservative relatively speaking (jingoist, pro-war, anti-immigrant, etc.). And there are certainly conservative union members. Our union just lost a shop to an independent because the mostly white male workforce thought there were too many "spicks" and "niggers" running the union and that we should be supporting "our commander in chief" rather than criticizing him and the war.

However, the fact remains that, economically at least, unions are the most progressive constituency of the Democratic Party. Pointing out that some union members hold conservative views on things does not in any way change the progressive economic interests of their organizations.

[redqueen]

104. "You and the DLC want us to think America is turning conservative ..."

I've noticed that many DLC supporters seem to believe this as well. Not sure yet if it's ignorance or intentionally deceitful corporate propoganda.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. Labor, blacks, and Latinos are SOCIALLY conservative, not

economically conservative.

Yet the DLC insists on economic conservatism to please its corporate sponsors.

[Finch]

113. Ha Ha Ha...

Yeah that coalition will win you an election!

But that’s besides the point, the DLC is committed far more to ordinary working Americans, Latinos, African Americans, gays and lesbians... because the DLC has polices that leave people better off that leave people with more choices about how they can act.
Unlike many Liberals who throw their hands in the air and decry the injustice of it all and then suggest the same polices that failed back in the 1970's! What is the new idea from the far left that will work?...

I'll tell you! Nothing no new idea has come out of the Far Left since the 1960's. The DLC are the radicals and the people committed to egalitarianism and the building of communities because their polices work and they actually listen to what people say rather than shouting them down with tired, irrelevant ideological crap.

In short the DLC are the principled ones because they have the honestly and courage to introduce new and exciting polices that really help people, Rather than wasteful and bankrupted old schemes that just don’t work in today’s world.

[bigbillhaywood]

115. Organized labor wins you elections every year!

If you didn't have our voter turnout machinery, the Democrats would go the way of the Whigs. We're the only national grassroots organization of ordinary working Americans you got. Yeah, keep thumbing your nose at us. Even many battered wives eventually get around to not putting up with the abuse anymore and fight back.

[Q]

123. Nothing personal...

...but you sound like a commercial for the DLC. No substance...just slogans and empty promises.

- The new policies you refer to offer nothing more than crumbs for the people. The ruling class and the rich still get the loaf of bread and everyone else is forced to fight for what falls off their table. It's trickle down with a brand new label.

- 'Wasteful and bankrupted schemes' sounds like something that would come right off the DLC website.

- As for 'no new ideas coming from the 'far left' since the 60s'...the ideas we had were supposed to last as long as thinking, caring people still led the party.

[Nlighten1]

85. 95 to 3 says it doesn't matter anyway.

Fuck the DLC. We need to DESTROY them not coddle them.

[slinkerwink]

93. no, we don't.

[bigbillhaywood]

94. Working people need the DLC like a hole in the head. nt

[slinkerwink]

98. here's a post from Tocquedeville on the dailykos on how the DLC ruined us

TocqueDeville
Mon May 24th, 2004 at 16:36:03 EDT

Kos is right, the DLC is destructive to the party and taking them on at this time is good politics.
In the replies to Kos' post some argued that Clinton's two terms validate the DLC agenda as being what the country wants and the way to success. This is incorrect. As John Nichols pointed out in The Capital Times:


DLC operatives assumed key roles in Clinton's campaign. And they simply gritted their teeth when the 1992 Democratic nominee jettisoned the DLC line for the more populist "putting people first" rhetoric that would ultimately carry him to the White House with crucial support drawn from labor, minority, and feminist constituencies.
Clinton's 1992 scramble away from DLC language came as no surprise. He can read a public opinion survey as well as the next politician. As Democratic pollster and Clinton confidant Stanley Greenberg noted several years ago, the President's approval numbers did not begin to rise "until he rejected the advice of conservatives of the party" and began to adopt populist and distinctly non-DLC rhetoric on issues ranging from tax policy to protecting Social Security.

Clinton learned early on the dangers of following the DLC line too closely. After the 1992 election, giddy New Democrats inside and outside the Administration did much to define the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. The result was the worst Democratic electoral setback of the century--a sweeping rejection of the party caused, in no small measure, by the failure of millions of working class voters to go to the polls. They were angered by Clinton's over-the-top backing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a DLC signature issue.

This is just one glimpse of the pattern: the more Democrats align with the DLC, the more they lose.

And that's not even taking in the Nader factor. Just as Nader may be George Bush's best friend, the DLC is Nader's.

Read this article. You will see that the DLC is merely a proxy for corporate special interest to plant their tentacles firmly into the Democratic policy agenda.

Democrats unafraid to be Democrats, IMHO, means Democrats rediscovering their inner FDR. The New Deal created the middle class and a vast majority of loyal Democratic voters came with it.

The DLC's "New Centrism" created the Contract on America. "Ridiculed" is right.

Diaries :: TocqueDeville's diary ::

[PATRICK]

102. Clinton alone is the model

Like General Lee alone WAS the South. Embracing weakness, not fighting except pettily among ourselves, those core elements of the organizational DLC would not have us move "left" but be "Left Behind".
Whether they have a clue this is appeasement with fundamentally anti-democratic forces or a clue about anything else is irrelevant. This is not about ideology but connection with reality.

If you might as well be working for the GOP and have the temerity to whine everytime Democrats try to win basic freedoms for America, then you have no right to use the tragic misnomer "leadership" in the DLC appellation. They are as hypocritical in concept as the typical GOP think tanks and catch phrases.

Oyxmorans.

But this does not include real Dems and great pols like Clinton nor some of the positive aspects of the DLC philosophy.

For example, the big spending entitlements of the FDR majority Dems is legendary but has been wisely tempered by reality(not really the brainstorm of the New Dems). The solution is not to be Eisenhower niggardly pro-corporate topdown spending pump priming GOPers but to be WISE and prudent in achieving goals- not a pork for power ploy.

Missing the point will be missing the opportunity of a century.

[Finch]

106. I Agreed ringmastery !!!!!

I'm a moderate Dem (Think Evan Bayh on social issues, John Edwards on trade and John McCain on foreign policy)... if the entire of the DLC where to bolt (which they never would because the moderate Dems have always been the more loyal and committed and far less petulant... then this new Moderate Centre-Left Party would be the second Party the Democratic Rump led by some Ultra-Liberal Like San Fran Unelectable Nancy Pelosi would be a real fringe group... such a collapse might actually have the same effect on the GOP the ultra-conservatives breaking away and the likes of Arlen Spectre and Oylmpia Snowe taking over... with the extremists banished to the fringes politics would become less acrimonious and this country might be a darn sight better place...

That said the DLC has been the leading intellectual power house within the party, presenting a raft of new and radical polices while all the left has ever come up with has been recycled, Tried and failed measures that bear no realisation to the real world, further more it has been the DLC which has realised (unlike the extremists of either party) that the electorates aspirations and attitudes change and that far more than that the solutions to the problems facing the nation and the means to solve them are always changing.

The irrational hatred of the DLC on this board is beyond stupid!

[ibegurpard]

108. Your attitude (which sounds pretty much like DLC press releases)

Is the reason they are hated.

[Q]

116. When did the election take place to vote the DLC into power?

- The DLC has TAKEN power without getting a concensus. Rank and file Democrats were never ASKED if they wanted the DLC to grab the reins of the party and run right with it. This is a group...not unlike the Neocons now in power...that simply took control of the party using fistfuls of money and character assassination of progressives.

- Stupid or not. The DLC is only beginning to feel the heat. They should get used to the idea that liberals and progressives won't allow themselves to be steamrolled the way the Neocons forced out the real conservatives and took over the GOP.

[wyldwolf]

118. They're called "elections."

Every DLC elected official was indeed elected by the people.

[bigbillhaywood]

119. Elections do not = democracy. n/t

[wyldwolf]

121. so you think that every DLC member was involved in election fraud?

[bigbillhaywood]

126. Not what I said. You don't need an election to be fraudulent

for it to be undemocratic. I'm thinking outside the box here.

[wyldwolf]

128. you're thinking WAAAAY outside the box there...

..in other words, if an election doesn't go your way, it must be undemocratic.

[bigbillhaywood]

133. Bzzz...I'm sorry, wrong answer. Democracy requires much

more than elections-- other structural, social and cultural mechanisms must be in place. Let me take an example from my hometown-- Mayor Menino has run unopposed for many years because he is an incumbent sitting on a huge war chest. Elections are held, but can we really call this democracy? If corporations (autocratic institutions) are controlling the political process on a national level (influencing who gets nominated, where the campaign funding is funneled and to which candidates, what issues are brought to the forefront come election time), then voting (especially in a two party system where both parties are beholden to autocratic institutions like corps.) is not really an exercise of democratic power so much as a ratification of the agenda of corporate America.

By the way may I suggest "Who Will Tell the People?" by William Greider, an excellent analysis of the decidedly undemocratic influence of corporations on both parties.

[wyldwolf]

137. Bzzz... wrong answer? How incredibly original of you

Elections are won and lost on organization.

The problem is, your type has problems organizing so, instead of learning, you want to change the process to conform more to your abilities.

Elections have always been about money and organization.

[bigbillhaywood]

141. "My type"?

I've organized workers against some of the largest multinational corporations and won. Lost many too, that's the way it goes. I always learn from my organizational errors and adapt strategy accordingly, but sometimes the objective conditions are such that you lose anyways. I've been thrown in the can twice and had the shit knocked out of me for my organizational activities. Seen other organizers beat bloody and one poisoned. You presume to know much about other posters on an anonymous message board, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

142. yeah, your type

Despite your stated credentials, it is obvious what your "type" is on DU, just as it is obvious what mine is.

[bigbillhaywood]

143. Then your statement about the organizational abilities and

learning capablities of "my type" is either grossly overstated at best or categorically false at worst.

[wyldwolf]

145. More like spot on

When did the last far lefty get elected to a national office?

[bigbillhaywood]

146. Ever considered this may have nothing or little to

do with the organizational capabilities of individuals who have a "leftist" philosophy? The causal relationship you are positing is that the left is moribund because all leftists are organizationally incapable. Without evidence, this argument is suspect. Organizational abilities of leftists certainly do play a role in terms of "the left's" success or failure, but there are many other objective factors at play, many more important than the individual composition of left activists.

But if it feeds your ego to believe the reason "your type" is in power and "my type" is not is because all you "DLC-types" are superior to us "far lefty types", then please go ahead with your over-individualistic Social Darwinist "master of my fate" nonsense and be happy.

Also, just for the record, I do think the left is lacking in organizational leadership and that many big mistakes have been made, but I'm not arrogant enough to believe that all we need is the right leadership and organization and everything will fall into place-- I'm not a Bolshevik despite what you may believe. Organization must be improved for the time objective material conditions are ripe-- but those conditions must exist.

[wyldwolf]

148. ever considered answering the question?

[Finch]

124. Oh....

"Elections do not = democracy."

...lol lol lol lol.... :silly:

Now thats a funny statement!

[bigbillhaywood]

125. Perhaps, but accurate. Any serious student of political

theory will tell you the same. DeTocqueville did not believe elections=democracy, nor did Franklin, Jefferson, nor many democratically-minded political theorists afterwards.

[Finch]

138. I get your piont...

...I disagree... but it was a funny statment imho :)

Man oh Man is this thread getting bloody... once in while though I and what ever other moderate Dems are on this forum seem to always end up in a fight... :)

[redqueen]

130. Especially not when corporate media has a stranglehold on information

People not knowing that the first Gulf War was as needless and unjustified as the first is proof that the mainstream media is INFOtainment delivered by corrupt bought and sold whores.

How we're supposed to accept as fair anything that has happened as even a partial result of skewed media whoredom is a pretty tall order.

[Finch]

131. The DLC do not "control the Party"...

If the DLC where completely dominant then Jo Lieberman would have won the nomination no someone as liberal as Kerry. This argument is just becoming silly and irational...

1.) The DLC would not go and join the GOP if Extremists took over the Democratic Party.

2.)The DLC does not control of the Democratic Party.

3.)The DLC is a pretty broad organization and yet has been the most radical intellectual force on the left for well over a decade.

Finally Moderate Democrats have proven themselves far more consistently Loyal to the Party over time than their more liberal comrades. Added to this most of the Democratic Party are moderates (broadly speaking), the Likes of Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Jo Biden and Dick Gephardt pretty much reflecting the band of what constitutes the "mainstream" of the party... not reprobates like Nancy Pelosi and at times Barbra Boxer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. Your question reminds me of the time when

one of the colleges I taught at decided to crack down on residents of college-owned houses who issued blanket party invitations (notices on utility poles) to the entire population of a major metropolitan area and basically held drunkenn orgies featuring massive vandalism, gang rapes, knife fights, earth shattering noise (music so loud you couldn't tell which direction it was coming from), and nasty bodily fluids all over the lawns and floors.

After spending thousands of dollars on repairs and lawyers, the college announced that henceforth only students of the college and two signed-in guests per student would be allowed to attend parties in college-owned housing. Residents would be billed for any repair or clean-up costs incurred.

It was the era of "You've Got to Fight for Your Right to Party" (my least favorite pop phenomenon of all time), so the students held a rally to protest the rules.

"Five hundred students will leave the college if these rules go through!" was the rallying cry. That was nearly a four of the student body, so it sounded like a credible threat.

When asked about that threat, the Dean of Students simply shrugged and said, "Great. We'll replace them with five hundred students who actually want to study."

That's sort of how I feel about threats that dozens or hundreds of Democratic elected officials will become Republicans if the DLC loses its influence. If they can really become Republicans so easily, then they need to be replaced with elected officials who actually have principles.

[Finch]

117. That doesn't answear my assertion...

Members of the DLC won't go and join the Republicans, a few Zell Miller types may... many democratic voters however would try to the GOP though…but if the extremists took over the party a few Moderates might break away and form another party but most would stay and fight for the party they love, as would I, look at what happened to the British Labour Party to see what happens when a Party gets taken over by leftwing activists even when faced with a destructive and radical conservative government... yep that’s right the moderates who loved their party won out and the traditional supporters of the Party came back and even many who had not realised that the Moderate Left of Centre party represented their best interests voted Labour and Labour was elected in a massive landslide and then a second in 2001 almost identical.

Thank god this forum represents such a small minority of the left just as Freepers represent a tiny minority of the GOP...

Ah well... Don't get me wrong I'm not beating up on you personally... I just think its a pretty stupid idea that DLC Democrats would all go and join the GOP... it would never happen! Al these conspiracy theories, half truths and out right paranoia seems to have really skewed many people's views on this forum. Hell some here think that Bush might seize power permanently or that we should try him for war crimes or that if he wins he'll arrest every democrat in the land. This is a strange and bizarre world, this DU Forum... as I am sure Freeperland is...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

122. It was ringmastery who made that threat, not I

:shrug:

[bigbillhaywood]

111. How bout this: AFL-CIO and its consituent unions resolve

never to endorse a DLC sponsored or associated candidate. Lets see how many pols want to be associated with the DLC then and lose the voter turnout machinery of the unions. Unions have to start playing hardball with the pro-corporate Dems to get some long-term results, even if in the short-term it means risking a few Repug wins.

[Finch]

120. Stupid Idea...

...The DLC is no threat to the Unions, in fact! the DLC has done more for ordinary working Americans than any other group. This is just crazy talk it really is... AFL-CIO is a group lead by good men who do not wish to be divisive and the AFL-CIO has on many occasions backed the DLC and their candidates why would they act against their own interests? The DLC has helped the Unions by pressing through legislation that has left American workers more protected than ever before so why on earth act against a group that has helped the AFL-CIO's members?!?

You are really out of touch...either that or your just crazy!

[bigbillhaywood]

127. So everyone who disagrees with you re the DLC is

really out of touch or crazy? How Bolshevik.

[Finch]

136. No...

...You are the one saying that the DLC should be destroyed and DLC politicians starved of funds. Well if you want that fine!

I happen to still believe in a party where Russ Feingold and Evan Bayh fight for the same things and are excepted as just as strongly Democratic as each other... maybe you do not... but hey your the one who said I was being totalitarian about this, so what do i know?

The attitude of "Republican Wing of the Democratic Party" or "1/2 Democrats" is stupid, the driving belief in co-operation and community is the same be it John Breaux or Ted Kennedy... I am a Moderate Democrat and I am just as much as Democrat as any one from the Liberal one... I disagree in policy not in values... with the GOP I disagree fundamentally on values and that is why I'm a Dem... Not because I belvie in a specific manifesto that should be the "program" for all time... times change and so do the challenges... and I care enougth about ordinary Americans to realise this, in my books the interests of what is best for ordinary Americans trumps Tribal politics!

[bigbillhaywood]

140. Values don't matter...policy does.

Like Democrats who say "personally they don't believe in Abortion", but policy wise they defend the right to choose. Give me policy over values any day of the week. Values are what got us in this mess in the first place. Idiots voting for Bush based on his perceived "values" rather than looking at what his policies actually meant for them.

Here's what I think working Americans need:

Single-payer healthcare

Protections for democracy on the job, among these--

Right to strike (no permanent replacement workers)
A card-check employer neutrality process for union certification

A foreign policy not based on aggression or protecting corporate interests

Structural reform of democratic processes

New media anti-trust laws and aggressive enforcement

Aggressive enforcement of corporate regulations

More political and economic democracy, less corporate tyranny


I don't believe any of these issues are paramount to the DLC. And in fact, I think the DLC would work very hard against many of these reforms/

[Q]

150. Do women's rights 'change'? How about civil rights?

- Or worker's rights? Environmental protections? Public education? Just how do these things change over time that the DLC thinks they need to compromise on them? They are either constant, unchanging principles...or they're subject to compromise and political opportunism.

- And speaking of 'tribal politics'...it was the DLC who started their own tribe and called themselves 'new' Democrats. What makes them any different from the far-right wingers who took control of the GOP and kicked out the real conservatives and moderates?

[Jose Diablo]

129. The tail wagging the dog

The question to me is why has the central line in America shifted to the right during the last 25 years. This is how the DLC moderates, or what I would call right-wing 25 years ago, get elected.

The solution to having Dino's in the party must rest at each local party level. The Dino's are merely an image of how those local voters vote during the primary. Incidentally, just how many voters vote during the primary. Practically zip. And then they wonder why the parties seem the same. Why don't they vote? Because they do not understand this is how they determine who will be in the general election from how they vote in the primary. Somehow this fact is lost on the average Americans.

Yes, we Americans are kinda slow, but then again, is the party doing everything to educate the voters on the importance of the primaries? Sometimes I think the local party prefer the voters do not vote in the parties, because then THEY the local party officers can select whom they want for the general elections.

Of course the corporate controlled media factors also, but I think by and large if we were to dissect each precinct we would find local power brokers, the money people at the local level that is driving the overall midrange to the right. Think about the asphalt company owners, construction firm owners that are using the local political process to get business from cities, counties and states. This influence carries over into the national level.

It will not be easy to move the body politic to the left. It will take a lot of work, patience and perseverance over a long time. It will not be possible to boot the Dino's immediately. We did not get where we are overnight, and we will not move the country to where we want overnight. It took the right-wing 20+ years to move us to where we are today.

It will also take efforts to break the stranglehold the corporations have on the media. A good start would be to force justice to enforce Sherman anti-trust laws on the media. The FCC needs overhauling. New National Labor Relations board members that are friendly to labor unions need to be appointed. The judiciary needs work at the federal level.

I am sure we have heard this old chestnut many times, but it is really true. "All politics is local".

[FlemingsGhost]

139. I disgree.

Let them start another Party. The two-party system will give way sooner or later...

[FDRrocks]

147. Because many americans are liberal

does that help? Some factions of the Democrats say they cannot run to the left, while the Republicans increasingly run to the right. It's basically enabling.

And LIBERALISM IS NOT A GODDAMNED DISEASE, IT'S A GOOD THING. I've seen people here talk about the Democrats needing to run to the center while simoultaneously complaining that Nader 'stole Democratic votes" on the left in the 2000 election. I do not see how this logic works.

Earn the goddamn votes.

[Q]

149. Rank and file DLCers still tout Gore's 'win' in 2000...

...but your DLC leaders seem to believe that Gore LOST. There seems to be some sort of disconnect between the DLC rank and file and their leadership. While the DLC faithful are touting the DLC's 'last three wins'...their leadership is using 'GORE'S LOSS' as a rallying cry to REJECT Populism. They say Gore lost because he rejected THEIR advice.

From the DLC website:

Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | January 24, 2001

Articles

BUILDING A NEW PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY
by Al From
How Democrats can learn from the failed 2000 campaign.

REVITALIZING THE PARTY OF IDEAS
by Will Marshall
By exchanging New Democrat principles for populism, Gore paid too high a political price.

CHANGE THE MESSAGE!
by Rep. Adam Smith
How Democrats can win in the suburbs and regain the House of Representatives.

Penn's Poll

TURNING A WIN INTO A DRAW
by Mark J. Penn
Gore's populist message worked well with the Democratic base, but fell far short with swing voters who could have pushed him over the top.



http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=132&subid=193&contentid=2906

----------

Reading these articles...you'll notice that the DLC has nothing to say about the many OTHER factors in 2000 influencing the Gore campaign and the recount. For some odd reason...the DLC won't or can't admit that widespread election fraud had more to do with the 'loss' than almost any other factor. They can't admit to these other factors because it would weaken their argument that Gore 'lost' because of his populist message and his rejection of their advice to abandon Democratic principles to the phantom 'swing voters'. Neither did they have much to say about the media's character assassination and unfair reporting on his campaign and the recount.