Suggest ways to drive the DLC, "New" Democrats, K Street, and Wall St. from the Democratic Party

[brentspeak]

The aforementioned four entities are essentially indistinguishable from the GOP (with the exception of a few decent Republicans), and are enemies of all honest, hard-working Americans. They are parasites whose influence on our society needs to be exterminated with extreme prejudice (figuratively).

So what are your suggestions for drop-kicking these leeches from the Democratic party as well as nullifying any and all influence they may have over our lives in the future? What are good ways to educate the general public about these people?

[Occam Bandage]

1. 1. Run a candidate capable of pulling more than 4% in a primary election. nt

[wyldwolf]

good one.

[denem]

2. Splittiing the GOP.

a easier, more effective road to cementing a 'progressive' majority.

[wyldwolf]

3. see, the attitude in your post is why you'll never succeed in your mission

:rofl:

[cleveramerican]

64. concentrate on things where consensus can be reached...

I don't think any of those groups cited in the OP hurt us much at all when policy proposals are well thought out and clearly laid out for the voters to understand.When elected officials rely on these groups to explain things TO the public it becomes much more murky.

The answer to the Op is that our elected officials have to do a better job of clarifying it all for the voters.

[CBR]

4. Support a pretty liberal sitting President and...

help him move the nation center-left. Then the center of the spectrum will move and more progressive candidates will begin to gain traction.

[rucky]

5. Back challengers to their seats?

And Support the DFA:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

[jody]

6. You might make more progress by starting your own party. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

8. Given the "true progressives'" tendency to declare anyone who differs from them on any issue,

for whatever reason, a traitor to their cause, they'd probably be happier if each of them had their own party with their own forum. They'd never have to compromise!

[jody]

9. "They'd never have to compromise!" but they would be worse than Arctic Mosquitoes on internet forums

[Occam Bandage]

33. Arctic Mosquitoes would be a good name for an indie-rock band. nt

[brentspeak]

10. Why did you deliberately ignore the content of the OP?

The issue was about the reforming the Democratic party, not starting a brand-new party.

[jody]

17. I deliberately addressed the OP because any change in the Dem Party that excludes those groups IMO

would reduce the Dem Party to an impotent political force not unlike the Libertarian Party.

The Right and Left fringes of the Dem and Rep parties must compromise with voters in the center to gain power.

In the last election Obama got 53% of the popular vote and McCain got 46%.

Please tell me what changes you would make to the Dem party that would maintain that vote margin or at least not lose more than 3.5% which could have cost Obama the election?

[zeemike]

7. The link between all of them is K street.

And to be honest only a revolution (not in the sense of violence) will drive them from DC.
There are two ways that I see possible.
The first is a massive protest movement that goes to K street and stays until they are all driven out...that is the quick way but also the most dangerous because it will require leadership and you know how that can work...Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The second is the disinfectant of light...Expose them for what they are and what they are doing. This method will take time and patient and a lot of hard work. And if Obama is the one to do it then this will be his method.

[wyldwolf]

11. I'm no fan of Matt Taibbi, but he nailed it when he said...

"The American Left's Silly Victim Complex... And its ugly little secret is that it really doesn’t mind being in the position it’s in – politically irrelevant and permanently relegated to the sidelines, tucked into its cozy little cottage industry of polysyllabic, ivory tower criticism. When you get right down to it, the American left is basically just a noisy Upper West side cocktail party for the college-graduate class... And there’s probably no political movement in history that’s been sillier than the modern American left."

[brentspeak]

12. In other words, you're someone who needs to quote from people you don't even like

because you don't have an original thought of your own to contribute.

By the way, I'm neither "the Left" nor am I some rich person who attends cocktail parties. Duh?

[wyldwolf]

13. haha. So anyone on DU who quotes someone has no original thoughts! LOL!

You quote Luke in your sig - you unoriginal ninny you! :)

[brentspeak]

14. No, only people who contribute no original thoughts of their own

while simultaneously posting a quote from someone who they admit "not being a fan of". People like yourself, for instance.

[wyldwolf]

20. did you just make that up tonight? Eh, I'll quote myself. You'll LOVE this one

"it is doubtful most Democrats pay attention to intraparty squabbles. But they sure know names attached to the DLC. So let’s imagine you go to any Democratic party meeting and spout the trash from your OP. THEN you start rattling off the list of those who have been associated with that organization that we are supposed to deplore.

Naturally, you start with Bill and Hillary Clinton. You might move on to Al Gore and John Kerry. You could mention former senators Max Cleland, John Edwards, and Sam Nunn. The Salazars. Spitzer. In my state, you'd mention Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor.

Hey! Don't forget President Obama who declared himself a New Democrat this month.

By now, the crowd at the meeting is staring at you like you have a few screws loose. So you continue.

You rattle off all 16 DLC House members elected in 2006. And the 14 in 2008. All new DLC members. All the enemy.

And you suddenly realize the room is laughing at you hysterically. You thrust your fist in the air and say something revolutionary. They laugh harder. You unzip your jacket, revealing your black Che shirt, as though that will bolster your “progressive” credentials. Then you see the party chair approaching to usher you off the stage, all the while explaining to the crowd that he did not mean to hire a comedian as a speaker.

So off you go, back to your blog, where you immediately declare the Democrats at that meeting the enemy, also."

[jody]

22. That's the way I see it also. n/t

[brentspeak]

25. For someone who's such a fan of the DLC you apparently don't know squat about it

There are no elected Democrats who are "DLC members"; only a few elected Democrats who have served as DLC officials. Cleland, Edwards, Gore, and Kerry used to be associated with the DLC, but have since cut the organization off.

However, I happen to like Matt Taibbi, so it's not a problem for me to quote him:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed/2

The DLC are the lowest kind of scum; we're talking about people who are paid by the likes of Eli Lilly and Union Carbide to go on television and call suburban moms and college kids who happen to be against the war commies and jihadists. On the ignominious-sellout scale, that's lower than doing PR for a utility that turns your grandmother's heat off at Christmas. And that's pretty bad -- but with enough money and enough of the right kind of publicity their side still might win in the Lamont/Lieberman primary on August 8th.

And as for there being enough people to actually constitute a DLC "crowd":

We (Taibbi and DLC stooge Marshall Wittman) went back and forth for a while. I noted that his conception of "narrow dogmatists" included the readers of Daily Kos, a website with something like 440,000 visitors a day; I also noted that recent Gallup polls showed that fully 91 percent of Democrats supported a withdrawal of some kind from Iraq.

"So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists," I said, "and. . . how many people are there in your office? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?"

"Well, it'd probably be in the thirty zone," sighed Marshall.

I asked Marshall if there was a publicly available list of donors to the DLC.

"Uh, I don't know," he said. "I'd have to refer you to the press office for that. They can help you there . . ." (Note: a DLC spokeswoman would later tell me the DLC has a policy of "no public disclosure," although she did say the group is funded in half by corporate donations, in half by individuals).

"So let me get this straight," I said. "We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they're narrow dogmatists?"

He paused and sighed, clearly exasperated. "Look," he said. "Everybody in politics draws money from the same basic sources. It's the same pool of companies and wealthy individuals . . ."

"Okay," I said. "So basically in this dispute over Lieberman, we have people on one side, and companies on the other? Would it be correct to say that?" I asked.

"Well, I guess if you live in a cartoon world you could say that," he said.

So you agree: Taibbi nailed it!

[wyldwolf]

27. LOL! What a dumb statement

There are no elected Democrats who are "DLC members"; only a few elected Democrats who have served as DLC officials.

Dude. The Senate New Democrats and the House New Democrats are the congressional arms of the DLC. :shrug:

Cleland, Edwards, Gore, and Kerry used to be associated with the DLC, but have since cut the organization off.

I assume you have links on this?

<--------------->
(cutting of Brentspeak's unoriginal quoting of Matt... :rofl: ... and his made up rule ... :rofl:

[demhistorian]

28. Indeed. n/t

[jody]

30. The New Democrat Movement site disagrees with you, see list below.

New Democrat Movement

Brian Baird          Congressman, Washington 3rd
Max Baucus          US Senator from Montana
Evan Bayh          US Senator from Indiana
Shelley Berkley          Congresswoman, Nevada 1st
John Breaux          US Senator from Louisiana, 1987-2005
Maria Cantwell          US Senator from Washington
Lois Capps          Congresswoman, California 23rd
Russ Carnahan          Congressman, Missouri 3rd
Thomas Carper          US Senator from Delaware
Ed Case          Congressman, Hawaii 2nd
Ben Chandler          Congressman, Kentucky 6th
Bill Clinton          42nd US President, 1993-2001
Hillary Clinton          US Secretary of State
Kent Conrad          US Senator from North Dakota
Bud Cramer          Congressman, Alabama 5th
Joseph Crowley          Congressman, New York 7th
Artur Davis          Congressman, Alabama 7th
Jim Davis          Congressman, Florida 11th
Susan Davis          Congresswoman, California 53rd
Cal Dooley          Congressman from California, 1991-2005
Byron Dorgan          US Senator from North Dakota
John Edwards          2004 Vice Presidential candidate
Rahm Emanuel          White House Chief of Staff
Eliot Engel          Congressman, New York 17th
Bob Etheridge          Congressman, North Carolina 2nd
Dianne Feinstein          US Senator from California
Harold Ford          Congressman from Tennessee, 1997-2007
Dick Gephardt          Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005
Al Gore          US Vice President under Clinton
Bob Graham          US Senator from Florida
Jane Harman          Congresswoman, California 36th
Brian Higgins          Congressman, New York 27th
Rush Holt          Congressman, New Jersey 12th
Darlene Hooley          Congresswoman from Oregon, 1997-2009
Jay Inslee          Congressman, Washington 1st
Steve Israel          Congressman, New York 2nd
Tim Johnson          US Senator from South Dakota
Bob Kerrey          Governor and Senator from Nebraska
John Kerry          US Senator from Massachusetts
Ron Kind          Congressman, Wisconsin 3rd
Herb Kohl          US Senator from Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu          US Senator from Louisiana
Rick Larsen          Congressman, Washington 2nd
John Larson          Congressman, Connecticut 1st
Joseph Lieberman          US Senator from Connecticut
Blanche Lincoln          US Senator from Arkansas
Zoe Lofgren          Congresswoman, California 16th
Terry McAuliffe          Chairman of the DNC, 2001-05
Carolyn McCarthy          Congresswoman, New York 4th
Mike McIntyre          Congressman, North Carolina 7th
Mack McLarty          White House Chief of Staff, 1993-94
Gregory Meeks          Congressman, New York 6th
Juanita Millender-McDonald          Congresswoman from California, 1996-2007
Dennis Moore          Congressman, Kansas 3rd
Jim Moran          Congressman, Virginia 8th
Ben Nelson          US Senator from Nebraska
Bill Nelson          US Senator from Florida
Gavin Newsom          Mayor of San Francisco
Sam Nunn          US Senator from Georgia, 1972-97
David Price          Congressman, North Carolina 4th
Mark Pryor          US Senator from Arkansas
Chuck Robb          US Senator from Virginia, 1989-2001
Timothy J. Roemer          9-11 Commission member
Loretta Sanchez          Congresswoman, California 47th
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin          Congresswoman, South Dakota
Adam Schiff          Congressman, California 29th
Allyson Schwartz          Congresswoman, Pennsylvania 13th
David Scott          Congressman, Georgia 13th
Adam Smith          Congressman, Washington 9th
Debbie Stabenow          US Senator from Michigan
John Tanner          Congressman, Tennessee 8th
Ellen Tauscher          Congresswoman, California 10th
Tom Udall          US Senator from New Mexico
Anthony A. Williams          Mayor of Washington DC, 1999-2007
David Wu          Congressman, Oregon 1st

[wyldwolf]

31. That's NNDB.com,

:shrug:

And it does disagree with Brentspeak

[jody]

32. It doesn't. My post #30 was a rely to brentspeak's #25. n/t

[wyldwolf]

34. right, I misread, thanks!

[brentspeak]

35. That link does an excellent job of summarizing what a joke the DLC is

Thanks for linking to it:

The right wing current of the Democratic party, characterized by its neoliberal economic policies, support of Israel, desire to increase defense spending, and links to heavy donors and fundraisers.

Believes that "left-wing" positions are not politically viable. Describes itself as "moderate and pro-growth". Probably responsible for erosion of the Democratic Party's historical labor and minority base due to support of treaties like NAFTA, lack of support for affirmative action and poverty programs, and their siphoning away of campaign funds from minority groups.

At the national level, the movement was founded by the Democratic Leadership Council (501c4 educational non-profit, founded 1984) and includes the House New Democrat Coalition (founded 1997), the Senate New Democrat Coalition (founded 2000), the New Democrat Network PAC (founded 1996), the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (501c4 think tank, "Bill Clinton's idea mill", founded 1989), and the umbrella funding group The Third Way Foundation (501c3 non-profit, founded 1996).

Since coming to power within the Democratic Party with Bill Clinton's presidency, the New Democrats/DLC have worked towards "essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition... to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right" according to John Nichols of The Progressive.

DLC operatives actively worked to sabotage Howard Dean's candidacy for the US Presidency in 2004, claiming that the "far-left" Democrat was wrong to attack George W. Bush's tax cuts and national security policies.

[jody]

As I said in # 6. You might make more progress by starting your own party. n/t

[brentspeak]

40. Are Jim Webb, Bryan Dorgan, Jack Reed, Jon Tester the "left fringe"?

The answer invalidates your earlier assertion concerning the need to "compromise with voters in the center".

[jody]

42. You said in #25, “There are no elected Democrats who are ‘DLC members’” My

post #30 disproves your claim.

Do you now admit you were wrong so we can go on to a new issue?

[brentspeak]

54. That post disproves nothing

There's no reference there which actually proves Dorgan or Webb or Tester are DLC-affiliated. Go to the one link (http://www.ndol.org/), and find anything that says as much. And if any of them were, in some long ago time, DLC-affiliated, they sure as hell aren't now. So who's wrong here?

[jody]

57. Since you refuse to admit the obvious, I have nothing more to say to you. Good bye. n/t

[wyldwolf]

43. oh, yeah

They are very DLC -like.

John Tester took several pages out of the Clinton/DLC playbook at the state level, specifically on his balanced budget proposals.

He believes the government should work to limit abortions and believe, again like Clinton, the procedure should be safe, legal, and rare.

He is tough on crime, and especially believes in enforcing illegal drug laws.

He believes in a strong national defense.

He's a strong Second Amendment rights advocate and will "stand up to anyone - Democrat or Republican - who wants to take away gun rights."

He believes health care should be affordable and assessable (not necessarily provided by the government.)

He believes we should secure our borders to keep out illegal drugs and illegal immigrants. Companies who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.

Webb, a bit too conservative for my tastes, but still a welcome change...

... an absolutist on Second Amendment rights — the right to keep and bear arms.

... not real big on affirmative action.

Webb? He's been described as “the most deeply conservative national Democrat since Grover Cleveland.”

[mvd]

49. Welcome change for you, but not me

Webb is business as usual IMO. You said that you are rooting for centrists, and that's your prerogative - I expect that you would not demand centrist purity, though - but I root for more liberals.

[wyldwolf]

51. hey, I was just disputing the other poster's contention that Webb and Tester are "progressives."

[mvd]

53. But all of what you said was open for discussion

Tester and Webb do have a bit of a populist streak, though. Not strong, but above average.

[wyldwolf]

55. yeah... but so did/does Bill Clinton

:shrug:

[mvd]

58. Not quite as much IMO

[wyldwolf]

59. IYO

[mvd]

60. One thing is Tester's against many recent trade agreements

Which makes him a little different than even President Obama.

But things can be looked at where it can be argued either way. As you said, he's a bit more populist in MY estimation. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

37. that section was obviously written by someone in your new political party

[MadBadger]

15. Does President Obama fit into one of those categories?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. We would, of course, no longer be a majority party

So it would be a dubious achievement

[brentspeak]

19. How so?

What percentage of American voters do lobbyists and Wall Street executives comprise? How were the Democrats so successful during the New Deal years - years when Wall St. had little political influence over the masses and K Street lobbyists didn't even exist?

[MadBadger]

21. The problem with the statement isnt lobbyists and wall street, who arent dems anyway.

Its the DLCers and "New" Democrats you speak of that make up a big chunk of this party.

[onenote]

65. lobbyists aren't Dems?

That would come as a surprise to folks like Tony Podesta (over $100K in contributions exclusively to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2007-2008); Joel Jankowsky (same); Michale Berman (same); Tommy Boggs (over $75K), and Anne Wexler (over $15K).

[wyldwolf]

23. 68 members in the House, 20+ in the US Senate

Half the DEM governors are DLC... get rid of them all and see what direction the Dem majority goes.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. That's like asking how many workers GM employs

Directly, not so many. Indirectly, lots and lots.

The number of people who benefit from the culture you describe is vastly larger than the tally of lobbyists.

And there are many millions of people who do not benefit directly but sincerely support the corporate-democratic axis for ideological reasons.

Count up the people represented by 16 conservadems. One cannot blithely assume all sixteen would be in the Senate if they were "real" democrats. For starters, they all won Democratic primaries which says at least something about the ideological bent of their states' Democrats.

As to the past glories of the Democratic party in the 1930s, if we threw out Wall Street types and replaced them with southern segregationists... that's a helluva coalition numerically but not one I (or you) could morally be part of today.

It is not always useful to compare today's Democratic party to anything that existed before before 1968-1972. Same goes for the pug party.

[billyoc]

18. Foment populist hatred for everything that they say and do.

[totodeinhere]

26. We can't win elections if we don't have a big tent. Bad idea.

We won back the House in 2006 by recruiting moderate and conservative members to run in red states. And now you want to kick them out of the party and return to minority status?

[brentspeak]

36. Replace them in the primaries with real Democrats

Go directly to the people in the respective states/districts, and explain precisely how the DLC-types are undermining their everyday lives and futures.

[jody]

38. Lots of luck. Voters in many states believe DLC-types are supporting their everyday lives & futures.

You may not like that but it's because you don't know or refuse to acknowledge the interests of voters.

[brentspeak]

41. I'll answer as I did before: Webb, Tester, Dorgan, etc...

[jody]

44. Please reply to #42. n/t

[wyldwolf]

46. Tester and Webb

They are very DLC -like.

John Tester took several pages out of the Clinton/DLC playbook at the state level, specifically on his balanced budget proposals.

He believes the government should work to limit abortions and believe, again like Clinton, the procedure should be safe, legal, and rare.

He is tough on crime, and especially believes in enforcing illegal drug laws.

He believes in a strong national defense.

He's a strong Second Amendment rights advocate and will "stand up to anyone - Democrat or Republican - who wants to take away gun rights."

He believes health care should be affordable and assessable (not necessarily provided by the government.)

He believes we should secure our borders to keep out illegal drugs and illegal immigrants. Companies who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.

Webb, a bit too conservative for my tastes, but still a welcome change...

... an absolutist on Second Amendment rights — the right to keep and bear arms.

... not real big on affirmative action.

Webb? He's been described as “the most deeply conservative national Democrat since Grover Cleveland.”

[jody]

50. Sen. Baucus And Tester wrote Holder saying they oppose renewing the Assault Weapons Ban.

SENATORS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: STAY AWAY FROM OUR GUNS

[Occam Bandage]

48. Webb and Tester are both conservative Dems. nt

[brentspeak]

56. And what corporations and lobbyists do they answer to?

The issue isn't "conservative" or "liberal"; it's corporate and Wall St.

[wyldwolf]

39. name the DLCers and then let the people laugh in your face.

[mvd]

52. Yes, that's the best way

Primaries, and speaking out in your community is also useful. Realize, though, that progressives can't win in every district, and it's hard to find 100% agreement. For example, I believe in a strong right to sue for discrimination, but not strict quotas. That position is closer to some centrists.

[ShadowLiberal]

63. Exactly, the GOP is losing right now because they've become a small tent party

If we start to kick out the moderates in our party, who are the only democrats who can actually in some red states, and the only ones who can almost always win in a purple state, then we're going to become exactly what the GOP is now. A small 'ideologically pure' group that isn't welcoming to the very voters who we need to win elections.

While many people remember Reagan as a radical right winger who was the symbol of being an ultra conservative (especially conservatives today) Reagan was actually much more of a pragmatist then many want to think. He didn't do stuff that Bush did, like refusing to talk to our enemies because they're 'evil'. He even raised taxes several times after he cut them (but yes, he certainly cut taxes a lot more then he raised them in the end), something conservatives today would insist is suicide/building big government.

Like it or not, it's the moderates independent voters who decide elections, not the liberal or conservative voters. And to win those voters we
need to be pragmatic at solving our nation's problems, if we get too ideological and stop being pragmatic then we're going to become a minority party again.

[DevonRex]

29. It's a big tent. If you split the party, we lose. Of course, that might be a "win" for you.

:shrug:

[tabbycat31]

45. get involved locally

and take your local chapter of the party back, even if it means running yourself. I've been involved locally and it's one of the best things that could happen to me.

[FLAprogressive]

47. We won't, because they've hijacked our party beyond repair.

[paulk]

61. real campaign finance reform?

[Runcible Spoon]

62. Stop giving them money, stumping and voting for them. Stop apologizing for them.

Stop thinking that political activism stops the moment you cast a ballot. Stop thinking government will run itself. Beyond that, keep exposing corporate influence, keep calling, writing letters, talking to people. Beyond that, get in the streets.

[Danger Mouse]

66. Another day, another OP, another ride on the failboat.

[brentspeak]

68. Another meaningless, snide post from you

At least your profile comment about yourself is true: "I am the Loser King!!!"

[Danger Mouse]

70. Considering the quality of material you shit onto the forum on a daily basis...

you're a cute one to comment about 'meaningless and snide.'

[mwooldri]

67. A new party. Liberal Democrats? Labor Party?

Problem is a new political party will take and need billions in cash. Got to build from the ground up. A good few defectors from the present Democratic Party would keep the profile ...

but it would completely destroy the Democratic Party for a good few years and allow the bastard Republicants back in for long enough to totally screw up things.

Mark.

[cali]

69. yes, yes. let's follow the repuke template and shrink the dem party

to a regional party. Look, even in Vermont, your comments would meet with contempt from the majority of dems.

[liskddksil]

71. Get behind primary challenges to Gillibrand, and Bennett in Colorado

Gillibrand was a member of the blue-dog caucus in the house and Bennett has joined Bayh's coalition in the senate. As they were both appointed, primary challenges could be successful.
-------

Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper said yesterday he is weighing a Democratic primary run against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a move that could make him the first openly gay U.S. senator.

"I consider myself progressive on the important issues," said Cooper, alluding to gun control and gay rights. "And obviously, Sen. Gillibrand has not been a strong supporter in the past on either issue." He added he is "very concerned" that state voters may lack confidence in a candidate who makes "a 180 degree turnabout" on major issues.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-pocoop176072244mar17,0,4044971.story

After now-Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) was appointed last month over several more seasoned Democratic politicians, one of the lawmakers whom Bennet leapfrogged may be looking to challenge him in a Democratic primary next year, according to political insiders in the state.


http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_86/politics/32215-1.html