To all the very industrious DLC marketers on the board today

[RapidCreek]

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field? I'm genuinely interested.

RC

[wyldwolf]

1. I reject your premise

The DLC is a moderate organization. Therefore, they would not run a "right leaning government" (WHATEVER that means.)

[Ardee]

2. everyones a centrist it would seem

the most dyed in the wool conservative thinks himself to be a moderate, the liberal does as well...its always the bad guy over there.

For a moderate organisation they certainly act right wing enough...silencing Gore, withholding campaign funds from Mary Landrieu
when she refused to toe the DLC line ( aline which cost some decent democrats their seats by the by), smearing Dean, ignoring the liberal caucuses and omitting them from decision making within the party...Oh yeah real moderates these folks.

[wyldwolf]

5. well, everything is rightwing if you're far enough to the left

[Q]

7. You really should take Gore out of your DLC dominated logo...

...because he REJECTED that organization long ago. It's really false advertising.

- It's strange that DLCers are still touting 'winning the last three elections' but wouldn't support ONE of those winners (Gore) when he needed their help the most.

- If the DLC are such 'winners'...why in the hell is our entire government controlled by the other side? I'm not sure we can stand many more 'wins' like this.

[wyldwolf]

9. Really? When?

When did Gore reject the DLC? Proof?

If the DLC are such 'winners'...why in the hell is our entire government controlled by the other side? I'm not sure we can stand many more 'wins' like this.

I dunno, Q. I mean, the DLC is vastly outnumbered in the senate and house compared to other Dems, so why does the other side control things?

[NYCGirl]

14. Re: Gore rejecting the DLC

Here's one example:

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,558708,00.html

Excerpt:

Who knows if Gore thinks he's going to be facing down Hillary in four years? But his words over the past two years show he is part of the Dean wing of the party, the Democrats who believe the key to winning next Fall will be energizing and turning out their base. To centrist Democrats like the Clintons and Joe Lieberman, this is disastrous, a return to the failed candidacies of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. The angry liberals argue that times have changed — with the country polarized between love and hatred for this president, there are no swing voters in the middle to appeal to. Gore obviously believes it, and he's not afraid to say so.

[wyldwolf]

Funny - I didn't read a quote from Gore in there

There were countless sources who said Gore hitched his wagon to Dean because he felt Dean would win, helping Gore with whatever endeavors he had planned.

But that strategy didn't turn out.

By the way, Dean is a moderate and former DLC member. Based on how Dean governed in VT, the split wasn't over policy matters.

[NYCGirl]

17. Yes, you said it — Former (eom)

I have no problem with moderates.

[wyldwolf]

20. right - who didn't split over policy matters

So while we're theorizing (such as in the editorial you linked to) - might be plausible to say he split with the DLC to further kiss up to the far left he pandered to.

[NYCGirl]

22. If that's true, why would he bother with starting Democracy for America?

Seems like a whole lotta trouble just for some panderin'.

BTW, I'm not far left so I guess he wasn't pandering to me.

[wyldwolf]

23. He is trying to stay in the public's eye...

...and not fade away as just another failed candidate.

[NYCGirl]

28. Sure, that's why he turned down at least one TV show for himself...

after he dropped out of the primaries.

There are easier (and much more lucrative) ways to stay in the public eye than to help OTHER people run for office.

[wyldwolf]

29. He's a politician

Not a TV host. He still has political ambition and wants to position himself for such.

Clinton turned down several more TV shows, too.

[NYCGirl]

31. Well, we all know Clinton is such a shrinking violet...

;-)

Now, this is turning into a pissing contest. I thought we were talking about Al Gore.

[wellstone_democrat]

76. Gore: "just another failed candidate?"

What are you on? "failed"?????
won the 2000 election---oh, that's right, the DLC wasn't interested in "trouble" or "turmoil" so they were useless and let the election go.

But, you are undoubtedly right! Gore didn't solely pull off the superhuman feat of exposing the machinations of the Bush* camp and their allies. Therefore, he's "failed" and the *worthless* DLC toadies go a rollin' along.

Go ahead, call me a "far leftist"---no one in my life does and I'm sitting in the *middle* of Bush*'s Texas home district--but, when cornered, DLC-types never fail to do so.

Don't smear Gore you worthless flack. If anyone "failed" it was the structure at the top of the party. Oh, and your little prince Lieberman.

[ibegurpard]

88. Love that last sentence.

:thumbsup:

[Cheswick2.0]

25. Gore left the DLC right after the 2000 election

He can't stand them and they do not support him. You know that as well as I do.
When he was still thinking of running he skipped a major DLC meeting where all the candidates went to kiss From's ring. Gore was in town and simply did not attend. He has also said that the DLC left him. The blamed his populism for the loss in 2000 and they spent the next few years doing their best to keep him from being the nominee. From and buddies are the scum of the earth for their right wing takeover of the party.

[Bandit]

73. That works vice versa also

:shrug:

[Alerter_]

3. what makes the DLC moderate?

Which positions are moderate? Centrist too?

[wyldwolf]

4. which positions are rightwing?

The original poster made the accusation.

[Alerter_]

18. they call themselves moderate and centrist, don't they?

What does that mean? How are they moderate? Which positions are centrist?

[wyldwolf]

21. they do, but for the purpose of this thread...

... we must first know what rightwing means as stated by the original poster before we can compare other points to it on the political spectrum.

[RapidCreek]

34. I never said right wing.....you said right wing

quit putting words in my mouth....I said right leaning. I shall rephrase your own statement in correct terms.

we must first know what right leaning means as stated by the original poster before we can compare other points to it on the political spectrum.

Why must we know that?

Here is my original post:

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field? I'm genuinely interested.

You don't like the way the question was posed? Well let me ask it another way.

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes Republican candidates more appealing than your own?

Is that better?

You call your candidates moderates...which of course implies that you have some concept of the positions which left leaning and right leaning describe.

As far as I am able to tell I've posed my question the only two possible ways it can be presented....So I'll ask you again to answer one or the other....Which ever you feel is not accusatory.

RC



RC

[wyldwolf]

40. ok, sorry... "right leaning"

ok, sorry... "right leaning"

So, just replace my use of "rightwing" with "right leaning" in all instances.

Now, back to the point.

[RapidCreek]

48. Let me make this real simple for you

Use your own definition of right leaning....it is, after all, the DLC's definition of left and right leaning that it chooses to place itself in between, is it not?

RC

[wyldwolf]

50. no, it is YOUR definition because you started the thread.

[sangha]

61. And now RapidCreek tries to deny

that "what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field?" was not attempt to compare the DLC to the RNC.

If RC thought there was a difference, then the obvious answer would be "The DLC's candidates are more appealing because they're not as far to the right"

Soon, he'll deny that "the very industrious DLC marketers" was meant as a backhanded compliment

[RapidCreek]

78. A backhanded compliment?

What is a backhanded compliment?

RC

[sangha]

79. backhanded compliment

- They offer false acceptance with snide remarks and backhanded compliments - It feels like you're being deflated by oblique or roundabout compliments that are really insults, not-so-cleverly disguised - Totally ignoring your side of things, they're just trying to ruin your fun - What you do is what's good for you, not what someone else says is good.

http://www.taxi1010.com/stargate62.htm

[RapidCreek]

I guess I don't understand what the compliment was.

How is being an industrious marketer of the DLC a compliment or for that matter an insult. It is simply a referance to people who have been industriously marketing the DLC.

RC

[RapidCreek]

77. Ahhhh I see...So the DLC defines it's Centrist position

as a permutation of what others currently consider to be left leaning and right leaning?

RC

[wyldwolf]

86. ahhhh... you don't see

For the sake of this discussion, it is YOUR definitions that are relevant, not the DLC's.

[RapidCreek]

90. What an interesting approach to campaigning you take.

You are right....I don't see. The DLC, as I understand it, seeks to appeal to centrist voters. If I am a centrist voter...what should make your DLC candidates more appealing than Republicans?

RC

[wyldwolf]

95. I'm not campaigning...

...I'm only trying to get you to define something you stated.

[RapidCreek]

99. As a voter...it appears to me that you are evading a simple question.

RC

[wyldwolf]

102. as a voter... it appears to me that you are evading a simple question

[RapidCreek]

104. DLC stump speech

The audience sits on the stage, the candidate sits on a chair in the gallery...and asks them questions.

Never been to one....is this how you guys do it? At the very least...it's a novel approach, I guess.

RC

[wyldwolf]

105. as a voter... it appears to me that you are evading a simple question

[RapidCreek]

109. No worries Wyldewolf!

Tinoire answered my question and she doesn't even sport a DLC sig pic! I thank her for taking the time to do so! It would appear that DLC positions parallel those of the Republican Party. It is clear that voting for a DLC candidate weakens the Democratic base...and as such, it amounts to a vote for the Republican Party. The DLC is the functional equivelant of a third party. So I guess it boils down to the philosophical question of the most efficient way to effect a right leaning government....weakening the Democratic Party or strengthening the Republican Party.

RC

[wyldwolf]

110. and you still evade the simple question

[RapidCreek]

111. Their is no question anymore Wyldwolf!

One does not answer questions with questions....a simple truth which all of your posts belay has escaped you.

My question has been answered with an answer...quite completely...and not by you.

I'm so happy it has been too. Now that it has been made so clear to me that there is very little difference between the DLC and the Republican party....I shall begin investigating how and why such a peculiar set of circumstances has developed.

Stand by for another fun and informative thread, comming soon to a board near you!

I see a whole series in the works!

RC

[wyldwolf]

112. and you still evade the question

[ithacan]

103. I think the evasions themselves give you your answer, RC

the refusal of the marketers to be pinned down or answer your very simple and direct question is the clearest answer your gonna ever get from these guys. There is no reason for your hypothetical voter to go DLC rather than Repub, and they're afraid to actually admit it...

[RapidCreek]

24. The original poster made the accusation?

What accusation. I made no accusation. I challenge you to find the phrase right wing in my post....or for that matter any accusation.

To refresh your memory here is my post.


If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field? I'm genuinely interested.

I didn't accuse anyone of being right wing...now did I? Why won't you anwer the question? I should think you would be able to distinguish yourself from Republicans.

Let me put it another way....

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely...tell me...convince me...what makes Republican candidates more appealing than your own?

Can you answer this question?

RC

[sangha]

60. Don't play innocent. It's disingenous

It's obvious to anyone who reads your initial post that it's premised on the notion that the DLC is, at the very least, right-leaning. Why else did you bring up Santorum's name?

what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field?

The obvious implication here is that the DLC is similar, if not the same, as the Repukes. Denying that seems dishonest to me.

[RapidCreek]

84. If the DLC is Centrist as it claims...then it has declaired itself to be

right leaning to those of at least 33.33% of the candidate base...has it not?

There is no implication....simply an affirmation of the DLCs own purported centrist stance. One which, as yet, you and you cohorts have, for some reason, been demonstrably unwilling to place upon any sort of foundation.

Now, if as I stated in my inititial post, I have come to the conclusion that a government which leans right (of 33.33%) of the available candidate pool, would best serve my personal interests...why would a DLC candidate be preferable to a Republican?

It seems that should be a pretty easy question to answer.

RC

[Warpy]

8. The DLC has been dragging the party to the right

...for years, turning off the working class base, abandoning grass roots organizing, whoring for corporate contributions and squabbling over the yuppie vote.

The result is that the DLC has been losing elections the party should have won easily, abandoning everything that would help the party's traditional working class base, and generally trying to turn the party into a pallid imitation of the GOP.

Of course, they think they're being "moderates." I guess that's why 51% of the electorate sat home instead of taking the time and trouble to vote for business as usual and more of the same in 2000.

That dog won't hunt, and it's time to chase him off to the side where he won't get in the way any more.

[wyldwolf]

12. Really?

The DLC has been dragging the party to the right

Clear and definitive definition of the issues and policies that are "right" please.

The result is that the DLC has been losing elections the party should have won easily

Like which ones?

[Warpy]

33. The DLC handlers

...inspired Gore to move to the right and run the dispirited campaign which caused the election to be close enough for Bush to steal

There should have been a Dem. gain in Congress in 2002, but DLC inspired candidates blew that one, too.

The DLC was behind dropping the call for universal healthcare from the party platform.

Want more? I really don't think you do. You want to pretend they're moderates. They are not. They are a bunch of mostly southern, all conservative, wrong headed idiots who are dragging the party in the wrong direction, chasing some sort of fanciful public shift to the right, which never happened.

The DLC is dead wrong for the Party and dead wrong for the country. Just pack your bags and GO.

[wyldwolf]

51. you have provided ZERO evidence for your claims...

... and avoided my questions.

[sangha]

59. They never provide evidence

because they have none. Yesterday, I had one insist that Dem losses in the 2002 elections were the DLC's fault, but he couldn't name one moderate or conservative Dem who lost (though there were some) nor one liberal Dem who won (though they were some)

[RapidCreek]

11. Ok...the DLC is a moderate organization.

can you give me the names of 15 Democratic congress people and 3 Democratic presidential candidates who stand to the right of the DLC? Really help me out here...

RC

[wyldwolf]

13. OK, but first

Give a clear and definitive definition of the issues and policies that are "right" please.

[RapidCreek]

16. Why don't you know where you stand?

If you don't know...how the heck could I tell you.

RC

[wyldwolf]

19. I know exactly where I stand

Give a clear and definitive definition of the issues and policies that are "right" please.

[RapidCreek]

26. Why?

Why is that neccesary?

RC

[wyldwolf]

30. because

we must first know what rightwing means as stated by the original poster before we can compare other points to it on the political spectrum.

[RapidCreek]

35. As has been pointed out over and over by the original poster

...the original poster didn't use the phrase right wing. You did.



RC

[wyldwolf]

37. ok, sorry... "right leaning"

So, just replace my use of "rightwing" with "right leaning" in all instances.

Now, back to the point.

[RapidCreek]

42. Ok back to the point

Ok, back to the point. I shall rephrase your own statement in correct terms.

we must first know what right leaning means as stated by the original poster before we can compare other points to it on the political spectrum.

Why must we know that?

Here is my original post:

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes your candidates more appealing than the Bush's and Santorum's of the political field? I'm genuinely interested.

You don't like the way the question was posed above? Well let me ask it another way.

If I've come to the conclusion that a right leaning government would serve my own personal interests most completely....tell me...convince me....what makes Republican candidates more appealing than your own?

Is that better?

You call your candidates moderates...which of course implies that you have some concept of the positions which left leaning and right leaning describe.

As far as I am able to tell I've posed my question the only two possible ways it can be posed....So I'll ask you again to answer one or the other....Which ever you feel is not accusatory.

RC

[wyldwolf]

43. you set the tone by using the phrase "right leaning"

It is therefore your responsibility to clarify the meaning of that term for the benefit of those who would discuss differing philosophies on the political spectrum.

[RapidCreek]

47. OK let me make it real easy for you.....

Use your own definition of right leaning. How's that? That's simple enough, isn't it?

RC

[wyldwolf]

49. No, it's not

...why set this thread off on another wild tangent with something that can be disagreed with so easily as the definition of "right leaning?"

Since you used the term, you define it for the purposes of your point.

[RetroLounge]

44. Because then he doesn't have to actually answer

EOM

[Cronus Protagonist]

85. That was sarcasm, right?

Click here for stunning, insulting, shocking, funny buttons, magnets and stickers

[Old and In the Way]

6. "right leaning"?

As opposed to the "fascist leaning" party in power today? Interesting that you've gone after the DLC in the past couple of days, but seem to be concluding that the "right leaning" government might be serving your interests most completely. Gives me a whole new perspective on your "shock and awe" thread attacking the Kerry/DLC with those pics from Bush's war.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. The DLC

supports the war, supports deregulation, supports moving away from gun safety, they support medicare and social security privatization..and when the Dems lost in 94 they called it a liberation fromt he styles of FDR and Truman. They are very corporate and really stand for nothing. The NDN is a much more centrist Democratic group and I have no problem with centrists. I myself am a liberal, and I know you have to be pragmatic, however I don't want our party sold down the river to a bunch of crooks!

[PATRICK]

58. The crux is "leadership"

and this "New Democrat" co-option of the more dynamic and humbler word "progressive". It is dangerous to use the word New or Modern to hide behind since in a few decades it is neither new or modern and then what is it? "Reactionary" is a better word and that epitomizes the choice of the word "New Democrat.

But this reaction is something instigated by jealousy over the success of the "New Republicans" or neocons. No wonder there is a problem with vital "new" thinking in both camps(GOP and DLC), the difference being the GOP at least excites its voters to vote with passion over red flag irrelevancies while somehow the New Dems seem to drain all the life out of solid competency and honest service by making the ancient art of politics and human reality irrelevant.

But they have become the club of Democratic leaders for agenda building, fund-raising and goodfellow support. Sometimes they almost convince themselves they have a vision that will just burst forth over the landscape someday somehow.

It is not right or left that is the problem but substituting the hard work of democracy with arrogance and turf snarling. And if they think the left has been the only ones doing that they better look in the mirror. If they could acquaint themselves with Neville Chamberlain before his little failure they would probably think him the epitome of the New Democrat, but since then even the politest bland bureaucrat has had to show his hawk feathers to quietly assert we can do that quite competently too. Rah rah.

Leadership is real. I think it is the DLC that needs to broaden its tent not to exclude it. I see more support even with sharp criticism for well intentioned DLC or blue dog Dems than ever it is the other way round. I see that rhetoric and fear as straying to the path of partisan GOP membership. And if the common American citizen is leery about the far left(and where is THAT in this country?) or right they certainly don't give a tinker's damn about the mushy middle. If the people are in the mushy middle themselves they likely don't vote or don't vote critically anyway.

[RapidCreek]

15. Fascist?

What distinguishes the DLC from those who you claim are fascists? It's an honest question...why don't you try to give me an honest answer?

Are you disagreeing with your compadre Wyldwolf? He claims the DLC isn't right leaning...you are asserting it is. Well which is it?

I seem to be concluding? Perhaps I've been convinced of the error of my ways! I'm just trying to understand what makes the DLC more appealing as candidates than the Republicans.

Bush's war? It wasn't Bush's war any more than the DLC's! Common!!!
Tell me one DLC'er that didn't vote to give Bush (a man you claim is fascist) carte blanche to wage it!

RC

[wyldwolf]

27. where did he assert the DLC is right leaning?

Did you know more non DLC dems voted for the war than DLC dems?

[Q]

32. I wonder why?

- Could it be that there are MORE Dems that don't belong to the DLC?

- How far are you willing to carry on this DLC charade?

[wyldwolf]

39. Then are they not to blame as well? Your litmus test then becomes...

...dems that voted for the war and not just DLC dems.

[Q]

53. It was YOUR litmus test...

...I was just responding to it. There are only a relative handful of DLCers in both houses...thus there will always be more non-DLCers voting on every issue. If you want to play this game...we could say there are far more non-DLCers against the war.

- The invasion and occupation of Iraq is wrong. Those who voted for it should be held accountable and thrown out of office. Unfortunately...democracy is nearly dead and we're once again forced to vote for the lesser evil in November.

- This isn't much of a shock to many of us. We predicted long ago that the nominee would be a DLCer. Chances are his VP will be a DLCer as well. Is this because there are no non-DLC Democrats that could do an equal or better job? Of course not. The Democratic party has many non-DLCers who would make great leaders...but they don't have access to the 'new' power structure of the 'new' Democrats. They're the 'liberals and progressives' the DLC is trying to completely remove from access to ANY power within the party.

[wyldwolf]

87. sorry, Q. Your litmus test as to what is a good dem is their IWR vote

..and very little else. Has been your MO.

[RapidCreek]

36. Isn't it obvious?

From his post:

Interesting that you've gone after the DLC in the past couple of days, but seem to be concluding that the "right leaning" government might be serving your interests most completely.

Seems pretty clear to me.

RC

[wyldwolf]

38. definitely your interpretation

We should wait for him to clarify.

[RapidCreek]

46. Interesting

I'm assuming you're speaking per capita of course, as that is the only way a comparison can be made.

That said, why don't you break down the per capita figures for me.

RC

[troublemaker]

41. SCALIA vs. BREYER

[RetroLounge]

45. Don't hold your breath

The DLC enjoys losing election.

Why else would they keep doing it?

RL

[tkmorris]

52. Oh fie. On this whole bloody thread

The DLC is to the right of the Democratic base. Umm, duh? If you need this explained or defined for you you are a liar or an idiot. Pick whichever one you like.

So, explain why this is a good thing if you can. Or not if you cannot. But for the love of everything holy STOP mincing words to avoid the question. It's pathetic. This is DU not PeeWee Herman's preschool. You aren't fooling anyone by arguing over the meanings of words. We aren't that stupid.

[RapidCreek]

91. You talking to me?

The DLC is to the right of the Democratic base? Well hey that's great to know....why is it the DLC marketers can't say that. I don't think I trust you.....I'd prefer to hear it from someone with blazing DLC sig pictures.

RC

[Jose Diablo]

54. Is the DLC really democrats or are they republicans

calling themselves democrats. I am real confused here on who the DLC really represents, the people or corporations?

If they are democrats, then why do they not obtain leadership from the DNC. After all, isn't the DNC the core of the democratic party?

Many democrats claim to be in the democratic party, yet they vote like republicans.

Can you see my confusion? I imagine many democrat voters like myself cannot see any any practical difference between the 2 parties.

Is it possible, the DLC is a 5th column into the democratic party designed to subvert the ideals of that party and turn it into another name for the republican party?

[AntiCoup2K4]

75. Possible?

I'd say it's the most likely explanation for all the losses the Democratic party has sufferred since the DLC's creation.

Losses that were called "liberations" by the neocon infiltration DLC.

[John_H]

55. DLC! Booo! Did I scare you?

The DLC is about the tenth most powerful subgroup of the DNC, if that--way behind Labor, civil rights groups, pro-choice groups, etc.

I love the way the one-percenters try to use the DLC to smear the whole Dem party do we'll all get labotomies and vote for Union-Busting Ralph.

A significant minority of Dems have always been to the right of the majority. It's always been that way, and unless we want to lose every election, always will.

[Jose Diablo]

57. Ah, I see it is explained then

The DLC is a subpart of the DNC, a small part. But does the DLC have more influence in the DNC than say the civil-rights or the union part due to the nature of how much money the DLC supplies to the DNC?

After all, money is power in the political world. I doubt anyone would question that.

Yet when it comes to votes, it would seem to me that money can buy spots on TV, yet the actual votes come from mom and pop.

In this regard, could all this corporate money from trade organization lobbies instead of being a boon to the DNC actually be a corrupting influence on who the party claims to represent? In other words, do the corporations get more representation than the people concerned with civil rights and union issues because of the money they throw into the kitty?

[RapidCreek]

92. Golly ,that's not what it sais on their web site.

There are 74 members of the House New Democrat Coalition, and 20 members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. Together, they are among the most influential forces in the United States Congress.

Are they lying?

RC

[sendero]

56. The DLC is to the left..

.... as the neocons are to the right. Wrongheaded morons who continue in their delusional beliefs long after they have engendered any actual success.

Democrats don't need the DLC to be moderates.

[Tinoire]

62. Can't convince you. Will Marshall, the DLC, PPI & PNAC are anathema

Highlights & Quotes

Will Marshall along with Al From co-founded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985. Four years later Marshall founded closely affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think tank that shares offices with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana, who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst. Marshall was senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, "Renewing America's Promise". (1)

<snip>

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who wrote the Progressive Policy Institute's foreign policy blueprint, "Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy". (2) Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the "tough-minded internationalism" of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that "America is threatened once again" and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation--"like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades"--mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, "because the previous policy of containment was failing," and Saddam Hussein's government was "undermining both collective security and international law."

Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in "the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy." It's likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with PPI's criticism of those who complain that "the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America's national security strategy." In fact, in assessing the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, the institute stated, "we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough." (2) (3)

<snip>

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

<snip>

Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

<snip>

Sources
Photo: Progressive Policy Institute
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100

(1) Progressive Policy Institute: Biography: Will Marshall III
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=1100

(2) Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, October 30, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

(3) Tom Barry, "Pax Americana: What's the Alternative?" Right Web Analysis, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), April 21, 2004
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404paxamericana.php

(4) Ronald Brownstein, "Candidates All Press for Global Iraq Effort," Los Angeles Times, December 4, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-allies4dec04,1,3761146.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

(5) "They Said It," GOP.com, December 4, 2003
http://www.rnc.org/news/read.aspx?ID=3782

(6) Will Marshall, "Stay and Win in Iraq," Blueprint, January 8, 2004
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252289

(7) Statements on Iraq, Project for the New American Century
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/charts/pnac-chart.php

(8) "U.S. Committee on NATO," Right Web Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), March 2004.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/uscnato.php

(9) ) "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," Right Web Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), December 2003
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cli.php

(10) "Open Letter to President Bush," NotesOnline, SD/USA, March 2003

(11) "Social Democrats/USA," Group Watch Profile, Interhemispheric Resource Center, November 1989
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/sd-usa.php

(12) Will Marshall, "The National Security Case Against George W. Bush," Blueprint Magazine, November 20, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=252199


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended citation: "Will Marshall," Right Web Profiles (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center, May 2004).

Web location: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

=================

IkeWarnedUs (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-16-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message

94. PNAC influence on the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)


The neo-cons have been putting their cabal together for many, many years and they have covered a lot of bases. They developed unholy alliances in the media, military, foreign governments, corporate world and have taken the Republican party to a place many traditional Republicans find uncomfortable. And, through the DLC, have infiltrated the Democratic party as well.

Will Marshall was the policy director for the DLC and is the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which was formed to create policy for the DLC. The DLC and PPI are very intertwined. Al From, DLC founder, is the chairman of PPI. The DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC). The press e-mail for both DLC and PPI is [e-mail]

Will Marshall was one of the select people who actually signed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements on post war Iraq, along with a few frequent Blueprint authors (the DLC magazine). PNAC has been issuing official statements since it's inception, each signed by about 1-3 dozen select people including Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, William Kristol
and Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group). Mr. Marshall doesn't just agree with them, he is intimately involved with them.

Mr. Marshall is also an advisor to the Committee to Liberate Iraq (CLI), who's mission is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people. Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda, which it does very well. CLI is loaded with PNAC'ers, including 3 of the board of directors.

Although Will Marshall (and the rest of the DLC/PPI) has been pushing a slightly sanitized, politically correct neo-con-lite agenda for years, it is just recently that he came out of the closet with his official PNAC/CLI affiliations. The PNAC statements he signed were released in March 2003 and CLI was formed in the fall of 2002. Like many of the neo-cons, he seems to be more brazen and open than ever before.

I'm sure at least some of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called) joined on for funding support and without really appreciating what the DLC's agenda and affiliations really are. Most of the DLC's message is spun to sound like it challenges Bush, but look at the core messages and you find them more closely aligned with the neo-cons than it appears on the surface.

When you realize this, Congressional Democratic support for the Bush administration's policies (out of control military budget, tax cuts, rampant privatization and corporatization and war, war, war) makes more sense. Btw, membership in the New Democrat Network (what the DLC membership is called) is cheap (about $50.00) but not easy. Prospective members are thoroughly screened. Here is a description of their process from Robert Dreyfuss in the 4/23/01 issue of The American Prospect (link below):

"To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, (Simon) Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

Here is some of what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11:

America's New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926


Here is one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


And a more recent piece:

Activists Are Out of Step
By Al From and Bruce Reed Originally in LA Times 7/3/03

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=85&subid=65

------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Richard Perle's lips move.

It is difficult to make the American public understand the danger in all of this and why the DLC must be exposed. Most people have never even heard of PNAC or the DLC.

DU'ers have the advantage of understanding what these organizations are and what power and influence they hold. Because of that advantage, we have a responsibility to share our knowledge and use our numbers to expose these people for what they are.

The New Democrat Network directory includes not just Washington Dems, but state and local politicians as well. Please, check the directory and see if any of your elected officials are on it. Make them declare their allegiance either to the powers that fund them or the voters who elect them.

Links:

DLC website: http://www.ndol.org /

PPI website: http://www.ppionline.org /

CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml

PNAC Iraq statements:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

How the DLC Does It
By Robert Dreyfuss The American Prospect 4/23/01

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

New Democrat Network directory

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x80


=================

Oct. 2, 2002, proudly flanking Bush & McCain and giving those neocons their "bipartisan" blank check for an insane war on Iraq (Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq were Joe Lieberman Evan Bayh, & Dick Gephardt. Bayh was then chairman of the DCL and Lieberman and Gephardt were past chairmen of the DLC.

Warhawks and as right-leaning as they come. Fine representatives of the DLC, the PPI, and corporations.

I'm with POAC... When good old-fashioned Democratic values were good enough.

[sangha]

63. Wow, that Will Marshall is a scary guy!!!

I wonder how many times he voted for war in Congress?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[AntiCoup2K4]

89. He's a piece of shit traitor

Treason used to be a death penalty offense. Now it seems to be a political advantage :puke:

[ithacan]

64. just to highlight one small bit

of your excellent post,

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, advocating that NATO help "secure and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," and arguing that the invasion "can contribute decisively to the democratization of the Middle East." (7)

Some people I guess just don't want to be honest about what they really support...

[sangha]

67. Support for IWR was a centrist position

Most centrists supported IWR, according to polls at the time

[Q]

69. The issue really isn't so much about support for the 'war'...

...as it is those who continue to support it after KNOWING it was all based on lies and fabrications.

- It's one thing to be wrong...but quite another to refuse to admit you were wrong and continue to support that wrong...even when the evidence is overwhelming that the Iraq invasion and occupation was wrong on so many levels.

[sangha]

80. Another thread Q hasn't read

.

[Q]

100. I read every post but yours...

...which is usually just recycled dribble.

- The DLC candidates will get one more break in November. If it wasn't for little dictator Bush* and the desperate need to kick his ass out of Gore's White House....we would be kicking the DLC's ass instead.

[ithacan]

71. he's supporting the whole PNAC line...

not just the war.

The entire neoconservative line about "liberating" Iraq and thereby spreading democracy throughout the region.

He signed onto the PNAC document on this.

This is not just voting to support the war, under certain conditions.

It is buying into the whole neocon vision of American in the world.

That is an extreme vision that is personified in the Bush white house.

Democrats should do all they can to oppose this vision, it's not good for the US and it's not good for the world.

And by the way, the only reason that "polls" showed that there was support for the war against Iraq is because of the neo-con and PNAC lies that were parroted by the media, and apparently also by DLC operatives.

[sangha]

81. You missed the point, and it was *YOUR* point

Your point wasn't that Will Marshall supports the war. If it were, I wouldn't be disagreeing with you since it's clear that Marshall does support the war.

Your point was that support for the war is not a centrist position, a point you repeat in this latest post when you say "That is an extreme vision that is personified in the Bush white house". Unfortunately, you're wrong. Most centrists supported the war.

[Jose Diablo]

70. Thank you Tinoire

I suspected the motives of the DLC but couldn't put my finger on what exactly I didn't like about it, other than it sounded like they were sleeping with the enemy, the corporations.

From your post, now I know it is another organization the neocons used to subvert the political process of the USA. In this case the left side of the political spectrum.

If the voters have only 2 choices, and both choices are really the same choice, then the outcome is guaranteed.

Throw the bums out of the party. We don't need them.

[Jose Diablo]

74. Holy crap Batman

I just went to www.ndol.com and went to the New Democrat page. There they had 100 new members to watch. Read some of the profiles. These people are republicans in ideology.

It was like Shirley Franklin the mayor of Atlanta was facing a $82m shortfall and her solution was to layoff city employees and raise taxes. Then there is the mention she took a $40k reduction in salary, but you can never be sure how much was skimmed from revenue from the airport concession income. The feds cut, the locals face shortfalls, then the locals make-up the shortfall by raising taxes and cutting services. Drown the baby in the bathtub.

Then there was Mark Taylor the Lieut Gov, his motto was "Dance with the ones that brung ya". Hmmm who brought him?

The DLC is in power and there is a lot of them, at all levels. Has the Dem party be asleep for 20 years, like in sleeping beauty?

It will not be possible to throw them out. This has gone on to the point of no return, I fear.

Sure we can win here and there, but the neocons have this country by the nuts.

[Zorra]

83. Subcomandante Marcos on Neo-liberalism

I think this essay explains the reason for the DLC's existence.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[RapidCreek]

94. WOW now I'm really confused!!!

None the less, I thank you for posting such an extensive and well documented post! I should think someone as informed about the DLC as yourself...would be sporting one of their snappy sig pics!! :)

RC

[Radical Activist]

68. THE DLC ARE CORPORATE WHORES!

Is that really so hard to understand?
That's why they don't want Universal single payer healthcare. That's why they support NAFTA and the WTO. That's why they don't want Taft-Hartley reform.

You want another reason why 911 wasn't prevented? Because Republicans and the DLC corporate Democrats who took lots of money from the airline industry refused to make airlines improve their safety and security standards. The security measures that would have stopped the 911 hijackers had been proposed years ago, but were never made law prior to 911 because of the influence of campaign money from the airline industry who didn't want to spend the extra money on security. The DLC is great at raising corporate money and they're great at watering down the Democratic Party.

Does that answer whether they're right wing?

[Forkboy]

72. I'd like to say I'm suprised at who responded the most

but I'd be lying.

[RapidCreek]

97. Hey, didn't they deep six your ass yet????

:)

RC

[Forkboy]

98. shhhhhhhhhhhhh

dont give them any ideas :D

[RapidCreek]

101. Hehehe

:)

RC

[FarLeftRage]

82. I said this before

and I'll say it again... dlc = old style "liberal" repuKKKe.

No difference between the two, both are shameless corpoRATe shills.

[DaveSZ]

93. If Joe Lieberman is a "centrist," we don't need that bullshit in our party

Even McCain was taking Holy Joe to task the other day over his defense of the torture at Abu Ghraib.

[FarLeftRage]

96. I believe joey is one

and that is why I don't respect him or ANY of the dlc/repuKKKe wannabes in the Democratic party...

joey did not even defend his own VP office when it was stolen from him.





*LEFT out a word*

[Jose Diablo]

106. Thanks RapidCreek for the most informative thread

I was unsure of why I was troubled by the DLC. Now I am sure. They are indeed subversive to the Dem's and I also think "we the people", thus they are also traitors to the constitution.

Tinoire's post detailing how the DLC 'vets' potential members to see their political leanings before allowing membership. The members know exactly what they are doing and they are willing to do anything to get the backing of the DLC.

Sell themselves for a few dollars, I would call that prostitution of the worst sort. They sell their souls in the bargain too.

Merely right-wing? Nope, I would call them modern day Benedict's.

It is no wonder our country is in trouble with 'leaders' like this ready to sell anything for a place in the 'new world order'.

Edit: Nevermind

[RapidCreek]

108. My Pleasure!

I really appreciate Tinoire's post as well....That said, If I have decided that a right leaning government would best suit my personal needs...it seems the only logical choice would be to vote Republican...as anyone can tell you there's strength in numbers.

RC

[seabeyond]

107. hands down my interest would be republican

as i was telling my children, why i dont drive an suv, though it would keep my children safer, i would put to risk others children. cutting their view to see. if i hit them, mine would be safe but do more damage to others. and also a greedy pillage of our resources, oil, that we are in war over.

though driving my car puts my own children in greater risk, i have a responsiblity as a whole why i chose a car

to illimate inheritance tax, and tax less on the rich would benefit me and my extended family, i have a greater responsibility to my fellow man.

i send kids to private school. i am also mad as hell at what is happening to the public. and not funding the public in the taxes i give to do that. i want all to get as good as an education. and i am willing to pay

we all have to get beyond the selfish. and i am starting with myself, and extending it to my children