Do you think the DLC has had a positive impact on the Democratic Party?

[WI_DEM]

How about it? Do you think the moderate-conservative Democratic Leadership Council has had a positive or negative impact on the Democratic party?

On the pro side they say that their pushing the Democratic agenda to the center has helped Democrats win two elections (Bill Clinton in '92 and '96)and winning the popular vote in 2000.

On the con side the Green Party has become firmly established in many states in part due to the democratic party losing its identity as the "progressive party." also, Democrats suffered set backs in the House and Senate in '94 that they have yet to really recover from.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Was the Clinton Presidency positive for the party?

What states has the Green Party become firmly established in?

Have they elected any governors, senators, house members, or mayors of majors cities? gotten significant representation in a state legislature? where?


(ps, I voted mixed)

[Q]

4. Actually, no...

- Clinton, through this behavior, allowed himself to be blackmailed by the RWingers and he gave away so much of the party that it's difficult to recognize anymore.

[sangh0]

5. More nonsense

Clinton, in the middle of his "scandal" stood up to Gingrich and the Repukes over the budget, so the repukes shut the government down.

[WI_DEM]

10. The Green Party has ballot access in many states

and are well organized in many states and cities. I'm not a Green, but am a solid Democrat, but I do know they have elected people in many communities in many seats, maybe not in prominent statewide offices but in local communities--where a new party can be expected to make its initial gains. I'm sure if you want a list of where they have officeholders and how many you can check out their website.

[sangh0]

11. "Many" is not a state in the US

Please tell us which states the Greens are "firmly entrenched". And if you could, please explain how "getting on the ballot" makes them "firmly entrenched"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. So does the Constitution party, the Natural Law party, etc.

I think the assertion "the Green Party has become firmly established in many states in part due to the democratic party losing its identity as the "progressive party."

is absolute nonsense, and I'm challenging you to provide some facts that support this far-fetched notion.


In what states has the Green Party become firmly established?


Please name them, and give your specific reasons for saying the Green party is 'firmly established' in those states.

[sangh0]

2. In which states are the Greens "firmly established"?

Also, you left out the elections of 1998, which went surprisingly well for the Dems given the circumstances

[WI_DEM]

3. Still the party has not recovered from '94

The House elections went well becuz the Republicans were pushing the highly unpopular impeachment. As for the Greens--they are established in many states and have ballot access in many states. I'm not predicting that they will get many votes in this election for president due to the special circumstances of Bush's vast unpopularity on the left and the very real belief that he must be ridden out of office despite everything.

[sangh0]

7. Not a very honest response from you

You avoided both of my points. What are you afraid of?

What states are the Greens "firmly entrenched" in? (note: "Many" is not a state in the US)

WHat about the 1998 elections?

[WI_DEM]

13. Now, now

Don't be obnoxious it is not a good trait to call people dishonest. The Greens have ballot access in many states due to their performance in 2000. They have received more votes in the past two presidential elections than any other third party (except for Ross Perot, a special case in 1996). They have elected officials in many local communities. If you want to do so, check out their site. Many Greens voted Democratic in the past and may well do it again this year. I would say that they like the Libertarian party are a firmly established Third Party.

I've noticed that any mention of the Green Party makes some people on this board go crazy and suspect that the poster is a supporter of that party. Just so you know I've supported the Democratic nominee in every election since 1984 when I first was able to vote and will do so again.

I think I explained to you in my original post my feelings about '98--it was an unexpected turn of events and the democratic party did gain ground in the House in an off-year election--but in my opinion it was due to the Republicans relentless tactics against Clinton. The fact is that the dems did lose the house in '94 and have not won it back.

Now, instead of attacking--why not give us your opinion. If you believe the DLC has had a positive influence explain why. Hopefully no one will attack you if they disagree with you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Calling someone 'obnoxious' does not make your case more persuasive.

Which states are you referring to?

What are their names?

What is the evidence that supports the assertion that the Green party has become 'firmly established' in those states?

[WI_DEM]

17. why don't you look it up

I've explained what I've said. The Green Party is an established Third Party just as the Libertarian Party is. They have gotten more vote in 1996 and 2000 than any other third party with the exception of Ross Perot's party. They have elected representatives in many localities.

Why do you take this as a pro-Green party thread?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Because it was a false statement from you, there is nothing to look up.

Which states were you referring to when you made the statement:

" the Green Party has become firmly established in many states"



BTW, I don't care how many times you avoid answering the question, I'll keep asking.

[WI_DEM]

24. thank you

for helping keep this thread up which so far has the DLC losing decisively. By the way what is your opinion on the DLC?

[sangh0]

28. We know your opinion of the DLC, but

what we don't know is what FACTS support your opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Which states were you referring to

when you made the statement:

" the Green Party has become firmly established in many states" ?



I answered your question in post #1. I have a mixed opinion of the DLC.

Why are you unable to answer my simple question?

[sangh0]

21. I did NOT call YOU "dishonest"

I said the RESPONSE was not honest because it did nothing to address the points I raised.

And "ballot access" does not mean "firmly entrenched" I can understand why you would want people to think it's the same, but all sorts of ineffective and insignificant political organizations have ballot access, including the LaRouchites.

They have elected officials in many local communities

You said the Green were "firmly entrenched" in several STATES, not "local communities"

in my opinion it was due to the Republicans relentless tactics against Clinton

And Clinton fought back, which undermines your claim that the DLC did not fight hard enough for liberal policies and that voters felt that the Dems were too much like the Republicans.

If you believe the DLC has had a positive influence explain why

1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. The first two were years when non-DLC candidates lost. In 1992, the DLC Dem won. In 1994, LIBERAL Dems lost because of gun control, higher taxes on the rich, no middle-class tax cut, and gays in the military. In 1996, 1998, a DLC Dem won. In 1998 many DLC Dems won. In 2000, the DLC Dem candidate for POTUS won.

[JI7]

25. Reagan Democrats

true, because one reason democrats kept control of congress so long was because of conservative democrats who allied with reagan on many things. they finally got their president in office after so many years with bill clinton. they did good with voting with their party on things like gun control, tax raises on the rich, etc, but they ended up losing their seats because of those votes.

clinton often talks about it and commends them.

[WI_DEM]

30. Then why did the DLC attack Al Gore in 2000?

for running a class warfare type campaign--and not running enough on DLC issues?

BTW, thank you for answering why you think the DLC has been a positive force. I appeciate your view.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Could you provide a link or reference for the attacks you claim happened?

Is it true? or is this another false characterization?

[sangh0]

54. I'll answer your question

after you've answered mine. In which states are the Greens "firmly entrenched"?

[JI7]

8. but why did Republicans gain ?

it still doesn't show why republicans gained. if the problem is that democrats were not liberal enough then why would the republicans gain support ?

[JI7]

6. and the presidential elections of 1984 and 1988

how well did the non dlc candidates do then ?

and from what i remember a bunch of democrats lost seats in congress because they supported the brady bill and clinton's balanced budget bill which raised taxes on the rich.

[sangh0]

9. Two more points WI-DEM can ignore

.

[WI_DEM]

16. my friend

why do you take things so personally? I'm not ignoring anything. 1984, who do you think the Democratic party would have nominated who could have defeated Reagan? Mondale by the way was the establishment candidate. I doubt anybody we put up could have taken Reagan down.

1988, Michael Dukakis had a 17-point lead after the convention and he blew it. He was not running a "progressive" campaign but was running from the middle. He was running on the "Massachusetts Miracle", ect. His running mate too was from the moderate wing of the party. He simply blew it by not running a good campaign and allowing Bush to tar him and make "liberal" a dirty word without response.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Which are the states in which the Greens are 'firmly established'

Did you make that up? Why won't you answer this simple question?

[WI_DEM]

22. read my previous answers

They are a legitimate Third party.

But here is a link if you want it to the office holders they have in the US--they appear to have more than even the Libertarian party. Do you dey that they are a legitimate third party too?
http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

I doubt you will be satisfied and you somehow want to make this a Green vs. Democrat thread, but that is up to you. If you think the DLC has had a positive effect on the Democratic party why don't you give us your reasons.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. What are the names of the states you were referring to

when you stated:

" the Green Party has become firmly established in many states" ?

[Classical_Liberal]

26. They almost one the mayoral race in San Francisco

. There are green parties in all the states.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. I am fully aware of those facts.

I just would like the original poster to say which states he was talking about, so that we can move on to a fact-based discussion about whether or not the Green party is firmly established in those states.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. DLC - The Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

The "move to the middle". From where? Not from right to left. Rather from the social justice, anti-war, left to the right of "not as bad" as the repukes.

[Gman]

18. Please

now is not the time for this divisisve crap.

[WI_DEM]

23. what is divisive?

Is this not a discussion board? Why can't we discuss the DLC? Why can't people say whether they think it is a good organization or that it has not been good for the party? How is it attacking John Kerry or taking anything away from his election? Is it possible for people to have honest disagreements?

[sangh0]

31. What's divisive is the reactionary response of "Why can't we discuss....."

You CAN discuss ANYTHING you want to, but others are also allowed to do the same, including discussing whether or not this topic is divisive or not.

It is divisive to respond to anyone who questions you with an accusation that someone is not ALLOWING you to post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Which states were you referring to

when you made the statement:

" the Green Party has become firmly established in many states" ?


Personally, I'm more interesed in having an honest discussion than I am in having a disagreement, honest or otherwise.

[sangh0]

35. It's hard to have ANY discussion

when the topic starter REFUSES to explain his/her opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. What I don't understand is WHY?

Why not simply say what states he is referring to, so we can have a fact-based discussion of whether his assertion is true?


Oh, I think I might have answered my own question.

[WI_DEM]

36. see my many answers to your question

Thanks again.

[sangh0]

39. None of your posts name the states were Greens are "firmly entrenched"

and anyone reading this thread will see that, but if you want to stick to that response, you're free to do so. When I see someone digging a hold, I might suggest they put down the shovel, but I won't grab it out of their hands.

[WI_DEM]

42. They are firmly established in many states

I even provided a link to their officeholders. They got more votes than any other third party (again excepting Perot, a special case, in 1996)in '96 and '00. Obviously they are established in many states and have supporters in many states.

Again, this is not a pro-Green party thread. I didn't even think it was anti-DLC in the way I approached the questions either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Which ones? What states are you referring to?

[sangh0]

46. Please stop with the straw man

Again, this is not a pro-Green party thread

No one has claimed that this is a pro-Green thread. We are disagreeing with some of the assertions you made. Do you have a problem with disagreement?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Your post is dishonest. You have not named even one state let alone 'many'

Which states were you referring to when you made the statement:

" the Green Party has become firmly established in many states" ?

[Gman]

37. Reminds me of Beetlejuice's exclamation of

"WHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?????"

Surely you're not serious. You don't see this as bringing up a divisive issue in mid-August, less than 100 days before the presidential election?

[WI_DEM]

44. no I don't

What should every post be? Kerry is leading Bush by 5-points, Teresa is great, Bush is evil (which of course he is), but we can't ask a simple question? Do you approve or disapprove of the DLC?

[sangh0]

47. You can ask any question you want

but is it wrong to expect you to explain what you mean when you say things like "The Green Party is firmly entrenched in many states"?

[WI_DEM]

51. but they are

why don't you think a party which has ballot access in many states, gets federal funds, and has elected many officeholders (admittedly in localities,not statewide) and got more votes than any other third party in '96 and '00 isn't an established third party?

[sangh0]

55. Which states?

Why won't you answer this question? You've put far more effort into CLAIMING you've answered this question than it would take to simply list the names of those states.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. And how many is 'many'? 1? 5? 40?

If you would tell us which states you are talking about, we can have a fact based discussion about the issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. In which states do you believe the Green party is 'firmly established'?

lol

[Gman]

52. Some Mod's email box is nearing capacity

they need to lock this thread. It is serving no useful purpose at this point.

Mods, please take care of this.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 because of Bill Clinton NOT the DLC!

On the other hand, the DLC LOST 1994 and 2002 and sabotaged Gore by insisting on Holy Joe as a running mate, which allowed 2000 to be close enough to steal.

Kerry's views on foreign policy are literally sickening. I'm physically nauseous today after reading this shit. Were it not for the Supreme Court and the environment, there's no way that spineless waffler would get my vote.

FUCK THE DLC - god knows they've been fucking us for years :grr:

[kentuck]

34. They give us Democrats like Rodney Alexander....

Whom you can never trust.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. And Bill Clinton

I never trusted him either.

[sangh0]

49. And Al Gore

I heard that when he was in High School, he was nominated as "Most Likely to Steal an Election"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. And, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller, and Evan Bayh.

All ready to toe the Republican line at the drop of poll.

[sangh0]

64. And I thought the Repukes were against gay rights

abortion rights, and for prayer in schools. Silly me.

[K-W]

45. They are negative now, they were a positive once, and in some districts

we still need to feild conservative-ish candidates.

There is definately a place in the party for them. They just shouldnt control the party.

[napi21]

50. I think the DLC did have a positive effect on the Dem Party.

And I think Bill Clinton did too! Did he screw up...YES! I suspect he knew the daliances of Jack Kennedy, and foolishly thought that when you're Pres. you can get away with that. That was stupid! But he was elected for 2 terms, remember? It wasn't by 20 electoral votes either, was it?

Extremes on either side usually aren't too successful.

If you think BC was so bad for the party, why was the 2000 election so close? I know quite a few Dems who were do disappointed with BC's misbehavoir they either stayed home, or voted for Nader because they couldn't vote for shrub.

There is truth in "every opinion has a bell curve". There is an extreme right, and extreme left, and a middle which is a group that is not radical, but willing to think about their decision.

The USA is that same way. You hear a lot more from the extremes on both sides because they are the vocal ones.

Why do you think even the media keep saying the election is going to depend upon how things are going in Iraq, and how the economy feels to that voter at the time of the election? It's sure not because they are strong Kerry or shrub supporters, now, is it?

[Eloriel]

57. Important DLC links

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

And beyond this, I'm too weary to engage in this conversation. Bah. Do your homework, folks. The DLC is NO friend to Dems. If it once was (and I no longer necessarily believe that -- Clinton got elected because he is one of the most gifted politicians EVER and also because of Perot splitting the vote), it long since ceased to be.

[sangh0]

60. Why does NY State have a Repuke governor?

and how did Pataki defeat Cuomo, an extremely liberal non-DLCer in a liberal Dem state? Was the DLC to blame?

And why has NYC had THREE Republican mayors in a row? Is it because Dinkins was DLC?

[K-W]

62. No, its because NY republicans run as liberals and win elections.

Even in a liberal state we still have the same two parties as everyone else, so every election we get a campaign between two people. The conservative run as liberals, the dems run as liberals, and oftentimes the republican just plum beats the democrat. Also, NYC is very liberal, the rest of the state is not so far left.

[sangh0]

63. So why don't liberals vote for REAL liberals, like Dinkins and Cuomo?

Are they dumb?

[K-W]

65. Basically, yah.

They are complacent and dont thinkg. They are liberal as a habit, not neccessarily as activists, but hopefully the Bush administration will create a new generation of activist liberals.

[sangh0]

67. If you agree

then doesn't it sound illogical to suggest that Dems would get more votes if they moved to the left, as the anti-DLCers claim?

[MisterP]

61. jettisoning civil rights to pretend to chase the swing voter,

getting Nixonic on those eeeeevillll anti-Reaganomics protesters, Thatcherite Bool Weevils, PNAC with the label "progressive," and proving Greg Palast right over and over again do not a Democratic victory make.

[Selwynn]

66. Umm... hello?

The DLC has betrayed every principle of liberalism that is good and just. Our only hope is to take the party back from their ever-increasingly conservative clutches, and actually stand for what's right. Winning is not more important than doing whats right, but I haven't given up on both winning and being right just yet...

[Kanary]

68. Well said! With effort, DEMs can both do what's right, *and* win.

What a revolutionary concept.

Kanary