What is the DU obsession with the DLC?

[BL611]

Alright I am often in disagreement with the general ideological slant of the DLC, but holy crap people on this site make it look like its anyone who has ever associated themselves with it now bears the mark of the beast. Yes they are a centrist think tank with a pro business slant. Whats the problem if a Democrat works with them as long as they work with other more progressive think tanks also?

[davepc]

1. They push bad strategy that loses elections

Pick bland candidates that lose elections

[wtmusic]

24. They put a hit out early on Dean

Instead of looking for candidates with new ideas, they want to push their ideas on candidates.

For that they get and deserve my undying scorn.

[BL611]

28. I didn't know

the DLC had such heavy influence with Iowa caucus voters....

[wtmusic]

30. Of course they do

when they work from day one to undermine the #1 candidate (according to polls) in their party

[TheWraith]

92. Horseshit.

The DLC, as it really exists, is a sort of marginal centerist-Dem PAC/thinktank.

The DLC, as defined by DU paranoia, is an evil omnipotent organization dedicated to the total overthrow of democracy and the installation of a fascist government.

It's a bogeyman for the ultraleft types here at DU, something that they can blame whenever a Democrat does something that they don't like. It's hogwash, pure and simple.

[nvliberal]

114. It's third party-type "thinking," if you can call it that.

The DLC is right there with the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, and every other type of evil organization out to destroy the American way of life.

The criticism is ill-founded and absolutely embarrassing.

[wtmusic]

120. If you have a need to create labels for everything

by all means, do.

In the meantime, here's some horseshit/paranoia/hogwash for you:

"But the great myth of the current cycle," DLC leaders Al From and Bruce Reed wrote in a May 15, 2003 memo, "is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. "What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."

http://counterpunch.org/frank07082004.html

[TheWraith]

129. Speaking from the hip, and bearing in mind that I don't know these guys...

What the guys are saying has some sense. The ultra-left activist portion of the party--which is heavily represented here at DU--does to a large extent represent a philosophy that's impractical and sometimes a bit loony. Just look at some of the Green Party types. Without a solid, realistic progressive platform to work from, very little would get done. See Gavin Newsom's gay marriage initive: a wonderful gesture, and I really like the guy, but those things don't win battles. Politics is the slow cutting of a very hard board, and to accomplish anything, you need to be patient, realistic, and willing to accept your victories wherever possible.

I also find ironic the fact that the article you linked to talks about how the ads that this whole conservative anti-Dean conspiracy theory is supposed to be based on were, in fact, attacking Dean for pro-gun and pro-free trade positions. Where I'm from, we call that "running to the left."

[wtmusic]

134. Dean ran on extremely "solid, realistic progressive platform"

I'm not sure why you bring up Gavin Newsom, or why the article suggests Dean is pro-NRA (he isn't -- his position was that it should be up to states to decide gun control).

The DLC and other candidates attacked Dean any way they could, because he was a complete and unpredicted breakaway in polls. He was a maveric and showed no intention of respecting anyone's platform but his own. The implication that Dean is "weak" on foreign policy because he was one of the first Democrats to be vocal against the Iraq war is sickening, and is an outright smear. I'm not sure Dean was ready for prime time either. His IA performance was lame, and illustrated once again why it takes more than great ideas to be a great leader. But make no mistake: the DLC wanted Dean to fail from the start, and the reasons had nothing to do with his ability to lead.

It's not hard to trace the motives here. Dean argued for substantially-raised corporate tax rates and would have reined in health care and defense costs. A lot of states depend on that largesse, and when it comes right down to it war and drugs are good business.

[Ken Burch]

142. Gavin Newsom's gay marriage policy was the only progressive thing he

ever did.

Other than that, he's a reactionary hypocrite who claims to admire Bobby Kennedy but has devoted most of his energies to the loonie idea that you can wipe out homelessness by punishing the homeless for being homeless.

SF should've elected Matt Gonzales, and the national Democrats should never have intervened to stop a Gonzales victory.

[ruggerson]

93. From what I remember

Dean wasn't ready for prime time. NBC unearthed some panel footage which showed Dean calling the Iowa primary useless or something. WHen Fox News and others ran after him with cameras, he scurried past them, frantically uttering incoherencies. He could have answered the questions with humor and grace and wry wit, which would have totally diffused the issue, which was just a media driven gotcha one day story anyway. He just didn't have the experience to do that. He's far, far better now. But you can't blame Dean's self destruction in 04 on anyone but Dean. And I say that as someone who was backing him early on very fervently. I would have far preferred Dean to Kerry. But, frankly, they were both terrible politician/strategists.

[TheWraith]

126. Too true.

The irony is that Dean could probably have survived the repeated gaffes with the Iowa caucus comment, the Confederate flag comment, and all the other verbal disasters if they had just reacted a little quicker. The campaign's repeated refusal to clarify or retract the statements kept turning them from a one-day story into a three day story, without any response or explanation.

You could actually have capitalized on the thing about the Confederate flag by adding a punchy two-liner about how the Republicans have used race and culture to get southerners to vote against their own best interests. Then every media outlet covering the statement would also have to cover the clarification = free advertising.

[nvliberal]

113. What a crock.

The only "hit" that was put out on Dean was one on himself, as he shot himself in the ass time and time again.

I have a nickname for him, one of several: Buckshot Butt.

[wtmusic]

117. That's your crock

nothing in it. Here's mine:

"But the great myth of the current cycle," DLC leaders Al From and Bruce Reed wrote in a May 15, 2003 memo, "is the misguided notion that the hopes and dreams of activists represent the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. "What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home."

http://counterpunch.org/frank07082004.html

[reprehensor]

2. Do you have some examples of the DLC "working with" other...

more progressive think tanks?

[BL611]

5. I said candidates who work with the DLC

not the DLC itself.....

[Mojambo]

3. If the DLC were just what you described there wouldn't be a problem

Most believe that their designs are not nearly so moderate.

The DLC wants to destroy the progressive wing of the Democratic party, IMO.

[BL611]

8. Yes this is what I'm talking about

This perception that the DLC is this omnipotent quasi conspiratorial dictatorship aimed at destroying anything/anyone to the left of them. I happen to think this is quite overblown....

[Mojambo]

11. I can only base my opinion on their words and actions

Others may interpret them differently of course.

[TahitiNut]

14. It's easy to disagree with your own strawman. (Bullshit hyperbole.)

The person to whom you responded said "The DLC wants to destroy the progressive wing of the Democratic party, IMO."

You said, "the DLC is this omnipotent quasi conspiratorial dictatorship aimed at destroying anything/anyone to the left of them."

Why bother having a discussion with anything other than a mirror? Why use others as foils for your own overblown rhetoric?

:shrug: That's the kind of 'discussion' that's making DU a mess.

[BL611]

18. How is it a strawman?

My point is whether you agree with them or not (and for the record I don't) why should people be so threatened by the DLC if they are just another DC think tank (which I believe they are).

[Ken Burch]

16. Care to make a case for that view?

Can you show any reason why we shouldn't think the DLC is implacably hostile to the poor, basically takes the side of the whitebread suburbs against the multicultural majority and wants us to return to the LBJ/Scoop Jackson foreign policy tradition?
(I.E.,

1)find a place to start a war;
2)start that war;
3)NEVER END THAT WAR
4)repeat as needed)

Can you also find any evidence that the DLC is getting less arrogant and less anti-democratic in its treatment of others in the party?

If you can, then, we could maybe talk.

[BL611]

21. If you substantiate you're claims first

then maybe we could talk.

[TahitiNut]

41. (cough) That would be "your claims."

"you're" is a contraction of "you are"
"your" is the second person possessive

:shrug:

This has been an unpaid public service announcement on behalf of our education system.

[BL611]

66. Thank You

I'm sorry if my misuse of grammer on a thread has offended you, please accept my apologies. I will try to be more cautious in the future....

[Ken Burch]

97. OK, here is a start

1)the whole DLC campaign against "special interest groups" in the party was always a coded attack against anyone in the party who wasn't a wealthy heterosexual white male. This is an unchallengable reality. Remember, the DLC thinks that feminists, gay rights supporters, labor unions(the only political voice for working people)and civil rights activists are a special interest group but defense contractors other corporate lobbyists AREN'T.

2)the DLC has effectively called for the expulsion of all peace activists from the party and proudly trumpets itself as the voice of "Scoop Jackson Democrats"(I.E., militarists).

3)No group in the party worked harder for the passage of NAFTA than the DLC. It was thanks to this work that all progressive Democrats now know that the term "pro-business Democrat" is a code phrase for "Republican in the wrong party". It was largely due to the work of the DLC that passage of the Republican negotiated NAFTA, a trade deal opposed by the vast majority of the American people and now proven to have only been to the benefit of large corporations, was the only issue that Bill Clinton worked on with any passion when Congress was still Democratic. Clinton let all other campaign promises die on the vine, but corporate power had to have its way.

[Lars39]

4. Right-wing think tank, not centrist.

[Ken Burch]

6. It's not an obsession. It's a legitimate series of grievances.

First of all, even though the DLC clearly caused the last three Democratic losses('00, '02, '04)they are still acting like they are the only ones who know how to win an election and they are trying to push the party EVEN FURTHER TO THE RIGHT.

(One of their minions illustrated this yesterday by starting a thread titled"Don't ignore this article unless you want to lose"(It was an article that quoted William Galston, one of the major DLC gurus and a chief proponent of the idea that Democrats should spend just as much time demonizing the poor as Republicans do.)

On policy, the DLC would be perfectly happy for us to run on Dubya's platform, with a few JFK quotes added to help them pretend it was "Democratic".

Finally, they won't work for the party unless they are given absolute control of it and we are left completely out in the cold(as was the case in '00, '02, '04).

It would be easier to work with the DLC if they would accept their place as simply being ONE PART of a coalition and would treat the rest of us as equals. After all, they no longer have any reason to see themselves as inherently politically superior to us.

As I see it, those are the sources of the hostility that you see as an "obsession", BL611.

[BL611]

15. I don't see it as so clear...

that the DLC caused our last three losses,while I would like to see the Democrats be more strident in their economic populism, I think there were many perceptions about the democrats that has hurt them that has come from the left wing of the Democratic party...

[Ken Burch]

20. It's not about being "strident", it's about being CONFIDENT

that defending the poor, fighting to expand the labor movement, and protecting the environment and the working multicultural majority of Americans from corporate-based trade policies is ACTUALLY SOMETHING WORTH DOING.

The DLC doesn't believe any of the above. They hate the poor, they basically think that, on cultural values, everyone should be just as uptight and bland and whitebread as the most morally constipated Kansas Republican. They really should admit they're GOP at heart and go away. Trust me, they won't take many voters with them, if any at all.

We need to be a party that celebrates the worth and the dignity of all our constituencies. We need to take pride in fighting for the full, real, modern America, the America that all of us have an equal role in building. The DLC, from what I can see, doesn't want us to be a party like that. They want us to be a shame-based party that hates all but a handful of our wealthiest members. I'd love to be proved wrong about that, but I ain't holding my breath.

[madfloridian]

22. You go ahead with that philosophy.

We are not falling for that crap anymore.

[BL611]

26. Falling for what???

This is what I having a hard time understanding? A more moderate wing of the Democratic party that organizes itself the same way that other aspects of the Democratic coalition do?

[moddemny]

23. Your right, it's not that clear.........

That's part of the revisionism here, that moderate candidates lose elections. In 2000 it was Nader that took the votes from Gore. The people that claim to be the true progressives around here act as if everything can be accomplished overnight, a perfect utopia tomorrow. They don't see progress as a step by step process most of the time with some eventual leaps along the way.

[leanin_green]

125. Yes, well, it's time to leap bro!

At certain times in our nations' history moderate thinking is definitely admirable. Moderation is usually a sound prescription for living. It is the voice of balance and reason. IMO, those times are not these times. WE are woefully out of balance and in order to correct our teeter before we totter will take that leap you suggested. To step in the middle now will only have us eventually slide back toward the direction we are out of balance. Consider the fact that if you stand in the middle, in order for you to maintain that stance you will have to apply more force in the other direction in order to regain your balance. It's just basic science really. Kinetics in action.

[Mojambo]

27. Somehow I don't see economic populism on the DLC agenda any time soon. n/t

[BL611]

31. I never said they did....

Again I am not a DLCer, its incredible that people accuse me of creating strawmen and then read my posts selectivly....

[Mojambo]

36. But you did insinuate that the recent losses were attributable

to perceptions coming from the left flank of the party.

I'm saying that the losses were just as attributable (if not moreso) to the regressive economic policies of the DLC wing.

You want economic populism, you're going to have to minimize the influence of the DLC, IMO.

[BL611]

38. So by that logic are you also

in favor of minimizing the influence of groups that advocate on social issues that distract people from the economic ones?

[Mojambo]

47. No

A true progressive party without a DLC anchor around their neck wouldn't have to.

I don't believe that social issues distract people from economic ones anyway, but I would say that if you proceed in a progressive manner on economic issues (pretty hard with the DLC standing in the way) you will be in a much stronger positions to attack on social issues.

[BL611]

51. Here's my theory on the whole thing

Since the Democrats are losing and obviously you have to blame someone, its much easier for left wing Dems to scapegoat and heap ALL of the blame on the DLC then to take a look in the mirror and see which of their positions may be hurting them with voters. Crazy, huh?

[Mojambo]

60. I just call it the way I see it.

I think there is plenty the left wing could do better, but I don't think they are the problem with this party. I'm not heaping all the blame on the DLC, but they are a BIGGER part of the problem than the left. Much bigger, IMO.

And I don't think it's crazy at all that a liberal/lefty might have a problem getting on board with the conservative policies of the DLC.

It's somehow become common wisdom that the left wing's positions on social issues are hurting them more than their DLC, economic ankle grabbing to corporations. Just because I don't agree with this common wisdom doesn't mean I don't think that we aren't being hurt by social issues.

I just think we might have a shot at fixing the social issues if we actually stood up for middle class Americans on the economy. From every indication I can find, the DLC disagrees with me vigorously.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective and entertaining mine.

[BL611]

65. No problem

I have no problem entertaining others opinions as long as they are also open minded and reasoned(otherwise its kinda pointless).

Again, I just don't think the DLC has the influence over Democrats that social issue groups do, most people who voted on economic issues voted for Kerry, the quote on quote "values" voters cast their ballot for Bush.

[Ken Burch]

136. Oh God, you're not one of those "we need to apologize for being prochoice"

types, are you?

I'm sorry, but I will NEVER apologize for defending the women of America from puritanical hypocrites who want to force them to go back to back alley butchers.

Except for progressive "seamless garment" prolifers(and they will ALWAYS be in the extreme minority among antichoice types)"Pro-Life" people hate women, hate the idea that women are no longer at the mercy of their wombs, and want to chain the country forever in the early 1950's. We have NOTHING to gain from trying to get the votes of people like that.

And if we apologize for defending gay people from persecution, we cease to deserve to be called human beings.

[Ken Burch]

86. The party hasn't taken any LIBERAL positions, let alone

"excessively liberal" ones in years.

And arguing that some groups should have their influence "minimized" because of their "controversial" stands is not much different from saying we should have taken a pass on civil rights in the early 60's.

If you don't ever stand for ANYTHING that might be unpopular, you basically, in the end, never stand for anything, period.

[Mojambo]

112. Self-Delete

[TahitiNut]

133. Huh? Don't you think "don't ask, don't tell" is a LIBERAL postion?

Sure sounds like a winner to me. :shrug: Let's spread that liberalism far and wide ... to women, for example. We could have them cover up those offensive female parts with viels and long robes. Female? Don't ask; don't tell. Sounds like a "winning strategy"! Gotta win those bigoted hearts and ignorant minds out there!!

[BL611]

52. Delete

double post

[MrBenchley]

40. Say what?

"even though the DLC clearly caused the last three Democratic losses('00, '02, '04)"
Wow....how far out of touch with reality is THAT?

"One of their minions illustrated this yesterday by starting a thread titled"Don't ignore this article unless you want to lose""
Yeah, it was outrageous that somebody would post an article that reflected their opinion. Clearly it can only be the work of a minion.

"It would be easier to work with the DLC if they would accept their place as simply being ONE PART of a coalition and would treat the rest of us as equals."
You're an equal to the Democratic Leadership Council? What's the name of YOUR organization?

[Ken Burch]

79. Mr. Benchley illustrates my point.

1)Gore ran a straight-out-of-the DLC playbook campaign in 2000. The Democratic Congressional and Senatorial Campaign committees did the same in 2002(I.E., agree with the GOP on everything that matters and simply pray that you win by default)and Kerry effectively did the same in 2004(being a cheerleader for the DLC's beloved invasion of Iraq(an effort the DLC still supports and still thinks could actually lead to "democracy" in the Middle East).

2)I used the term "minion" to illustrate the arrogant, toadying tone that thread took(its basic arguement was the we must all obey the DLC without question because they, and ONLY THEY, know what must be done).
The thread title was effectively saying to the progressive, multicultural working class majority in the party "obey your betters, peasant scum".

3)I don't claim to be an equal as an individual to the Democratic Leadership Council as a group. They are far better than me at getting invited to expensive corporate functions, getting tables at the "right" restaurants, getting interviewed and fawned over by Cokie Herself than I am. I do believe, however, that within the party, each individual should be treated as an equal, and each group should be treated as equal in importance and equally deserving of respect. The DLC does not, believing instead that everyone else in the party should simply bow and scrape to its imperial majesty.

Thanks for validating everything I just said about DLC arrogance, Benchley old sport.

[MrBenchley]

82. Wow...hard to get more cloth eared than that....

"Gore ran a straight-out-of-the DLC playbook campaign in 2000."
What, Al Gore, founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, followed his own advice? How dare he? I bet he connived with Scalia to have the election stolen from himself too.

"Kerry effectively did the same in 2004(being a cheerleader for the DLC's beloved invasion of Iraq"
Wow....hard to get more out of touch with reality than that.

"I used the term "minion" to illustrate the arrogant, toadying tone"
You DO realize that "arrogant" folks are not "toadying" and people who are "toadying" are not arrogant? Sounds instead like you're throwing around empty buzzwords.

"The thread title was effectively saying to the progressive, multicultural working class majority in the party "obey your betters, peasant scum"."
Tee hee hee.

"I don't claim to be an equal as an individual to the Democratic Leadership Council as a group."
Yes you did. That's why I asked.

"They are far better than me at getting invited to expensive corporate functions, getting tables at the "right" restaurants, getting interviewed and fawned over by Cokie Herself than I am."
Perhaps you ought to toady more arrogantly (snicker)...

"and each group should be treated as equal in importance and equally deserving of respect."
So what group are you? And equally deserving of respect is so much horsecrap. I got lots of respect for Hillary Clinton and feel she's earned it.

[Ken Burch]

88. Benchley makes my points for me yet again

1)He admits that Gore ran a textbook DLC campaign in 2000. Yes Gore narrowly prevailed in the popular vote. Gore would have prevailed SOLIDLY in the popular vote had he not remained so obsessively anti-progressive that 2 million voters(supporters of worker's rights, peace, anti-bigotry movements and social justice) felt they were no longer welcome in the party and gone to the Greens. With those 2 million votes, Florida and Scalia wouldn't have mattered. The DLC caused that fiasco.

2)Kerry ran as the champion of the war. He also ran as the high priest of the view that the Democrats couldn't stand clearly for anything progressive(and, at times, to hear him speak, couldn't stand clearly for anything)and that the GOP should simply be assumed to have won the arguement, leaving only a few trivial side issues to be slightly more liberal than conservative on when no one was looking. Not only were all of these views DLC, KERRY HIMSELF WAS AND IS A MEMBER OF THE DLC.

3)Benchley himself acts as a minion of the DLC, toadying to their pro-corporate and pro-war agenda, fighting for the view that what wealthy corporate donors want should matter more than what the majority of the party wants, and displaying sneering arrogance towards those of us who still think that Democrats should be DIFFERENT from Republicans, and should defend the progressive, multi-racial, multicultural working class majority of voters in our party who have been left totally powerless within it since 1992.

4)Why is Benchley so offended at the idea that I might think that everyone else in the party is the human equal of those people in the DLC? Why does he think the DLC should simply be accepted by all of us as inherently superior to anyone or anything else in the party?
And my point about DLC snobbery stands. DLC'ers would much rather hang out in trendy DC restaurants wearing fancy suits and chatting with Cokie rather than walking picket lines or registering African-and Latino Americans to vote.

And if Benchley respects Hillary, fine, he can do that. And the rest of us have an equal right to regard her as a closet Republican who will doom us to defeat in '08. So there.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. Kerry ran as a "champion of the war"?

:rofl: What a hilariously deluded pile of horseshit.

Did you watch the debates? Any speeches? Were you conscious last year?

[Ken Burch]

105. Kerry refused to allow any antiwar speeches at the convention

He refused to let the party break openly with the war(or even support MODIFICATIONS to the Patriot Act). He had Medea Benjamin forcibly removed from the convention hall just for having a peaceful one-woman antiwar protest during Teresa's speech, a protest that wasn't aimed at Teresa and that Teresa wasn't even offended by.

And all that effort to appease the hawks ended up being a waste. No one who still supported the war was going to vote for Kerry by then anyway. And the war didn't even have majority support by the time of the convention.

[WildEyedLiberal]

116. Oh good lord.

Like anyone other than a few random political junkies even knows who Medea Benjamin IS, let alone what she stands for. Nice try, no cigar. BTW, you act like Kerry had 100% control over every single aspect of the convention. I highly doubt that.

And BTW, Medea Bejamin, AFAIK, is not a Democrat. The DNC isn't supposed to be a circus of random far left groups preaching about the war. He talked about how the war was getting fucked up. If that wasn't RADICAL enough for you, oh well.

[Ken Burch]

118. I know Medea Isn't a Democrat. That's not the point.

And what exactly do you mean that you "highly doubt" that Kerry had total control of the convention. He'd been the effective nominee for months. If he wasn't making the rules, who was?

I worked for Kerry in the fall. But you don't know how many times I had Kerry's war and Patriot Act stands thrown back in my face by progressives. Yes a lot of them came over, but we didn't exactly make it easy.

And he only really broke even slightly with the war in the last week or so of the campaign. When Kerry talked about the war getting fucked up, he was still maintaining that the war was right and could be won.

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. He NEVER maintained that the war was "right"

He NEVER advocated that he, himself, would have invaded or started it. But whether it's "right" was sort of irrelevant, anyway, isn't it? We're there. We need a plan for what to do and how to get out.

Believe it or not, candidates go out and campaign, not sit around and micromanage their appearances and the tiny details of the convention. He criticized the war heavily in the first debate. If you didn't watch that, it's your problem, not his. And so what if some "progressives" didn't like his votes along those lines? I'm sure some people complained because he never gave a speech about freeing Mumia. You can't please all the people all the time.

[Ken Burch]

147. Actually, at one point in the campaign, Kerry said that

he thought Bush wasn't doing enough to WIN THE WAR.

Also, and with no real hesitation, Kerry voted to authorize the war.
As a senator from Massachusetts, Kerry had little to lose from not doing so.

[MrBenchley]

124. So the point was we should let non-Democrats disrupt the convention?

What a terrible idea that is.

"But you don't know how many times I had Kerry's war and Patriot Act stands thrown back in my face by progressives."
Hope you told them you wanted them all to become minions.

[MrBenchley]

123. He was busy avoiding Cokie and hanging out in bad restaurants

I suppose only minions like us watched the Democratic convention.

[MrBenchley]

122. Tee hee hee....

"With those 2 million votes, Florida and Scalia wouldn't have mattered. The DLC caused that fiasco."
Jeeze, don't project your own guilt on someone else. The Greens and the far left ran around shouting there was no difference between Gore and Chimpy...and now they want to blame other people for their own ugly stupidity.

"Kerry ran as the champion of the war."
Sez you. Again, don't tell us you stabbed Kerry in the back but it was Kerry's fault.

"displaying sneering arrogance towards those of us who still think that Democrats should be DIFFERENT from Republicans"
Gee, it's hard not to sneer at somebody who thinks "arrogance" and "toadying" are synonymous.

"the progressive, multi-racial, multicultural working class majority of voters in our party"
So the majority of voters in our Democratic party think Kerry, Gore and Hillary don't represent the Democratic party? Yeah, that sure as shit is plausible.

"Why is Benchley so offended at the idea that I might think that everyone else in the party is the human equal of those people in the DLC? "
You're mistaking hilarity for offense. So I guess by this you mean you got no group at all.

"And my point about DLC snobbery stands. "
Actually it topples over from its own silliness.

" the rest of us have an equal right to regard her as a closet Republican who will doom us to defeat in '08. "
If you don't mind spouting such transparently ridiculous guff, I sure got no problem pointing out that it is transparently ridiculous guff. Me and my fellow minions are having a big fucking laugh at your expense.

[Ken Burch]

135. Get real, Benchley.

I never said I, as an individual, was the equal of the DLC. Logically, an individual can't be an equal of a group. I don't know why you spend so much time on that one rather small point. And if you dislike the DLC, as some of your posts indicate, why would you care if I criticize them and the effect they've had on the party(which has been purely negative since 1996, btw.)

I didn't stab Kerry in the back. The progressive wing of the party didn't stab Kerry in the back, even though he made sure there was nothing progressive in the platform whatsoever. Kerry's own anti-progressive and anti-populist strategy ruined his chances, as Gore's utter lack of charisma and his unwillingness to make a real effort to fight against Bush's theft of the election ruined his.

And Kerry killed his own chances when he said things like "I'm not a redistributionist Democrat"(which is code for, "it's ok, suburbanites, I hate the poor and the workers too and I promise they'll stay out in the cold")and when he gave the dreariest most meaningless speeches any living candidate ever uttered. The Kerry campaign on the grass-roots level was a great people's movement that deserved a true people's candidate. 2004 proved you can't elect a mummy with a perm.

And as for Hillary(and BTW why did you drag her into this when I hadn't even mentioned her in this thread?) If you want a Democrat who wants the Democrats to be even more "moderate"(I.E., she wants them to actually be TO THE RIGHT OF SLICK)to be our candidate, even though all the polls show she'd be a sure loser against any Republican, that's your call. Some of us want to win, and some of us want that victory to actually matter, rather than settling for power in name only, which is what Hillary wants.

It's time to move on from "centrism"(i.e. conservatism)and be a fighting progressive populist party again. It's time to try to win again. Fuck the big donors. They've done nothing for us.

[TheWraith]

131. Somebody needs to go back on their meds.

1. Gore was one of the most leftist candidates for president we've seen in years. Just look at his record. To define him as "obsessively anti-progressive" is to display a disconnect with reality on a class so high it's rarely seen outside the Bush administration.

If you want to blame someone for 2 million people throwing their votes in the garbage, let's talk to Ralph Nader, darling of the ultraleft, and buddy of the Republican party, the guy who says that white is black and war is peace. You're bashing the wrong tree--look in your own back yard.

2. A "champion of the war?" I have got to echo WildEyedLiberal: were you conscious at all last year? The six-month withdrawl plan? Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Never go to war without a plan to win the peace? Kerry was about as negative on the war as it was practical to be in a national campaign--unless you've forgotten that at that point, a large majority of the public still favored staying the course.

3. Strawman much? You're so wrong on this that it would take me days to horsewhip you properly. But simply put, if you really think that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, you need to get out of politics right now and never come back, because you've clearly lost all perspective.

Ironically, you're the exact type of person that the DLC talks about so negatively: the self-defeating activist. Perhaps if you relaxed, got a grip, and actually did something positive, you could influence the party in the direction you desire. That would require you to do something other than complaining about the evil DLC, however, which you seem disinclined to do.

4. You're playing strawman again. Nobody ever said that you weren't the human equal of the people that make up the DLC. You implied that your personal opinion should be weighed as heavily as the DLC's by the party as a whole, which is quite frankly the crazy part of your argument.

[LincolnMcGrath]

132. It gets confusing keeping up with some folks around here.

There are some posters in the "run to the center" crowd that make valid points, then there are some with ZERO Credibilty who for what ever reason have had their agendas reverse in short order.

[OKNancy]

7. Nothing is wrong with it in my opinion

They are not the all-powerful group some think. In fact they seem rather ineffectual at this point. I think they are just part of the big tent we Democrats need if we are ever going to win.

[BL611]

12. Exactly....

They represent a viewpoint that falls within the Democratic tent, Democratic politicians concerned with building a majority have every reason to work with them, just like they should work with more left leaning organizations.

[MrBenchley]

37. I agree....

[crispini]

9. Some people

have their :tinfoilhat: on too tight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. they pick candidates that dont win

and strategies without any balls...

[MrBenchley]

46. Please tell us...

How do you pick only candidates that win?

Here's the DLC leadership...I see two Senators and a Governor. Are you telling us they didn't win?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

The DLC has 40 members in the House and 20 Senators...that sure seems to be some winning to me.

[paulk]

13. there are many members of this board interested in destroying

the Democratic coalition.

For whatever reason.

[Ken Burch]

137. Unfortunately, the DLC is also interested in destroying that coalition

or, at least, silencing anyone in it who dares disagree with them.

[Mr_Spock]

17. Let's tear each other down instead of promoting good people

That's what I think we should be doing - concentrate on promoting the people we DO like. How does all this negativity toward Dems help Democrats? These same "anti-DLC/anti-centerist Dem" people gave Nader enough votes to ensure Bush's reign of terror - I have to wonder about these people.

[jonnyblitz]

33. it's the DLC types who drove people into the arms of Nader

in the first place. It's the "centrists" who demonize the left and drive them out of the party who then turn around and gasp in horror when Nader gets votes and they can't figure out why. well DUH!! not exactly rocket science to figure that one out. I personally wonder about people who try to marginalize the party base and make the party a crappy imitation of the GOP.

[Zen]

44. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:rofl:

"it's the DLC types who drove people into the arms of Nader"

"It's the "centrists" who demonize the left and drive them out of the party"

Hahaha!! So you would rather destroy the country by allowing the Repukes to take over due to a few Dems in DLC that you disagree with??

Thanks for destroying the country just so you can have your unrealistic view of Democratic nirvana. People who would do this are more dangerous to our party than Repukes - at least Repukes don't pretend to be on our side and then stab us in the back based on some bizarre idealistic view of the world - their behavior is more predictable. It's people like you who try to marginalize the party base - most people are more toward the center and they don't even feel compelled to discuss politics on the internet. Your view is distorted and dangerous for the Democratic party.

[MrBenchley]

48. I'm wondering which DLC type drove people into the arms of Nader

Hillary Clinton?

Tom Vilsack?

Mary Landrieu?

[Ken Burch]

138. Hillary would indeed be among those responsible.

She was the one who said "there's no left wing" on the White House staff. And she saw THAT as something to brag about.

She was the one who screwed up the health care fight.

She is the one who is NOW saying "we have to be MORE moderate"(as if there is a position more "moderate" than Kerry that is distinguishable from Bush).

She STILL won't admit the war was wrong and call for it to end. If anything, Hillary wants the Dems to be MORE militaristic than the GOP, as if we could raise the defense budget and still be progressive on anything else.

And then her and people like you say that progressives owe them unquestioning loyalty. And you can't understand why some of us are getting sick of being treated with that kind of contempt.

The way for Democrats to win is to CONFIDENTLY speak for progressive and populist ideas, spend as much time and money as possible to register currently unregistered voters and get voters who think they are registered(say, in Florida)to make sure they actually are and haven't been falsely removed from the voter rolls for the felony of voting while black, and to push for the kind of ideas(electoral reform, a progressive foreign policy, real universal health care)that will make people feel that they have a home in the Democratic Party(a home progressives did NOT have under the Clintons.)

That is what will win. Not taunting and insulting people who don't believe that the DLC is the home of political infallibility.

[madfloridian]

19. Don't do that.

Do not minimalize the effect they have had on this party. They hurt the union movement severely, and on purpose. They have not stood up with minorities. They said they did not want to depend on the money from the traditional bases of the party, so they took corporate money until they were obligated and bound to them.

That is why we are where we are. Stop misrepresenting what they have done.

[Mr_Spock]

25. I haven't heard much about all this evil they've done ?

But this is a pro-Dem site. Tearing down an entire Dem coalition based on the actions of a few of them is wholly destructive of the bigger picture - Dems are much better than Repukes - even centerist Dems.

[Mojambo]

32. I'm not sure that's true

The Republicans are passing legislation that is pretty much sinking this country. DLC Democrats that support any part of that agenda are slapping a stamp of Democratic approval on that legislation.

That's damaging for the true, progressive, Democratic party in the long run. At least in my opinion it is.

[Mr_Spock]

56. So no Democrat can ever vote "yeah" on a bill even if it's irrelevant?

Idealism is the most destructive force in the Democratic party at this time!! Please idealistic people - use some common sense or don't ask me for help at the concentration camp. If we are not going to overthrow the government (which is a wholly insane idea) then we have to work with the system we have. Some people will be re-elected based on a vote for a Repuke bill that would have passed anyway without their vote. Would you rather have them vote against it and lose thier seat in a conservative area - thus losing another Dem in Congress? That's the kind of common sense the DLC bashers on this site our blind to - and it is a VERY DESTRUCTIVE blindness too :(

[Ken Burch]

140. "Idealism is the MOST destructive force

in the Democratic Party at this time"?

Good God, what kind of a party would we be with no idealism? Actually, 1993-2001 shows what kind of a party, and that turned out to be a worthless party, and a party that couldn't even manage to beat a moron like Dubya.

What we are trying to do is stop the party from repeating the same mistakes over and over. And often, the party doesn't listen and DOES make those same mistakes. Twice in California and twice nationally, for example, the party tried to beat Ronald Reagan by running a bland anti-idealist candidate against him. IIRC, we went O FOR 4 with that strategy. It was also the strategy that failed for the Social Democrats in Germany in the 1920's. And we know what THAT led to, o you who would invoke "concentration camps".

We want to win. The last three go-rounds prove bland centrism DOESN'T win anymore. Listen, please, if you don't want us to lose again.

It isn't worth electing a Democrat if that Democrat ends up agreeing with the Republicans on 80% of the issues, and that 80%(as was the case with Billary)ended up being 100% of the issues that really mattered. When Democrats try to govern as Republicans, this always leads to failure, because we can't run a Republican administration as well as Republicans could. In the next election, the real Republican beats the conservative Democrat because the conservative Democrat always ends up looking incompetent.
This shouldn't have to be explained over and over again.

[WildEyedLiberal]

115. .....

:eyes:

[Meldread]

29. For every action, there is an opposite but equal reaction.

That's Newton's Third Law of motion and I've learned that it applies to politics too. When you strike out at someone or a group of someones in politics, they are going to strike back. (Although, unlike the law of motion the reaction is not always equal.)

The DLC has made it clear that it wants to throw the left wing of the Democratic Party out of the tent. They've accused us of losing elections, they blame all their failures on us, and yet at the same time they still expect us to vote for whoever they put up for election. In the eyes of the left, the DLC is a huge anal cyst existing on the party's ass that they'd love to remove. In the eyes of the DLC, it's the left that's the huge anal cyst. It shouldn't be shocking that both sides hate each other.

During the Clinton years and in the past several elections the DLC has reigned. They were able to marginalized us from the political system by aiding the Republicans in trashing our candidates. (Howard Dean, for example, earned the wrath of the DLC and much of the "he is crazy and unstable" came from them rather than the conservative right who picked it up later.) Right now I see both the left and the DLC almost equally locked in a fight for the party. The DLC has it's power in Washington, the left has its power in the grassroots. They got John Kerry elected in the primaries over Howard Dean, we got Howard Dean elected to Chairman.

The real test will come in the next Presidential Election if Hillary runs for office. If the left can keep her from grabbing the nomination, it would have effectively crippled the DLC and locked them out. If the left can mobilize the grassroots better then they have the ability to lock the DLC out of the system, and in my opinion they should do just that.

[BL611]

34. Because Howard Dean was a raging leftist??

Please, Dean was a fiscal conservative from a state that would give him plenty of leeway to govern from the left, Kerry's record is far to the LEFT of Dean's, Hillary's record is FAR to the LEFT of Dean's. But I guess hyperbole trumps substance, huh?

[MrBenchley]

42. Yesterday

some people were trying to pretend Charles Schumer was part of the DLC....

[BL611]

43. Its like a DU HUAC

If only McCarthy could be here to see it:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

49. Tyrants like Hillary Clinton and Mary Landrieu

[Ken Burch]

141. Nobody was calling them "tyrants", Benchley

(and actually, a lot of us LIKE Mary Landrieu these days, so you can give that one a rest. For myself, I think she should be the running mate of whomever we nominate. A Feingold-Landrieu ticket would kick ass, IMHO)

The DLC, on the other hand, are a group of arrogant, mainly white corporate thugs. They are obviously against working people and the poor, and they want a party for and by big donors in fancy suits.
Why they can't just join the other party, which is already like that and is pretty much the sort of party DLC'ers actually want in power, I'll never know. They clearly don't like THIS party very much.

[thebigidea]

68. that's some pretty insane hyperbole

you don't exactly see DLC types penning their idiotic policy papers under assumed names because their lives and careers were ruined by DU.

[Meldread]

59. I didn't say that.

In fact I agree. I don't see Dean as someone to the extreme left, he is more left of center. However, it wasn't about personal ideology it was about loyalty. Dean chose to be loyal to the grassroots rather than to Washington (the DLC). It wouldn't have mattered if Dean held their views perfectly, he wasn't aligned with them.

The Grassroots vs the DLC is a complicated matter. You can't just glaze over it and say "one is to the left" and "the other is to the right". It's much deeper than that, though that is where both sides tend to split and where it goes downhill.

I'm on the left. I dislike the DLC, well that isn't necessarily true - I hate the DLC. However, I am perfectly capable of being non-biased on the matter by putting my personal feelings aside.

As someone who sits on the left I view the DLC as the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. They call themselves centrists, and traditionally speaking that wouldn't be a problem. However, I think most everyone here can agree: the Republicans are moving further and further to the right. To be in the center the DLC has to move with them, thus it is like a dog chasing its tail. The left of the party didn't move with them and was therefore left behind.

The Republicans are being forced to the right by their base - mostly a mixture of the Christian Right and big money. The DLC wants the big money, but not so much the Christian Right. When the DLC throws its lot in with big money, they become beholden to big money. Much of what big money does is against what the left wants, and the left who make up the Democratic base is now pushing back trying to pull the party back to the left just as the Republican base is trying to pull the Republicans to the right.

I believe the defeat of the DLC is inevitable. The further they move to the right, the more Democrats they leave behind - the less money they get, the more they are beholden to big money, which will continually force them to move further to the right until they become irrelevant within the party. This is what is happening right now, they've moved so far to the right that they've even left behind true moderates - didn't move just like the left didn't move - they were left behind as well.

It isn't so much the left battling the moderate wings of the party - which I think both can exist (and must exist) in harmony. It is the Grassroots vs the DLC. It eventually comes down to who you are loyal to - not so much political ideology. Politicians often do not vote on their political ideology, they vote for who got them into office and that is the problem.

[Mojambo]

62. Wow. Great post

Very well put.

[BL611]

63. What is it about Dean

that scared the DLC so much, and that made them feel much more comfortable with Kerry? If you're definition of "grassroots" is yelling all the time about how much of a douchbag Bush is, without articulating a policy of your own (hence Dean's campaign) I guess I'm "anti-grassroots" too....

[Mojambo]

64. He went straight to the people

Rather than through Washington DC and then out to the people.

That's what the DLC found discomforting, I suspect.

[stlsaxman]

72. Wow, you haven't been with the Dems very long have you?

-"If you're definition of "grassroots" is yelling all the time about how much of a douchbag Bush is, without articulating a policy of your own (hence Dean's campaign) I guess I'm 'anti-grassroots' too...."-

Is that how you viewed the Dean campaign? Seriously? Dean HAD a policy of his own that he was running on. And he articulated it well enough that hundreds of thousands of working people sent in small donations, putting his candidacy on the map and getting him noticed by the DLC. Only trouble was, the DLC saw what kind of strides Dean was making with a real grass roots campaign and it scared the shit out of them. They had to ruin him to save their own hides.

But if you were not invested in the last election all you would know of Dean is that he "always screamed" and "called Bush a douche bag".

[Meldread]

74. It was a at the right place, at the right time moment.

Looking back, and hindsight is always a wonderful thing, I can certainly agree that Dean was not the best spokesman or face to give to the grassroots. However, Dean was in the right place at the right time and he fed a starving beast: the democratic base. Yes, it was mostly anti-Bush policy rhetoric, but that is what the base wanted and Dean was happy to serve it up in huge helpings. Unfortunately for Dean, while he may have been able to tap into that, he wasn't an able politician - he didn't know how to work the system. I think, because of his inability to work the system that his legacy as Chairman will only be mediocre, but I shouldn't pass judgment until he's had a chance to prove himself.

The Democratic Grassroots is, obviously, against most of the Republican policies. Just as the left has been largely marginalized within the Democratic Party, moderate Republicans have been largely marginalized within the Republican Party. This causes a lot of dilemmas that we see playing out right now. How do you "reach across the isle" to someone who is just interested in cutting off your hand rather than working together? It seems, at least to me, that the answer a lot of Democrats have to that problem is just to turn submissive.

The grassroots jumped onto the Dean bandwagon, not necessarily because he was the best candidate, but because he had the strongest and loudest voice - that was something that meant a lot to a group of people who felt that they had no voice. When Dean spoke out against the war, the grassroots felt as if he was speaking for them - and thus they felt that they had a voice at last. He was partly abandoned due to his inability to be an effective politician, but mostly due to the efforts (spin and smear tactics) of pro-big money Democrats like the DLC in conjunction with the Republicans.

What the Democratic Party needs, in my opinion, is to embrace and expand the grassroots. Dean proved one important thing: Democrats do NOT have to be beholden to big money. This goes directly against what much of the DLC believes. The grassroots need to be expanded to encompass as much of the party as possible - forming the proverbial "big tent". I believe that Moderates and Leftists can co-exist just fine. I even believe traditional Conservatives can co-exist with the majority of the left just fine. In fact, I believe that they all compliment each other nicely. All sides tend to agree on more than they disagree on.

Most of the disagreements between traditional leftists and traditional conservatives boils down to minor issues such as spending and the speed of which policies are implemented. For example a traditional leftist will favor immediate action where as a traditional conservative will favor a gradual approach - it isn't so much the direction that they disagree on - it is how to get there.

What the Grassroots needs is a charismatic politician such as Clinton, who knows how to balance the budget like Clinton did, but is to the left of Clinton on social issues - and most importantly someone who is beholden to the grassroots, not big money. Being beholden to the grassroots is seen as being beholden to the people, and this is very much rooted in American philosophy, the "for the people, by the people" mentality. I think John Edwards COULD be that person in about eight more years or so, provided that he can be "encouraged" to move to the left on foreign policy and social issues. Although, I should say I am not particularly hopeful on him as he seems to be deeply entrenched (and want to remain entrenched) in the Washington establishment. However, he does seem to have a charismatic spark. I think the Democratic Grassroots would be wise to look for a charismatic spark. Barack Oboma might be another possibility, but only if the Grassroots can keep him from falling to deeply into the Washington establishment which is controlled largely by big money. Our search should probably be focused on someone outside of Washington, while at the same time be focused on removing the current establishment from Washington and replacing them with people who are beholden to the grassroots.

[MrBenchley]

78. Dean's positions on most issues

were moderate...not that different than Joe Lieberman's on some social issues.

And if he had all that support from "the base" how come he finished no better than third in any major primary?

[khashka]

148. Excellent, Meldread n/t

Khash.

[leanin_green]

127. Yeah, and who better to represent us than Gore?

If this fight IS about the soul of the party, then these two will have to be the combatants. Many Dems were a part of the DLC in its inception period. I'm sure that just as many of those are dismayed at what it became, the Republican-style fund raising arm of the party, replete with all the arrogance, pomposity and disdain that goes with that kind of thinking.

[wtmusic]

35. Their "pro-business" slant is what keeps us at war

the war is very, very good for business. Let's not hear any crazy talk about how the war is wrong now.

[Ksec]

39. sigh Im tired of the vitriol

All of it. And if we keep making enemies of our own party , we make ourselves weaker and smaller. Were the big tent , not a private club open only to a select few.

[Chan790]

55. This POV would stand to fare better...

if the DLC would stop claiming it's their tent and we have to cowtow to their agenda within it.

Frankly, it sounds bad but I wish they'd either get bent or just go GOP and get it over with. We don't have a coalition anymore, we have a 2-faction party...ultimately one faction has to lose when there is no longer a common ground.

[BL611]

58. "ultimately one faction has to lose when there is no

longer common ground"

Those are your words not the DLC's, now whose trying destroy who?

[Chan790]

67. Huntington

Actually they're from Samuel P. Huntington who was talking about culture conflict in a global society. It's true though in this case as well (or any culture conflict or battle of ideas.)

I didn't express who would win (I admittedly have a preference), more that we will continue to lose until one faction is no longer in the tent due to the current complete lack of a common ground or ideal between the DLC and the liberal wing of the party.

ABB (or ABGOP, if you prefer) is not a winable strategy and we will not win until we have a common party-wide platform. That isn't going to happen unless either the DLC softens its stances or leaves or the liberal element breaks off and leaves or some common ground is found (unlikely).

They can't co-exist, they've shown that and I think it's silly to even attempt to try to be neutral in a firefight.

[Ksec]

96. Of course they can co exist

The GOP has differing opinions on major issues also. Some are pro choice, some are anti war, some are anti corporatism.

If we chase everyone with a different opinion out of the party you may as well get used to being the minority, because thats whatll happen.

If you can agree that our total party platform has dissenters and supporters then you keep your numbers and you can work out your differences without killing the entire party .

[HereSince1628]

61. It is a discussion forum, differences of opinion, even strong ones are OK

And as it turns out there are strong feelings about the DLC on DU.

[TreasonousBastard]

45. It's not a DU obsession, but some people here are...

obsessed.

And they can't pass a day without pissing and moaning about it. They want to purge conservative Dems as much as Tom DeLay wants to purge liberal Republicans.

The Democratic Party was never the "liberal" party some seem to think it was in some halcyon past Sure, FDR and a few others did some very liberal stuff, but often in spite of the party. Dixiecrats were dead set against a lot of what Truman and Johnson did, and such things as the EPA and various civil rights acts were due to liberal Republican support countering Dixiecrat opposition. Nixon was a scumbag, but he and his party did give us the EPA, Voting rights acts, and damn near got us national healthcare. All with massive Democratic opposition.

Now, the Dixiecrats have largely jumped parties, so it's just us liberals left here, eh?

Nope.

We still have a fair number of conservative Dems, and an awful lot of them are that way because they represent conservative states or districts. Just as it tain't easy for Lincon Chaffee to be a conservative in Rhode Island, it ain't easy for Ben Nelson to be a liberal in Nebraska. The voters just wouldn't put up with it.

And, of coourse, this all has nothing to do with state and local elections, where Dems are doimg just fine, thankyouverymuch, without interference from any thinktanks of any sort. Local elections are decided on local issues. and your average Mayor couldn't possibly care any less what some assholes in DC are spewing.

Anyway, the DLC takes the position that the whole country is more conservative now and cares less about the old liberal causes. They are probably right about that, but not as right as they think. Their solution-- to become more conservative in order to be more in tune with the voters makes some sense in some cases, but any raggedy old ward-heeler knows how to be in tune with the masses. And our greatest Presidents didn't need advisors to tell them what to think or what the people were thinking.

My personal contribution to this whole tempest in a teapot is to want to see the day again when we get some politicans who do know what they're doing instead of leaning on pollsters, focus groups, thinktanks, and every other scumbucket advisor who learned what he knows from selling detergent, haircare products, or MLM schemes.

[kohodog]

75. I beg to differ...

To me the DLC represtnts the corporate side, and some of the DLC leadership actually signed on to PNAC. They drank from the corporate trough, with Clinton perhaps being the first to really get in bed with the corporate CEO's at the expense of the union, pro-worker base. He did it brilliantly and won. But the price was high, NAFTA and the Media "reform" being only two examples of bad laws that are having a negative effect on the country today. He was slammed on Healthcare because the big money said no. I would say that the corporate agenda is also Bush's first sgenda. The social issues are just a frame to appease the base. Bushco could care less about abortion and gay marriage except for the fact that it buys votes.

I think dems will need to move away from the corporate side if we want to see real change. Dean proved that with a message that resonates (and early on he did), money can be raised from the grassroots in an amount that will compete with the conservatives. Until pols lock up the corporate cookie jar we will see bad deals and bad laws that do not promote the welfare of the people.

[TreasonousBastard]

85. Don't for a minute think that...

have any truck with the DLC. I find them to be a cynical crew without any interest in anything but their own well-being.

However, back in the real world they are simply another group to be dealt with, and probably have no more, and often far less, influence than any other group. Unlike, say, PNAC, they have no real agenda other than getting elected. And they are effective in only a very few places.

I can't imagine how the DLC could possibly affect the NYC mayoral race, or the Governor's race here in NJ. Can't imagine what effect they'll have on our Senatorial races here when Lautenberg retires and Corzine takes over as Governor and appoints a replacement. These decisions are all made locally, and in Joisey they are made by county Dem leaders, not by a thinktank in DC or a Senator in California.

Yeah, there's too much fat money in politics, but we all knew that already. And we all know it poisons the well, but none of us can do anything about it at this point. Thank the Supreme Court for the Buckley decision that screwed everything up and opened the floodgates. Until then, there was hope that congresscritters would slow down the campaign spending because they were all sick of fundraising.

You think it's bad in DC? Here, "Pay to Play" is so ingrained that it's not even a slur. They talk about on the state Senate floor and pass resolutions about it, and alternately brag and complain about it in interviews. It's a fine-tuned system of legal bribery, and damn near nothing gets done without sliding some money across the table. And they're not even ashamed of it, or hiding anything.

[kohodog]

89. I think yhe DLC is close to done

And you're right, they aren't about local candidates. But a lot of damage has been done by the telecommunications reform act and NAFTA, both paybacks to corporations. Both issues should have been addressed, but in each case the result was an extremely corporate friendly law. These have had severe consequences on the citizens as we see what has happened with jobs and the media.

Globalization is here to stay, but the agreements need to have worker and environmental protections in all nations involved. We know the Republicans welcome laws written by corporations, but we must demand more of "democrats."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. I agree that the Dems have never been 100% leftist BUT

these are extreme times.

The metaphor I've used is that Bush and company are driving this country off a cliff at 60 miles per hour.

The DLC wants us all to be real impressed because it's only going to drive the country off a cliff at 30 miles per hour and give us seatbelts.

The leftists, the grassroots Dems, are saying, "Wait a minute! We can see the cliff looming up ahead even if you smug, complacent types can't. We need to make a sharp left turn and avoid that cliff."

Just because the Dems have never been left doesn't mean they can't ever be. Good God, someone has to stand up and tell the truth and get people excited about changing the status quo!

[Cocoa]

50. look how mindless this other anti-DLC thread is

let me be clear, I don't think anyone on this thread I'm linking is stupid, what I'm saying is that their posts on the thread were made without the use of their brains.

The thread has 32 nominations for the "greatest" page, but there is absolutely no discussion of the articles posted. In fact, it's very difficult to see any reason whatsoever for the poster to have chosen those articles to post. They look like just randomly chosen anti-DLC articles from a few years ago. The original poster makes no commentary at all, let alone a reason why he's posting the articles.

The "discussion" consists of variations on "I don't like the DLC."

Greatest my ass. Mindless is more like it. No offense to anyone, but that's the only word for this thread, and it pretty much represents the anti-DLC style on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5008122

[LoZoccolo]

70. Here's one that really gets mindless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2035218

[bee]

53. In your opinion, is the PNAC is just a "think tank" too?

Im curious.

[BL611]

57. They are a think tank mobilized around one issue

that is extremely influential (indeed it pretty much constructs its entire security policy for a President that is a foreign policy lightweight) with the current administration, th e DLC did NOT have that much influence over Clinton (nor is it as fanatical).

[bee]

80. I have to agree with you on the PNAC...

but I dislike the DLC in part due to their members PNAC affiliation, in part because Im anti corporate-government & I dont trust the DLC to bite the hand that feeds them, and in part because theyve made it clear that they view me (a liberal) as an idiot. Therefore I will never ever support a DLC candidate unless I absolutely have to. And as far as their influence over President Clinton... the DLC disagrees with you. From their site:

"Throughout the 90's, innovative, New Democrat policies implemented by former DLC Chairman President Bill Clinton..."

Also, the whole "third way" thing is just plain creepy.
If the DLC wants my support... they better start distributing the Soma.

[mandyky]

54. The DLC is republican lite

and they are more than a think tank. They are milque toast Dems like Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman. They think progressive grassroot Democrats need to just vote for whatever flunky they throw our way.

Personally, until the DLC apologizes for remarks they made about Howard Dean during the primaries, anything that comes from them is worse than useless. However, I am not obessesed with them, I would rather I not hear their drivel.

[TahitiNut]

69. The DLC is what the Democratic Party got in trade for the Southern Dems.

:evilgrin: After all, the Eisenhower Republicans had to go somewhere!

[LoZoccolo]

71. An easy entity to blame for Internet-bound activists.

It seems quite intellectually lazy. Remember, a lot of people here sit behind the computer on the Internet all the time, and maybe the people who post the most do the least. I have seen maybe one person argue against the DLC halfway good, digging up and citing portions of their philosophy from published articles. But the anti-DLC movement is largely a knee-jerk phenomenon for people who feel powerless, and it's adherents' strategy seems to be to inundate us with cliches about "Republican-lite" candidates and "corporatists". If people are going to criticize a strain of Democrat, at risk of hurting the party, they should do it with reason and do it compellingly, not compulsively. Do justice to the complexities of the political landscape; don't gloss over them. I would also say this of Al From and Will Marshall too, however.

[Pepperbelly]

73. To some here, they are like Snowball in Animal Farm.

It is pretty dumb but hey, if it floats their boats then I'm all for 'em.

[Ken Burch]

83. The New DLC Motto:

"Four Legs Good,
Two Legs Better".

[devilgrrl]

149. No. They're Napoleon.

John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer or Tom Harken could be Snowball

[Lexingtonian]

76. the DLC is the crazy aunt with cancer of the Party

Can't live with her, i.e. you get tired of all her persistent meddling and idiocy and disease state and claims to authority and respect dupes give her. But you can't shoot her, either.

The DLC was founded after 1988 to copycat moderate Republicans and dominate/reunify a Party that was inherently weak and aging, breaking in two between aging Southern conservatives and younger Northern liberals. The DLC agenda and strategy was essentially the opposite of reform, i.e. accepting of conservatism and corruption of the conservative wing of the Party. It worked well enough to (a) defeat a pile of "squishy" and S&L scandal-hit and Bush tax hike-backing Republicans in the South and Midwest for House and Senate seats in the 1990 elections, and (b) added a bit to that and got Clinton the Presidency in the 1992 election with a mere 43% of the popular vote.

Things went badly after that- the Southern conservatives were very old and retiring rapidly, the House Bank scandal hit, and there was that embarrassing 1993/94 Congress that had a massive Democratic majority but couldn't/wouldn't move the Clintons' universal health care plan forward or deal with 'don't ask/don't tell'. Basically, the conservative wing of the Party was wiped out as a power in the 1994 elections, by its own defecting to Republicans after that, and some remains getting crushed by conservative Republicans in the '96 elections. Clinton did the very remarkable manouver at the time, via 'triangulation' (which came at a cost to liberal Democrats, who did not like him for it), which enabled him to walk away from the collapsed conservative/Southern wing almost intact and fully into the moderate wing of the Party. Smart as he was, he'd been straddling those two wings.

The DLC changed stripes somewhat and gave up its blatant conservatism for conservative-leaning moderacy. It stopped talking about banning abortion and The Second Coming of FDR; it became what the moderate wing was- politically just a more humane, though unprincipled, Republican-lite ideological bunch who took a lot of corporate money and were purely about voter resistance to Republican extremism. And when Gingrich imploded in 1998, they didn't win a majority in Congress but got serious amounts of control there when Clinton stalemated Hastert/DeLay and Lott when the Lewinsky scandal went bust on them. Daschle even got them to (very shaky) Senate majority via further gains in the 2000 elections and the Jeffords defection. But the Lewinsky aftermath and the failure of Gore to get the Party behind him and then the Presidency...2000/2001 was the dismal reality and the heights of everything DLC.

Hardline Republicans and '9/11' caved them in and crushed them. Being Not Quite Republicans was good enough during the psychological extremism of Gingrich conservative Republicanism, which was really all about extremely vindictive, but unenergetic, old white men. The Bush crew was hardline Rightists, all about doing (i.e. breaking) stuff and the crazed reactionary colonial regime of 1920s British India they wanted to impose. The power of the moderate wing of the Party and with it that of the DLC was demolished in the November 2002 elections. They put up something of a fight for the 2004 elections but were killed off- they claimed they might be able to hold those five Southern Senate seats but couldn't.

The pissiness here about the DLC is essentially its delusions of grandeur and its desire to recover power in/over the Party. The record is that its membership, that in the mid-Nineties included most of the major politicians of the Party, is vanishing. It keeps on preaching that Democrats have to "respect" the South and conservative parts of the Midwest, should knuckle under to social conservatism and so on. It's presently basically a racket for Border State and Southern Democrats who, rather than admit that their ilk is obsolete, are trying to declare the rest of the Party the 'real' problem. In the Civil War the North had a group of people who basically wanted the South to prevail, for all kinds of silly reasons, who were called Copperheads. The DLC is our Copperhead faction, and they deny that our present recapitulation of the Civil War has reached the equivalent of early 1865.

It's very nice to pretend that we should all be equivocal and kindly about the present situation. But what the DLC represents is denial and abuse, denial that the undefeated, liberal, wing is the dominant wing of the Party presently and abuse of the liberal wing's liberal attitude out of a stupid smallmindedness and unwillingness to suffer and ego/vanity. It also needs some pointing out that the Deanite-DLC argument took place and, beside the point as it was, it left a lot of wounds and scars. It was about who deserved to be the non-liberal wing of the Party and would try to hijack control of it from the liberal wing.

Our present situation is that Rightist/hardline Republicanism is on fire and in a death spiral. In 2000 it was the surviving wing of the Cold War GOP, in fact it was the one that Nixon tried to make dominant. On the Democratic side the liberal wing is the semi-intact Cold War survivor, but lacking authoritarianism and size it always has had to ally with crappy factions of the mash of Democratic Leftists and moderates, who just can't seem to restrain themselves from trying to bully or sabotage the liberals' big picture efforts for small, stupid, or untimely satisfactions and bits of power. The DLC is one such faction- what serious national interests, if any, they serve is obscure or nonexistent...I mean, look at Joe Lieberman, for example.

[emulatorloo]

77. Basically I ignore the hardcore DLC leadership and their "position papers"

They seem pretty marginal - I mean who cares what lunatic thing they say?

As to those who associated themselves with it at some point, kinda like businesspeople joining the local service club and attending the lunches - eat the rubber chicken, press the flesh, then go back to work and swallow a few TUMMS

[tlsmith1963]

81. My Take on the DLC

Despite the fact that I am no fan of groups like ANSWER, I also don't like the DLC. I do think they put up weak candidates, & I don't like how they won't take on Bush. They just keep hoping that he collapses on his own, & Bush is taking forever to do that. I would prefer a Democratic Party that had some strong ideas & would be willing to be tough on Bush. Also I consider myself to be an economic populist, & the Democrats should be, as well. A lot of people have been hurt by this economy, & it has to stop. The corporations are getting too much of a free ride. The DLC does nothing about this. It's shameful that they don't. Democrats in the past would have done something to address the problem.

Tammy

[markus]

84. They are bought-and-paid for, thoroughly corrupt corporate shills

I no longer have patience with these people any more than with the GOP.

Anyone who stands for the primary purpose of consolidating corporate power over that of the citizens of the United States is as much an enemy as al-Quaeda, worse because they are here and well funded and effective.

[Armstead]

87. They have helped to neuter the Democratic Party and Liberalism

By aligning the Democratic Party with the corporate elite, they have removed the only counterweight to unchecked power of those at the top with money and power.

By branding economic populism as "leftist" they have joined with the GOP in throwing the majority of Americans to the wolves.

The nmess we are currently in is not the sole fault of Bush and the GOP. The DLC had a large part in erecting the scaffolding.
For that I can never forgive them.

[Pepperbelly]

90. groupthink here and ...

this entire thread is a perfect example.

[Armstead]

91. Why?

What is the diference between people having similar opinions and "groupthink"?

Is it groupthink to say that if you look to the east in the early morning you'll see the sunrise?

I've felt the same way about the DLC since around the mid 1990's. T'wasn't much of a group thinking that way back then.

[Pepperbelly]

94. are you being deliberately obtuse to try and make a point or ...

do you truly not see that posts along the line of:

DLC=RINO

is simply not having an opinion but is groupthink at its most obvious?

[Chan790]

98. Isn't that presumptive...

on DLC not being the same as RINO?

I'd say the burden lies on you to show the difference. IMO something can't be groupthink if it's actually true. If it were possible to be both true and groupthink we'd have no objectively-determinable facts at all.

[Pepperbelly]

99. 4 legs good ...

2 legs bad.

[Chan790]

102. I take it...

since you can't tell me the difference between a DLCer and a RINO, there isn't one.

That would undermine your assertion that it's groupthink. As I said earlier, something can't be groupthink if it is true. All the groupthink in the world can't make the Earth flat or Bush a genius.

[Pepperbelly]

103. Nope ... doesn't mean anything of the sort.

Cliches should never be substituted for reasoned discourse. It cheapens the dialog. It also reminds me of the joke about the new convict in prison. They were eating chow and after he sat down and started eating, he heard a prisoner call out: "Number six."

All of the inmates burst out laughing. It weirded him out but he continued eating when another convict from across the room shouted, "Number seventeen." They also started laughing with one guy actually rolling on the floor.

Confused, the new inmate asked one of the others at his table, "What's up with that? Someone shouts a number and everybody breaks up?"

The other convict nodded. "Fair enough. We've all been locked up together so long that we've heard all of the jokes we all know so when they shout out a number, they're telling a joke."

"No shit," the new guy said. He decided to give it a try and shouted, "Number twelve."

Dead silence. Not a single chuckle. Red faced and embarrassed, he sat down. "What happened?" he asked the other convict.

"Some assholes just don't know how to tell a joke."

[Chan790]

104. Okay...

I feel that there is no difference between the DLC and a DINO (or a RINO) because there is no ideal of their respective party that they will not sell out or disenfranchise to win.

Because the DLC is willing to move so far to the center/center-right to win, they effectively cut the legs right out from the traditional base of this party. When it comes to putting Democrats in power, the DLC is as useful as a ski-parka in July for this reason as the Democrats it foists on us are in no sense of the word representative of Democratic party ideals. I'd rather be right than win by compromising my ideals and sounding just like the other guy. If anything the DLC position is the real groupthink.

Discuss?

[Pepperbelly]

106. nah ...

the subject's been done to death here.

Someone PLEASE post the 'not this shit again' picture.

[confludemocrat]

95. Like a bad cold that has settled into the chest and become Pneumonia, so

the DLC has infested the Democratic party body politic and used it up to the point of staggered weakness, gasping for air and in danger of contracting something terminal. All their strategies and positioning has left the Dems fighting to emulate and outdo Republicans in Offense spending, militarization and war, and Kowtowing to big business, just look at the effects of two things that occur off the top of the head: the 1996 or 97 Telecommunications Act (so-called "deregulation" translation: corporate media free-for-all against the public interest) and the war in Iraq Act. The former has resulted in media concentration has put independent media and public media on its death bed and the latter has put democracy itself in great danger.

It's not an obsession at all, that 's BULLSHIT and you insult this group by tendering that kind of characterization, in fact many or most here being thoroughly fed up with their antics.

[LuCifer]

100. THE DLC SUCKS HORSE NUTS!!!!!!!!!!

You CAN'T tell me they were NOT behind Kerry winning Iowa FROM OUT OF NOWHERE. Pah-leeeeeeeez. They run HORRENDOUSLY PISS POOR campaigns, and LOSE, EVER LAST FREAKIN TIME! Oh but just keep pushing the party further and further to the right! Yeah, that really works...NOT! Morons. F'EM!

Lu

[Neil Lisst]

107. What would you like to know about the DLC?

Some Democrats think of them as Republican.

They're not, but next to many Dems, who doesn't look Republican?

Progressive used to mean open-minded. Now, too often, it means closed-mind and litmus bound.

Too many of our progressives have stopped being progressive, and it's killing us in election. You'd think losing would make it clear where the middle is, but some can't see it.

[Chan790]

108. If anything...

the lesson of the 2000 and 2004 elections is that moving to the middle no longer works, the pendulum has swung and the way back to on-top is to move towards the extremes and energize the party base.

We don't need to move to the middle, we need to do a better job explaining why traditional liberal ideals are the true ideals of middle (and southern) America.

We lose because we're sissies unwilling to be nasty, in-the-trenches knifefighters willing to take the fight to the GOP. It reminds me of that line in Trainspotting: "I don't hate the British (in our case the GOP), they're just wankers...we're conquered by wankers. What does that say about us?"

[Neil Lisst]

109. That has never worked in any election ...

So why would it work now?

Winning elections is not complicated. You have to get more motivated, registered voters to the polls on the magic day.

Elections are won at the middle, unless you can turn out enormous numbers from the people who aren't in the middle.

I agree that our elected Democrats must stand for something, and they need to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.

What do we stand for and what do we not stand for?

I'm open to items on the winning platform.

[Chan790]

119. my view

Admittedly, I may be wrong but this is how I see things.

So why would it work now?

Because the middle is already so polarized (and shrinking too) that nominating a candidate to the left of the DLC is not going to cost you many votes from the middle, but nominating a candidate toward the middle isn't going to pick up any votes from the liberal "They're all the same crowd" crowd that stays home because we can't ever send a good progressive to battle for fear of losing the middle. To them Dubya Bush is Kerry is Gore is Dole is Clinton is Daddy Bush.

Winning elections is not complicated. You have to get more motivated, registered voters to the polls on the magic day.

I agree but moderates and centrists are wishy-washy. That's true of both parties really. That's why Rove moved the GOP toward the polar extreme. There is no value in courting the middle anymore if it's disappearing. I joked with a friend last week that Bush was the best thing to happen to American Social Progressivism since Eugene Debs (and I was joking) but it's a half-truth. This regime has created more left-radicals out of people that before 2000 didn't care than I thought possible. * has polarized a nation...there is no such thing as an unaffiliated centrist anymore so why try to appeal to them?

Elections are won at the middle, unless you can turn out enormous numbers from the people who aren't in the middle.

See point one, if the middle are going to turn out for us in 2008 and 2006 it is because they are ABB or ABGOP (and the middle that is going to come out for Bush/GOP are "Security Moms" and "Values Voters", the majority of the middle just stays home), not because they like John Kerry or Al Gore or whatever wishy-washy moderate (Hillary, Wes, et al.) we round up. If that is true than this election is only about who can bring out more extremists on E day. That has been true since the GOP-dominated "Contract with America" midterms in 1998. There is no point in running on ABB/ABGOP, Kerry beat that horse to death...and lost. We already have those people for life, they're not enough to win.

I agree that our elected Democrats must stand for something, and they need to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.

Which is difficult to do with a moderate candidate. If we throw a Gore or a Kerry out there, we can win...but we have to clearly articulate a vision and an ideal in our message that resonates. Bill Clinton excelled at this...other Moderate/DLC dems...not so much.

What do we stand for and what do we not stand for?

This is the gist of the previous point...we need to stand for something...I don't know what...but I want something to believe in and all I see coming out of the DLCers is sophistry because it's safe. We're losing the ideas war...now is not time to be safe. Safe is for wankers. Safe doesn't win.

I guess I want the liberal equivalent of the "City on the Hill". An America where I can be happy and free and not have to worry about being sent to Iraq or having the GOPstapo kick in my door for being progressive and pro-gay and pro-free speech, pro-civil rights, feminist, anti-corporate/capitalist and can get decent pay and healthcare for virtually zilch and we all drive around in cars that create no pollution and only emit blueberry muffins and love. (I'll settle for water and inert gases.)

I'm open to items on the winning platform.

I think any platform has to come from the entire party-base (and not the think tanks and not what they think they can sell in middle America)...if the libs hear that we want a moderate they need to accept that but if the DLC hears we want Attila the Hun of the left who wants to destroy capitalism...well they need to accept that. The worst thing that occurred in the last election cycle prior to Nov. 2 was the DLCers teeing-off on a front-running Dean publicly because he wasn't "sell-able" in their opinion. Frankly, I don't care what the think tanks or even the DNC thinks. We pick the guy, they support him unequivocally, end of story.

Ideally the perfect candidate is both IMO, a moderate with a lot of truly progressive ideas that will tell business to shove it. More importantly they have to be a "knife-fighter"; someone who plays dirty and for keeps. No more sensitive Democrats. I want someone who wants to eat Karl Rove's (or insert least-favorite neocon here) bloody heart after he(or she) stomps it out of his chest on live TV.

As you can see, I think the problem is the candidates not the platform really. I don't think the DLC posits good candidates because they need to not rock the boat for fear of alienating their business funders.

[leanin_green]

130. Your points are well taken, however. . .

Something about the middle many people miss is the fact that they are "fence sitters" and non-committal. No one ever stays on the fence for long. And when they're knocked off it's usually one way or the other. If you assessed most people who consider themselves moderate to centrist, if you really got them to espouse their views on most issues, you would find that most are just either progressives or conservatives in moderate clothing.

[Ken Burch]

143. Centrist candidates NEVER motivate voters.

It's not possible to passionately support a centrist.

It's like getting excited about having a microwaved Velveeta sandwich
for lunch.

What won for Clinton was personal charisma, not left-bashing.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. Frankly I think it's a result of all the bad blood generated by Al From

and Bruce Reed in their commentaries painting anyone who was against the Iraq war and is against unfettered trade as the "looney left."

[Neil Lisst]

111. I'm not saying he didn't say it , but

If Al From said that, I'd like to read it.

Al's got his things I don't like, but that doesn't sound like something he'd say. But who knows? Any details?

[Skidmore]

128. The poster above who said these are not the times for

moderation is right on the mark. During a time when corporations are actively taking over the government and seeking to curtail hard won worker and civil rights, it is not the time to crawl in bed with them. The DLC is the mechanism in the Democratic party through which its politicians are being bought. The DLC is the mechanims through which the populist platform of the Democratic party is being subverted. It is also the mechanism used to drown out the voices of the rank and file. It is the faction of "me, too"--Republican lite. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I would do so. I do not support any DLC candidates. These people want my vote--foreswear corporate money and start speaking the language of the people again. Better yet, follow the language with some visible action.

[lateo]

139. Because they aid our enemies.

Duh.

[fujiyama]

144. They have had a nasty tendancy

to blame everything wrong on the left and liberalism. They have also advocated policies that fit in all too closely with the right wing/neoconservative agenda. They frequently attack and scapegoat Move On.org, Michael Moore, and other liberals. Now, valid criticism of both certainly may be warranted at times, but they seem obsessive (though I will admit the same goes on some on the far left). They also think voters from coastal states are out of touch and don't respect the military enough (and no I'm not making this up - it's in one of the DLC's recent papers).

I do believe their policies are proving problematic in many ways (I especially dislike the pontificating of Al From and Will Marshal, the authors of the document I mentioned earlier), but I think you too have a point. As much blame as the DLC deserves (and I believe they deserve a lot and don't even believe they should be able to use the word 'leadership' in their title), liberals and those on the left in general have made mistakes. While it is important the DLC for the problem it is, at times it can be distracting and can be used as an excuse for various mistakes.

[BIG Sean]

145. Because they helped Clinton win?

and you know...he was a horrible President.

Oh wait..no, he was a great President.

Damn...I don't know why they hate the DLC.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

150. I think that this article by Jon Corzine puts the DLC in perspective

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010416/corzine

Even though the article is almost 5 years old, think that it still applies. They aren't the greatest evil that there is, but they certainly are leading us in the wrong direction.

[me b zola]

151. What is the DLC's obsession with DU?

The dlc is not an ideology, it is a think tank--you know, like PNAC. There are no voters who say, "gee I want to vote a straight dlc ticket", only lobbyist who try to buy politicians and sway politicos.

Any person who is politically active looks at the influence behind a candidate to get a feel for who they really are. The truth is, the dlc has such a well-earned bad reputation that a Dem who votes for their own self interest ($$/power) or is even corrupt is labeled dlc.

So self-assured as to their choke hold on the political party (no, I'm not speaking about repukes, but it sure does sound that way, huh) the dlc actively campaigns to denigrate it's party's base. No, not ultra left leaning people, the Democratic Party's base who believes in the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement. For having the audacity to remember and try to bring the party back to it's grand ideals, for that we are called the "loony left" by our very own dlc.

At the same time as spokespeople for the dlc are denigrating the Democratic Party's base, people log on to DU with a dlc agenda. Hmmm. Like I have previously noted, voters do not associate themselves with a "think-tank", only lobbyist do that. And what do we see from posters with a dlc agenda? The same hateful rhetoric that is used against us that the repukes use to denigrade us.

The dlc has tried to convince people that they represent the "middle". I say bullshit. None of the conservative or moderate Dems that I know feel as though the dlc speaks for them. Hell, Mr. zola is a recovering repub and despises the dlc and every thing that they stand for.

DU has no obsession with the dlc, we have an obsession with representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is the dlc who obsesses with taking over our progressive message board like they have our party.

Scat. Be gone.

[Ken Burch]

154. Also, DU was formed, in part, by people who wanted to build an alternative

to DLC dominance in the party, so it should'nt be any real surprise that the DLC is not the flavor of the month 'round these parts.

[bpilgrim]

152. they like to BASH liberals and 'slant' to the right

ain't gonna get no love here ;->

peace

[Ken Burch]

153. What you need to accept here, BL611

is that if you start a thread about contentious issues like the role of the DLC in our party and how DU'ers feel about that role, you should expect some harsh, contentious, and at times incendiary responses.

I hope we've at least given you some incite as to why feelings about the DLC(which some of us still refer to as Democrats for the Leisure Class)are as intense as they are on DU.

And DLC defenders, if you want less hostility from us, try SHOWING US LESS HOSTILITY AND CONTEMPT. As Huey Freeman says in THE BOONDOCKS:
"Don't start none, Won't be none."

Respect breeds respect.