Well, well, well...the DLC had their own conference same time as DNC

[madfloridian]

Theirs was held in Aspen the very same days as the DNC held theirs in Phoenix. I am not sure of all the implications of this, but I know they were setting up their own agenda.

I realize the DNC conference was attended by the over 400 members throughout the country, and many of the progressive caucus were there...if not all.

Was the DLC event coordinated with the DNC, or are they effectively their own party now. This is not an attack, it is an honest question. Do we have two Democratic parties now, two wings completely?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253643

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Democratic Leadership Council teamed up with the Aspen Institute to host its second annual Leadership Development Retreat in Wye River, Maryland, on December 2-5, 2005. This high-level training and networking opportunity brought together 28 New Democrat leaders from across the country and all levels of government. Participants included Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, Iowa Gov. & DLC Chairman Tom Vilsack, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Penn.), Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell, Pennsylvania State Rep. Jennifer Mann, and New York's Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr.

The three-day, intensive, interactive program is designed to assist New Democrat elected officials in articulating core Democratic values of responsibility, opportunity, community and security and applying them to specific policy issues through real-world case studies. The retreat focused on the challenges to America's competitive advantage in the global information economy and generated constructive public policy solutions in three main areas: revitalizing education, promoting growth and rewarding work, and national security.

"This was an exhilarating weekend," said participant New Castle County Executive Chris Coons. "We tackled the tough issues of education, jobs and national security and came up with concrete ideas, useful ideas that we can put into action."

"This weekend, we focused in on the big challenges the rapidly changing world has created for our country and for us as elected officials," said DLC chairman Gov. Tom Vilsack. "This was first and foremost a problem solving exercise. The ideas we generated for all levels of government will show people that our longstanding problems are not intractable, but worth fighting with immediacy and innovation."

The DLC Leadership Development Retreats are part of the organization's longstanding commitment to training and supporting a national network of state and local elected officials, and cultivating rising stars from across the country. For example, the DLC hosts its annual "National Conversation," bringing together national, state and local Democratic leaders from nearly every state to talk about innovative ideas and strategies for governing. This past year, over 350 elected officials at all levels of government attended. And in the summer of 1998, the DLC launched a program to help leaders develop and articulate a New Democrat governing agenda. The www.dlc.org, or contact the DLC's communications office at [phone] or at [e-mail].

Looks like there are actually two parties effectively. I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.

[LSK]

1. maybe our token DLCers can answer n/t

[yurbud]

14. They aren't token DLCers!

They are paid PR shills.

Nobody would shovel that shit for free, not even the people who went to that conference.

[Cha]

90. I think you're right.

"Nobody would shovel that shit for free.."

And shoveling it so poorly.

[yurbud]

119. How to spot them: they repeat empty talking points and ignore evidence

and you can tell you've said something that struck a nerve by the number that swarm on you.

[Cha]

121. Bullseye!

[MrBenchley]

142. Yeah, irony sure is a wonderful thing (guffaw)

[LSK]

149. well i didnt want to come right out and say it

But since you did, I agree.

[spancks]

2. I'd like to know, too...

...maybe someone informed on this matter can answer.

Recommended.

[madfloridian]

3. Thanks, I think it is important to know.

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

80. Irony...a wonderful thing...(snicker)

[me b zola]

4. Aspen!!??!!

Isn't Aspen the place where the trees turn in clumps at their roots???

[madfloridian]

5. lol

yes, indeed. I believe this might be the conference that The New Republic was planning with them...and I heard maybe Slate as well.

[LittleClarkie]

18. So is ... she ... covering this conference?

You know who I mean. Scooter's sweet babboo.

[MADem]

22. Per the article, they were at the Aspen INSTITUTE in Wye River MD nt

[tavalon]

25. Yeah, I noticed that one too

High irony from the Rethug lite group.

[donheld]

26. Be nice to the aspen tree

They can't help it if they share a root system. They're beautiful.

[Cha]

91. First thing I thought of..

Poor Aspen is notorious now for turning of the screws.

[Swamp Rat]

6. Divide and conquer.

[madfloridian]

7. I don't know if you mean me, but I am asking if that is they are doing.

Because I really don't understand why the two conferences were held at the same time. I am asking a sincere question, and it needs answering. We may already have two Democratic parties. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Swamp Rat]

21. Well, you just answered it yourself... I think.

My statement was not at all directed at you. I am jumping to the conclusion that somewhere within the Democratic Party, PNAC is at work... I do not trust the DLC at all. There be lizards in there... :scared:

[madfloridian]

92. That is what I thought you meant.

I have learned it is best not to assume. :evilgrin:

[iconoclastNYC]

179. DING DING DING DING

There are dark forces exerting great influence on the Democratic party. If the people don't take back the Democratic party before it's too late there isn't going to be much worth saving.

[napi21]

8. I don't think it's 2 parties, I think it's a wing of our Dem Party,

The same as the Pubs have more than 2 wings. They have an extreme RW, a wing of war hawks, and a wing of moderates, who as I understand it, believe in smaller Gov't, less taxes, and gov't out of personal lives.

I don't think we really need to worry about the DLC. If we really believe what we say: we believe in freedom and not extremism, they let the DLC do their thing.

When primary time comes, the Dems will have several candidates of all different convictions, and so will the Pubs. Let the best ones win!

[LSK]

9. but the Pubs dont do that

The try and just have one guy at primary time and they dont waste money on a primary fight.

[napi21]

23. Hmmm, are you sure? I seem to remember quite a few

in 2000. Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Alan Keys, Orin Hatch, John McCain, and I don't recall if that was it or not.

Sure the Party backed Bush, but at least McCain and Forbes tried to give them a hard time!

[iconoclastNYC]

180. There is the "CLUB for GROWTH"

and the NRA but there is nothing over on the Republican side like the DLC over on the Democratic side. The DLC is changing the Democratic party and in my view poisioning it. So many things they advocate are responsible for the Green defections.

[madfloridian]

10. The DNC is never mentioned on their site.

And they are never mentioned at the DNC. They are basically a think tank.

It is like they have their own coalition and goals and aims.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=109&contentid=894

The New Democrat movement includes hundreds of elected officials, from the federal level to the state and local levels. Organizations active in the movement include:

The Democratic Leadership Council (www.DLC.org), a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization founded in 1984 -- the original home and leading edge of the movement. Under the leadership of its founder and chief executive officer, Al From, the DLC seeks to define and galvanize popular political support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, nonbureaucratic solutions. (Click here to learn more about the DLC's affiliated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, www.ppionline.org.)

The House New Democrat Coalition, a group of 74 moderate, pro-growth members of the House of Representatives working to find mainstream, bipartisan solutions to our nation's problems. The NDC was founded in 1997 by Representatives Cal Dooley (CA), Jim Moran (VA), and Tim Roemer (IN). More About the House NDC

The Senate New Democrat Coalition, a group of 20 moderate, pro-growth members of the United States Senate, founded in the spring of 2000 by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

The New Democrat Network (www.ndn.org), a political action committee founded in 1996, which gives financial support to New Democrat candidates and elected officials. The NDN's president and founder is Simon Rosenberg. The NDN is not affiliated with the DLC.
For an in-depth history of the New Democrat movement, read Reinventing Democrats (University Press of Kansas, 2000), by Kenneth Baer.

It is a 501 which is not a political committee which should influence electons.

DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just trying to see where it all fits in.

[MrBenchley]

77. The DLC never mentions the DNC--except when they do....

"At first glance, Democrats hardly seem poised for greatness. Consider the two questions most on Democratic minds since November: the DNC's battle to find the next Terry McAuliffe and the party-wide drumbeat to find a Democratic Karl Rove. We're searching, all right -- but not for heroes. Alan Wolfe is right: It's time to lift our sights. History is handing us the chance toreach for the brass ring that Bush fumbled, and we can't afford to take a pass.
What could Democrats do to reach for the stars, instead of just posing with them? Wolfe's most refreshing idea is to rebuild institutions that once were great but now have dwindled -- "political parties capable of aggregating and mobilizing citizens; interest groups that crave members and not just contributors; labor unions that seek to create and not only to protect jobs; business firms that invest in those who work for them." Wolfe's own agendafor the next great president is nothing new -- universal health care, a living wage, better schools. But his close analysis of past greatness suggests three clear prerequisites for its return. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253281&kaid=85&subid=65

"Reed, now president of the Democratic Leadership Council, discussed his article in a Washington Post web chat:
Boston, Mass.: Great articles. Great ideas. I think the DNC needs to campaign in every state, we need to be credible to every demographic. We need a national candidate that hasn't been in the Senate, that's from the South and has a history of cutting taxes and putting education first. We need to elevate Gov. Mark Warner to national recognition as soon as possible.
Bruce Reed: thanks for your note. i can only type with one hand, so forgiveme if every answer reads like an e e cummings poem.
you're absolutely right that we should compete everywhere, including the south. mark warner has shown that it's still possible to sell democratic values and ideas in red states. so have some other southern and western democrats. let's not forget: we carried a dozen red states in 92 and 96 with a nominee who held the same positions on hot-button issues as this one. (Kerry)"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253008&kaid=85&subid=65


"It is like they have their own coalition and goals and aims. "
Yeah, we sure wouldn't have any discussion of those awful goals and aims in the Democratic party--it might interfere with our Democrat-bashing and general mindless tooralloo</sarcasm>

[FreedomAngel82]

184. So from that you posted

it looks as though Warner will be their person they back. I think last year it was Kerry since he is DLC (even though he is way more progressive than a lot of them. I am glad they are taking the fifty-state campaigning seriously though and the DNC and DLC at least agree there. I read I think in the Kerry forum that Bill Clinton recently (around Thanksgiving) met privatley with Warner.

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. If the DLC is a think-tank, you can't be too impressed with their

powers of deduction. Because you would have thought that by now they would have realized that they're in the wrong party based on the conclusions they do make.

[iconoclastNYC]

182. Thanks for those official bios

But does anyone think they have any value? Its propoganda. The DLC actions (misdeeds) speak 150 decibels louder than its words.

[yurbud]

13. you are half right--root them out in primaries but DO worry

Not worrying is how we got the GOP version of these corporate zombies

[Cha]

95. I agree..ignore them at

our own risk. If they are "wing of the Democratic party" then they are a broken down wing who has lost its Democratic way.

[yurbud]

117. they are a cancerous wing that needs to be snip and thrown in the

tissue bucket.

[Cha]

127. Ooops! Okay, you

got that right!

[HereSince1628]

32. The DLC can and will do what ever they want. There is no granting

them any degrees of freedom required. They can, and do, do anything they want. Just as _they chose_ the name "Democratic Leadership." They weren't awarded it. They chose it because of it gives the average dimwit the impression that somehow the DLC elitists are annointed.

IMHO they see themselves as something bigger and better than a wing of the party.

[Bandit]

93. When did the Moderate Republicans have their meeting?

And was it at the same time the RNC met to discuss policy?

[Cha]

96. Yeah, Chaffee, Snowe, Collins,

and who else?..should get together and talk about taking back their party from the abyss.

[wryter2000]

113. True, but...

Do the different wings of the repug party have their meetings at the same time, insuring that participants can't go to both meetings/retreats? That's what makes it look as if they're competing.

[OzarkDem]

118. Its a wing of the Republican party

They have no power, except their ability to sometimes get their crap in the news media.

[quiet.american]

11. Huh? Wha'd Vilsack say--?

It does look like there are two parties -- the fast-fading DLC, and the :kick: "Kickin' It for America" DNC. :) Vilsack's rhetoric is certainly worthy of any Republican you can pull out of a hat....

DLC Chairman Gov. Tom Vilsack:
"This was first and foremost a problem solving exercise. The ideas we generated for all levels of government will show people that our longstanding problems are not intractable, but worth fighting with immediacy and innovation."

Huh?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean:
"The news that the political cronies President Bush installed at the Justice Department overruled the objections of the Department's civil rights experts to push through Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting plan is the latest example of President Bush's 'say one thing, do another' approach to promoting civil rights. While giving lip service to promoting equal rights and protections under the law, the Bush Administration has systematically undercut those same protections.

"The right to vote is the most fundamental, basic right we enjoy as American citizens, and one of our government's most important responsibilities is to do everything in its power to protect the ability of every American to exercise that right. Sadly, the Bush Administration has failed to live up to this responsibility.

"This incident is also the latest evidence that fostering the culture of corruption the Bush Administration, Tom DeLay and their cronies have brought to Washington trumps all other concerns -- even our nation's most cherished and fundamental civil rights protections.

"Together, America can do better. Americans deserve a government as good as its people. Instead of sidestepping the law to undermine the rights of citizens, President Bush and the Republicans in Washington should join Democrats in bringing accountability back to government, and making government work for all Americans."

Go, Howard!

[Cha]

97. That's so brilliant to put the

Chairmen's statements right under each other so we can get an idea what they stand for. :)

[MrBenchley]

109. Especially since they're addressing the same subject...NOT

That sort of forthright honesty is always the sign of a rigtherous cause </sarcasm>....

[quiet.american]

176. Aw, gee, Mr. Benchley....

Whether or not (the subject was roses), it's still rhetoric vs. specificity, which is the real subject.

What Vilsack said gives no clue as to what issue the DLC is addressing in the real world. It's pure politic. What Dean said not only leaves one no doubt as to the issue he's addressing, but I also venture to add many in "the base" probably said, "Go, Howard -- took the words right out of my mouth!"

It's the difference between one set of words inspiring no more than a yawn, and the other set of words inspiring "the base" to get out their wallets, roll up their sleeves and volunteer for a local or national candidate, or better yet, run for office themselves.

I'd gladly support the DLC if I felt they spoke for me, and I wish they did. But quite frankly, I'm tired of having to go all the way back to 1992 to point to anything they've done that put a smile on my face -- that's almost 14 years ago!

Meanwhile, all manner of hell has been unleashed in this country while the best the DLC comes up with is to continually lash out at and deride the average Democrat who cares about holding Bush accountable for wasting our blood and treasure on a pre-emptive war of choice, sneering that we're "the far-left wing" of the Democratic party. I call horse-hockey on the DLC.

[MrBenchley]

196. Hahahaha...so when the lie is uncovered

you pretend it's a "style" thing....

"What Vilsack said gives no clue"
Unless you read it in context...and of course it makes no sense if you yank it out and pretend it is addressing something else.

"It's the difference between one set of words inspiring no more than a yawn, and the other set of words inspiring "the base" to get out their wallets"
Which is why we hear this constant wailing about how awful it is that DLC has success in prying nickels out of donors.

"Meanwhile, all manner of hell has been unleashed in this country"
Frankly, I dont hold the DLC accountable for any of that...it wasn't the DLC that ran down John Kerry at every occasion during the campaign last year but our leftist purists.

[quiet.american]

203. What you smokin' Mr. Benchley? Can I have some?

It must be some good stuff, 'cause that's the only way I can understand where you're coming from. Lol.

[quiet.american]

172. Howdy, zidzi -- thanks!

:hi:

[Iowa]

187. Vilsack is a prick...

I have had the misfortune to work under this asshole as a state employee, but I'll never forget the first time I saw him years ago. 20/20, or some such show, had a segment on mandatory sentencing and what a disaster it was. They showed horrible examples of people who were caught up in it. One was an Iowa teen. I don't recall all the details, but it went something like this: he got into a shoving match with another teen who was dating his ex-girlfriend - typical teenage nonsense. He was a nice kid from a good family, nobody was hurt, and it was the type of thing that happens every day. But due to technicalities in the law and other insane nonsense, the judge was forced to sentence this kid to 25 years! It was crazy and terribly unjust. Vilsack was interviewed toward the end and I can remember thinking, "great - this is a terrific opportunity for a Dem candidate for gov to show some compassion and common sense. But Vilsack got on there and defended the law and showed absolutely no compassion for the kid or his family. He demonstrated then that he has the heart and soul of a republican, and he has done nothing to change my view throughout his years as gov.

As a governor he has been exactly what you'd expect, a half-assed republican who pretends to be a Democrat. The guy has no heart. He's a cold, bland, boring, vacuous, shill who never would have been governor were it not for the complete wingnuts the repubs ran against him. All I need to know about the DLC is that this prick is their chairman. If this is the direction the party is moving toward, the party should be taken out behind the barn and put out of its misery in hopes that something better rises up in its place.

[shance]

12. Did Scooter join them? Or have the Aspens already turned?

I bet they were really tackling the "tough issues" while biking up to Maroon Belles.

[radio4progressives]

17. they're all the same people, the same tribe n/t

[yurbud]

15. What issues besides NAFTA/CAFTA & Iraq War flush out DLCers?

[GreenPartyVoter]

51. Are they the ones that want Dems to drop choice and gay rights?

[yurbud]

115. Probably, but a separate argument can be made for de-emphasizing those

It's one thing to say those aren't litmus tests, it's something else to do what Hillary is doing now, replacing those with flag descration and other vapid non-issues.

If she thinks she is fooling the Hillbillies, she is wrong. Rush told them to hate her everyday for over a decade. that's not going to wear off.

[Greyhound]

125. GATT, worker protection, corporatism, class division... anybody else? n/t

[stickdog]

197. Bankruptcy "reform" and anything else the corpocracy wants dearly.

[radio4progressives]

16. This is exactly the point I was trying to make a week ago - and why I

asked if we shouldn't be forcing the DLC to come clean and out in the open - officially - for the sake of honesty and transparency - they have created their own party - they operate it as such - and therefore they are - that it's time they made these facts known to the American People vis a vis full court press.

and if they don't do it, then maybe the DNC should.

[MrBenchley]

31. And it's exactly why so many "purists" here sound so fucking silly....

You folks don't seem to know even basic facts, such as that the DNC meeting was rescheduled to the same weekend as the DLC event, due to Hurricane Katrina....

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/dnc_fall_meetin.php

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/democrats_meet.php

and instead you 're trying to spin a sinister conspiracy out of thin air.

"forcing the DLC to come clean and out in the open"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=85&subid=108&contentid=253643

If you want transcripts of the July DLC meeting so you can see what was discussed, you can download them here....(of course, they have adult ideas and require actual thought)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=126&subid=166&contentid=253486

But actually visiting the DLC site blows the shit out of this stupid "traitorous DLC" fantasy so many have here.

[porphyrian]

43. That's right, visit the website, relax, you are getting sleepy...

...forget everything you know, and go back to sleep. This is a just a silly conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no credence to the idea that the DLC is in part responsible for pulling the Democratic party to the right, alienating its liberal base and for the loss of the last three major elections to the republicans due to pushing this strategy. Visit the website and let the truth erase these silly ideas from your mind.

[MrBenchley]

45. I know grown-up ideas make so many of our teen progreessives sleepy....

"This is a just a silly conspiracy theory."
Verging on a dishonest conspiracy theory.

[porphyrian]

47. Listen to Benchley...

...he's never defensive, patronizing or wrong. The DLC is our friend. If they seem like the enemy, you are the victim of a nearly-dishonest, silly conspiracy theory. Ignore the empirical evidence, your senses are wrong.

[LincolnMcGrath]

48. Search is your friend.

See, some folks think only 'they ' can bash the DLC.

I do see a bunch of Dem Bashing here though.
:eyes:

[porphyrian]

69. All Party members should be free from criticism...

...despite their stance or policies. Nothing productive can ever come it. If your opinion differs from that of other Party members, you are wrong and should simply remain silent. The DLC knows best. Losing the last three major elections with its strategy is part of the strategy.

[MrBenchley]

49. Why listen to any of our DLC bashers?

They're clueless, mendacious and utterly childish.

"Ignore the empirical evidence"
You certainly seem to at every turn. anmd then throw a pissy little snit when you're shown to be wrong.

[porphyrian]

63. Listen to Benchley, not pissy little snit throwers...

Questioning the DLC makes you clueless, mendacious and utterly childish but not personally attacking those that do. Visit the DLC website. It is entirely correct because it says it is. Question that, and Benchley will personally attack you to prove he's right. There is nothing utterly childish about this response when defending the policies of the DLC to the clueless and mendacious.

[MrBenchley]

72. Might as well, since all some have to offer is pissy little snits....

"Questioning the DLC makes you clueless, mendacious and utterly childish"
Sure seems to do that to some here. Imagine, some people implied that the DLC deliberately schedlued their conference on the same weekend as the DNC conference as some sort of sabotage, although it turned out that the DNC conference had been rescheudled ot that date and the conferences were meant for two different groups of attendees.

Imagine, some people wanted to pretend the DLC was hiding what they were up to, and now are sulking because the information they claimed was hidden is posted on the DLC website."

[porphyrian]

82. Disagreeing with Benchley or the DLC website renders you irrelevant.

Benchley is also elevated to an informed, truthful and mature status by calling you names. Benchley prefers his opinion be the default.

[LincolnMcGrath]

85. But what is his opinion?

Oh, the Irony of it all!

I mean, with all the teen progressives and all their Dem Bashing, what are we to think?

:eyes:

Irony?

Flip Flop?

Vulcan Mind Meld?

Perhaps a new payrolled agenda?

[Cha]

98. "Irony", indeed!

So when the turn around, flip flop?..and only as far back as Oct 4, 2005!

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. Very interesting indeed.....

:shrug:

[Occulus]

162. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=2667&mesg_id=2680

[MrBenchley]

173. LOL!

It's hilarious to see the boys crying over their toys....

[Jim Sagle]

186. The DLC ain't nuthin' but Republican filth and neither is anyone who

promotes them.

End of fucking discussion.

[MrBenchley]

190. LOL....

[RazzleDazzle]

140. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed today,

or is this just your usual charming self? Just curious.

[Occulus]

161. ...or just look here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=2667&mesg_id=2680

[LincolnMcGrath]

170. Amazing ain't it?

[MrBenchley]

174. Wow...the post is funny enough

but it's doubly hilarious to have a joystick twiddler actually advertising it proudly....

[yurbud]

It's not a matter of being "purist" or even anti-business. DLC avoids

the heart of many issues.

I read their web page on health care, and unless I missed it (PLEASE point it out to me if I'm wrong), they didn't address the central problem: profit-taking by insurance companies and pharma. They don't address this because the potential solutions would chafe a potential donor.

We need to either have single payer or regulate health insurance as tightly as we used to do Ma Bell and utilities, or better yet, make them non-profits.

The same thing is going on with the war. They are not talking about the real motives of seizing natural resources because it could chafe a potential donor and turn the public against that donor.

When they discuss immigration policy, do they discuss the employers who profit from undocumented workers and how to punish them, or just focus on the hapless immigrants who don't have the money to be donor?

I am open to moderates who are business friendly, but the DLC is more properly called business-owned.

For a good introduction to the DLC, read this article:

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

[MrBenchley]

134. So in other words, they have a centrist perspective....

They have a bunch of pages on health care....including this one.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253539&kaid=85&subid=108

"unless I missed it (PLEASE point it out to me if I'm wrong), they didn't address the central problem: profit-taking by insurance companies and pharma."
I don't think many people would agree that the central problem is profit-taking, as much as the large number of uninsured and the catastrophic cost of serious problems. But even given that dubious premise, how would you go about solving it? Could you solve it WITHOUT involving the pharamceutical companies and insurance companies? How could you do that without building a concensus that most Americans can agree on?

"better yet, make them non-profits"
And what happens to the investors, many of which will be pension funds or retirement accounts?

"When they discuss immigration policy, do they discuss the employers who profit from undocumented workers and how to punish them, or just focus on the hapless immigrants who don't have the money to be donor?"
You mean you didn't look to see?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252522&kaid=104&subid=115

[yurbud]

164. Why are people uninsured? They can't afford it or pre-existing conditions

keep them out.

The catastrophic costs does point to problems outside the insurance system, but the insurance companies approach is to figure out who will have those problems and weed them out or claim the treatment they need is experimental even if their doctor disagrees.

I have actually combed the DLC website a couple of times on this health insurance issue, hoping to find common ground, but what it looks like now is that you are bending over backward to avoid offending business interests.

Your solutions lick around the edges and sidestep the central problem: the profit motive gives disincentives for insurance companies to provide the service they are contracted to give.

A similar problem occurs with prescription meds. Their lobbyists have essential said that their prices are higher here because people will put up with it. Our tax dollars pay for much of their R & D, and they repay us by screwing us and profit-taking.

I am for market solutions when they work, but they don't work here. By the time caveat emptor kicks in, someone is dead.

I looked at your immigration link too, and oddly, it didn't mention sanctions on employers for hiring illegals.

[MrBenchley]

175. Again how do you solve that problem, beyond pouting?

"Your solutions lick around the edges and sidestep the central problem"
And again, even granting the dubious proposition that your claim is the central problem, how do you solve it without building a centrist coalition?

[yurbud]

177. does "centrist" always equal business?

There are two possible solutions, neither of which you will like:

single payer

or

tight regulation of the health insurance industry, to the point of requiring them to run as non-profits.


A great deal of what we pay for in health insurance is marketing, executive salaries, administration (which is higher when you are trying so hard to deny service), and of course profits.

Other countries that have single payer pay less for health care and get more because most of those costs I just mention don't exist.

I am open to market based solutions so long as they are less of a scam than the current set up.

At the very least, insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny service a doctor think is required. They should have to pay out and if they don't like it, have a regulatory agency they appeal to.

[MrBenchley]

189. You mean you think it doesn't?

"Other countries that have single payer pay less for health care and get more because most of those costs I just mention don't exist."
That is correct. It's also a solution that has failed to engage the average American, for whatever reason. Pushing for regulation that leads to universal coverage seems to me to be the only feasible strategy in the short run, since the national will for single payer just isn't there.

"I am open to market based solutions so long as they are less of a scam than the current set up."
I believe that any solution is going to have to be market-based, if for no other reason than so many people's pensions and retirement funds are tied up in investments in those fields. I do not think a consensus agreement to force health insurance companies to operate as non-profits is on the horizon any time soon.

Did you see the page I linked to? How do you feel about these proposals?

"Universalize the health care choices members of Congress enjoy. The federal government should work with states to universalize the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program that provides essential health benefits and gives employees an array of private plans to choose from.
Require shared responsibility for the cost of coverage. Because the uninsured impose a cost on everyone when they need health care, people who can afford coverage should be required to buy it or face a tax penalty. The moneyfrom this penalty tax could then go into an uninsured health care fund.
Pay doctors and hospitals according to their performance. Health care costs are out of control in part because there is little competition to reduce them. The federal government should leverage pay-for-performance and similar incentive and comparison trends to lower coverage costs.
Deploy information technology for better care and lower costs. The health care industry lags behind most other economic sectors in its use of Information Age technologies. The federal government should spur the creation of a national networks for exchanging standardized health information electronically, making the system more efficient and safer.
Create health courts for fair and reliable justice in malpractice cases. A national network of specialized health courts should be created by Congress, replacing America's broken medical justice system and offer a real solution in the medical malpractice reform debate.
Create a National Cures Center to speed medical breakthroughs. Congress should require the National Institute of Health to organize a National Cures Center that would focus on "cure gaming." This center would help bring the many scientific advances made in the laboratory to new therapeutics for use at the patient's bedside, improving patients' lives. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253539&kaid=85&subid=108

[yurbud]

193. I did read that-like health court, hate requiring people to buy

people are required to buy auto insurance, and that doesn't drive down cost.

It leaves out the insurance piece. Why?

[MrBenchley]

195. So if you don't require that

how do you pay for adding the uninsured, exactly?

[yurbud]

198. you can't require it without some kind of price control

essentially, you are placing the onus on the person who needs the insurance rather than the employer and insurer.

It's a little bit like finding out someone is beating their kids, and instead of taking the guy to jail, you tell the kids all the things they can do to avoid pissing daddy off.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that insurance companies have their customers over a barrel. Caveat emptor can't work when you don't find out your insurance company won't cover you until you get sick--then it's too late to get other coverage.

Do you acknowledge that insurance companies play any role in the problem or is it just those greedy doctors and feckless consumers?

If you are running a for profit business, and you can make a greater profit by NOT completely providing the service you promise, and can obfuscate this with red tape for the consumer and no fear of reprisal from the government because you can buy off elected officials, what would stop you from doing so?

[MrBenchley]

199. However

if you place the full onus on the insurer/employer, you can hardly demand that they then insure the uninsured and unemployed. I see no reason to have some sort of price control, as you suggest.

"You seem to be avoiding the fact that insurance companies have their customers over a barrel."
And you seem to be avoiding the fact that insurance companies are going to have to be part of whatever solution is found in the near future. Unless you can figure out a way to muscle them into involuntary submission that doesn't include pissing off the millions of Americans who depend on insurance company profits for their retirements and pensions.

"Do you acknowledge that insurance companies play any role in the problem"
Of course they do. Now how do you find a solution that Americans will accept and rally behind? Bercause simply saying "ooh, look at the greedy insurance company!" obviously isn't cutting the mustard.

"f you are running a for profit business, and you can make a greater profit by NOT completely providing the service you promise, and can obfuscate this with red tape for the consumer and no fear of reprisal from the government because you can buy off elected officials, what would stop you from doing so?"
And if you're powerless within the government and also don't have the support of consumers, how are you going to do anything about this? Bearing in mind that any possible Democratic solution requires either a filibuster-proof majority in Congress (not likely to happen soon) OR a slight majority in Congress (possible) and a plan that is acceptable to GOP moderates.

[yurbud]

202. the same Americans that have pensions are being screwed by insurance

companies.

I suspect that my solution would save more than it cost most lower and middle class people.


Your last point is probably the strongest--resistance from republicans and the insurance industry itself would be fierce as it was to the Clinton health care proposals in the early 90s.

I think the problem with the DLC is that they START from a position that might be acceptable as a final compromise, which has two negative side effects:

1. If you START at the compromised position, but the time you get to the horse-trading and deal-making, nothing helpful is done, or worse, like Bush's medicare prescription drug benefit, you end up helping the trouble maker (in this case pharma and insurance) and hurting the people you were trying to help.

1. It does not inspire public support. I honestly don't feel that the DLC types are looking out for my best interests. When I'm being screwed, I suspect you guys aren't working on the problem but fishing for a campaign contribution from the screwer. The only time that "cut and run" jibe is fair is when it comes to you defending average Americans. While not all voters can identify who you are, they are probably aware that some particular candidate is merely mouthing empty platitudes in their commercials, and sound like republicans without the religious baggage. That's not going to make them get out of bed and go vote.


Forcing everyone into over-priced and unreliable private insurance is not going to make a major difference except give more of our money to the health care industry resulting in less to spend on consumer goods and services that keep people employed.


I know you guys rightly admire the messaging of the right, and yet, you can't seem to imitate it correctly to save yourselves.

They start with a simple, memorable catchphrase saying what they really want, and repeat it and repeat it and repeat it until it becomes the conventional wisdom and opposing it seems insane. And you can connect the dots between their actions and those catchphrases.

You guys don't do that, in part because you don't directly admit that your two constituencies, business and consumers, are sometimes in conflict.

There is nothing wrong with being business friendly, but you seem loathe to call out whole industries that are screwing us like insurance, the oil companies, and with the recent bankruptcy bill, credit card companies. You guys could have even at least PROPOSED an amendment that lowered interest rates on credit cards, limited the number of offers and cards they issue to the same person to PREVENT bankruptcy.


You have some good ideas, but not enough. And by pretending there are no structural scams and injustices created by certain industries, not just "bad apples," you are profoundly dishonest, to the point that I think your loyalties aren't divided--they are all on the side of corporate America, and anything you say otherwise is just shining us on the way Republicans do with their more obvious appeals to the religious nuts and people who worry about flag-burning (oops--that's HILLARY's issue now).

[flaminbats]

200. many people call that a safety net

when you fall, you will not die! Of course Republicans don't believe in this approach, instead they prefer social darwinism..as long as we just don't teach it in public school. :crazy:

People pay premiums in case they get sick, not just to lose it!
Kerry embraced the DLC approach on healthcare reform in 2004..and so did Lieberman, Clark, Dean, and Gephardt.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=251190

Fast-food workers, the disabled who can't work, and those with medical problems who have lost their insurance with jobs really need this coverage.

[Lasher]

19. The DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic party

That's what Howard Dean says and I agree with him.

I believe Medicare should be expanded to provide universal health care for all Americans. Do you think that's a crazy far-left idea? The DLC does.

Do you think Joe Lieberman supports the ideals of a majority of Democrats? He used to be the president of the DLC.

Do you think Howard Dean is a left wing radical? The DLC does, and they worked to thwart his bid to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0105-07.htm

Do you think we should 'stay the course' in Iraq? The DLC does. Consider this from their web site: "The task for Democrats today is to hold the president accountable for results, while making it clear we stand for winning in Iraq and not a rush for the exits."

http://www.dlc.org/

This stunt in Aspen is consistent with their behavior. They are behaving like a separate party, as you suppose, and are trying to highjack the agenda of the Democratic party.

[Cha]

99. In other words..

"The Regressive Wing" of the Democratic Party.

[Lasher]

112. Worse than that...

Lots of people think they are the leaders of the Democratic party, thence their name. I would have a lot less of a problem with them if they were to change their name, which is intentionally and effectively misleading.

I support traditional Democratic values, but they don't. Their position is similar to that of Republicans, and they are the biggest reason why we haven't seen a platform that reflects our values. They want to compromise with Republicans. Republicans sometimes pretend they are also willing to be bipartisan, but they are not, and concede nothing. As such, the DLC is not compromising, they are surrendering.

[Cha]

124. Appeasers and Traitors

to our Democratic Principles. Rethugs in Democratic clothes.

I have no sense of history on this but surely there must be factions like the dlc(demonic liars club) infiltrating political parties to sabotage from the inside?

[Lasher]

135. OK, here's some history

The movement was formed when the Department of Homeland Security first encouraged all good little nazis to rat on their friends and family. Enthusiasts from an organization called The Cheney Youth eventually became the charter members of the DLC. Current funding from Tom DeLay supports educational programs like the Rich Little workshop, where new DLC members learn to sound like real Democrats.

[Cha]

163. I'll think of that when

marshall wittmann makes his statements.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/2/9625/38568

[Neil Lisst]

20. did it look anything like this?

imagine snow capped mountains in the background

[rucky]

24. If a third party becomes a result of this split...

I don't think it'll necessarily be a bad thing. One from the center will draw votes away from the right and the left, but the DLC can continue their losing streak without us progressives getting in the way.

[Perky]

27. Do you honestly thinnk

with a DLC centrist part taking votes away from the right and left that the DNC woul have any any ANY possibility of ever winning a national election as a liberals only party????

[rucky]

28. That's why I said it.

We don't even get a chance to sell a progressive platform to the voters as it stands now. DLC-ers always seem to step in and muck up the message.

[porphyrian]

110. Removing the DLC would bring many Greens back to the Party.

The reason most left the Democratic party was the move away from liberal policy in the first place, a move planned by DLC strategists.

[mzmolly]

29. We'll be running ONE democrat in 2008, thankfully.

But their timing is "odd."

[MrBenchley]

35. Their "timing" is due to a reschedule of the DNC fall conference

caused by Hurricane Katrina.

[madfloridian]

106. Ok, then that answers my question.

I knew the DNC had rescheduled, and I also knew the DLC had had a big conference in July. And they had a big one with Bill Clinton as well since July. So I thought they were done for the year.

If this was their regularly scheduled conference, and the DNC scheduled at the same time...fine. It is not like they overlap at all.

It really does not matter as the people in one don't seem to have much connection with the ones in the other.

So, Benchley, forgive my question.

[MrBenchley]

30. So where is the memo that says

that everybody else has to sit no their thumbs during the DNC conference?

Yeah, folks like Christine Gregoire are traitors to the cause.....

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/washington_gov.php

And don't even get me started on that rat Brad Henry--good thing the DNC banished him...

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/oklahoma_govern.php

By the way, you DO know that the DNC meeting was originally scheduled foir a diffetrent weekend and had to be rescheduled due to Hurricane Katrina, don't you?

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/democrats_meet.php

I mean, I know you're trying to imply that the DLC is doing something sinister when they " assist New Democrat elected officials in articulating core Democratic values of responsibility, opportunity, community and security and applying them to specific policy issues through real-world case studies."

[Ian_rd]

33. The DLC doesn't want the press to see how they are ...

... really running the show with their RepublicanLite agenda. Better to have the conferences at the same time and let the press talk about the DNC while the DLC and their Al From-inspired bullshit conspires to continue losing elections or force the Democratic Party to the right - or better yet - Both!

Joe and Hillary for President 2008! Can't you see it?

[MrBenchley]

34. And that's why they post transcripts on their website....

"Better to have the conferences at the same time "
Hell-ooooooo....the DNC conference was rescheduled to that weekend due to Hurricane Katrina.

Sorry to have to intrude on your silly Democrat-bashing with a fact or two.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. When will you stop bashing Dems?

For that matter, when did you give up bashing the DLC?

[MrBenchley]

37. I know it's de rigeur for our "teen progressives" to hate the DLC

but I guess it's too much to ask that they actually know any fucking thing at all....

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. Was your DLC bashing more 'fact based' than the 'teen progressives'?

[MrBenchley]

40. So when was the DNC conference originally scheduled for?

pray tell?

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. Spin, Dodge, We've been down this road before, Eh?

Answer the question.

Why is only 'you' can bash the DLC.

Is it 'drearily underintelligent Dem bashing' from a 'mindless teen progressive' when you do it?

[MrBenchley]

44. Yeah, it's drearily apparant you DLC-bashers are clueless....

For the record, the DNC conference was originally scheduled for September, and was rescheduled for this weekend due to Hurricane Katrina.

[LincolnMcGrath]

46. Insert Clueless

Is it 'drearily underintelligent Dem bashing' from a

clueless

'mindless teen progressive' when you do it?


Answer the question. Seems simple enough.

[MrBenchley]

53. Yeah, "clueless" sure sums up this dreary "conspiracy theory"

in spades

[madfloridian]

108. Are you thinking I am a teen? I am flattered.

I asked a question, you answered it. However, I am still trying to wrap my head around this statement. Looks like they were setting their own policy while the DNC was doing so as well. Even if it is due to the DNC rescheduling, why must they set policy as well.


"The three-day, intensive, interactive program is designed to assist New Democrat elected officials in articulating core Democratic values of responsibility, opportunity, community and security and applying them to specific policy issues through real-world case studies. The retreat focused on the challenges to America's competitive advantage in the global information economy and generated constructive public policy solutions in three main areas: revitalizing education, promoting growth and rewarding work, and national security."

No, my grandkids would think it is funny you thought I was a teen.

[MrBenchley]

153. Funny, I am still wondering

how somebody can launch a thread like this and look in the mirror. The premise was dishonest from the git-go and you didn't do a lick of work to ascertain whether any of the slanders you made against other Democrats were true.

"Looks like they were setting their own policy"
Does it? Funny, I guess I missed the memo from DNC stating Democrats had to hew to only one policy...much less what it is.

"while the DNC was doing so as well"
So what policy came out of the DNC meeting, pray tell?

No "policy" here.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/more_from_the_2.php

[madfloridian]

156. No, my friend. Nothing dishonest about my post.

I still don't see the sentence you mention about the fact that the DLC was scheduled first. Yes, I know the DNC rescheduled.

Why don't they work together. Why is it always DNC on this side of the room, DLC on the other side...

Why are they with Hillary in charge doing their own party agenda called the American Dream Initiative? Isn't the DNC agenda going to suffice for them?

You need to stop calling me dishonest.

[MrBenchley]

158. Nothing honest about your post from stem to stern....

"Why don't they work together."
Funny, didn't the DLC's Christine Gregoire deliver the DNC address weekend before last? Yup, she did.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/11/washington_gov.php

Here's Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean working together....you might also notice the DLC's Debbie Stabenow taking part.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/08/wlf_12th_annual.php

So in fact, they ARE working together.

"Why are they with Hillary in charge doing their own party agenda called the American Dream Initiative?"
Geeze, why not find out?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253588&kaid=137&subid=900111

"You need to stop calling me dishonest."
You need to stop making dishonest posts like this then.

[OzarkDem]

120. When they start acting like Dems

and when they stop promoting failed Republican policies.

[mmonk]

39. They are a defacto third party

within an existing one and splitting the votes and candidates in Congress.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Shouldn't they have held their conference in Vichy? Or, Munich?

Either would be more indicative of their ideals of surrendering to the Republicans at every opportunity.

[crispini]

50. Good heavens, what a silly post.

The mere fact that two meetings were scheduled at the same time (GASP!) leads us to conclude that there are TWO parties! Quel horreur!

1) As many people have noted above, apparently the DNC meeting was rescheduled.
2) The DNC is largely a committee of Democratic party activists from across the country. From blogger's accounts ... http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/12/more_from_the_2.php ... there's wildly different subject matter and a wildly different audience than there would be for a conference for our elected officials.

I mean, I go back and forth on the DLC's role in our party but this post is REALLY a shade on the overdramatic side.

[mmonk]

52. Your number 2

Their meetings are a gathering of activists of sorts as well that support their agenda to turn the democratic party further right.

[crispini]

54. Nope, that particular DLC meeting was specifically

described as for elected officials. Not the same as party activists (who do not hold any elected office.)

This high-level training and networking opportunity brought together 28 New Democrat leaders from across the country and all levels of government. Participants included Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, Iowa Gov. & DLC Chairman Tom Vilsack, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Penn.), Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell, Pennsylvania State Rep. Jennifer Mann, and New York's Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr.

Contrast that with the DNC meeting, attended by the Young Dems, the Association of State Democratic Chairs, and so on. Clearly a convocation of citizen activists, not elected officials, mostly.

I just think the DLC-phobia around here borders on the :tinfoilhat: sometimes.

[mmonk]

55. Don't they send out invitations

to their contributors to attend?

[MrBenchley]

58. Do they?

And if they do, so fucking what?

[crispini]

64. "They"

Which "they" again?

[MrBenchley]

65. Democrats, obviously (snicker)

Don't you know that only greens are real Democrats and all the rest of us are DINOs </sarcasm>....

I'm still waiting to hear what's wrong with Christine Gregoire....

[crispini]

71. Maybe it's just ....

political naivete? I mean, a lot of these posts suggest to me people who really haven't been involved much in their county party or in any kind of "real world" politics ..... :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

74. Some of these people seem to live in a shoebox

on a diet of moonbeams and road apples.

There was somebody on here the other day who professed never to have heard of ANY Republican attacks on Hillary Clinton. And last week there was a Green Party goof who said out loud that Democrats ought to make the Democratic party a third party "for the good of the country."

And we actually do have somebody in this thread below seriously asking why an organization would have a meeting....

[mmonk]

168. "new" democrats as opposed to us....what?

[mmonk]

57. Also, why the need

for their own conventions, meetings, and workshops?

[MrBenchley]

60. Wow....

You're really asking why an organization might want to have a meeting?

[crispini]

66. Wow, are you active in local politics at all?

Let's see, in my county party, we have:
Young Democrat Meetings
Stonewall Democrat Meetings
East Dallas Democrat Meetings
North Dallas Democrat Meetings
Democracy for America Meetings
Texas Democratic Women meetings
Candidate training meetings
and on and on and on....

and all of this IN ADDITION to our regular formal county party meetings.

[mmonk]

70. How many are there to disparage

other democrats for being "too" liberal (whatever that means in to today's America) and to create a platform that co-opts false talking points of the GOP?

[crispini]

75. Can you provide some links to substantiate that?

For example, some news or specific examples that demonstrate this behavior on the part of the DLC?

Or is this just part of the general DU hysteria about the DLC?

And, yes, there is factionalism even in our county party. For example, there was quite a bit of controversy over whether or not the county party should stand up against the anti-gay-marriage amendement. And there were people who said that it was "too liberal."

[mmonk]

86. I used to be a member when Bill Clinton took office.

They still send "Blueprint" though I've long since left. They call principles the democratic party has long stood for as "old" or "outdated" such as union support or much of FDR's legacy. They consistently bashed Dean and internet grassroots and still distance themselves from any discussion on the idea that the war in Iraq was forged through lies. They are pushing more of the religious movement that unfortunately is largely contrived by our enemies.

[MrBenchley]

94. Then it shouldn't be any problem to give us links....

[LincolnMcGrath]

100. You can not be serious.

One

One More

Snip "The left's unease with patriotism is rooted in a 1960s narrative of American arrogance and abuse of power."

[Adelante]

104. Why not?

They're a PAC like any other PAC. They have an agenda to push like any other PAC. They have meetings like any other PAC.

Does DFA have meetings and workshops? Yes

Does WesPAC have meetings and workshops? Yes

Does any PAC have meetings and workshops? Yes

Does any PAC want to move people to their way of thinking? Yes

I'm not a DLC person by any stretch, but this is nuts :shrug:

[mmonk]

114. As a counter to the democratic party

on many fronts, that's why. Why is it needed? Why can't they stand as individual democrats that just disagree with many in their party on a few issues instead of trying to take it over, dismiss fellow dems as "out of the mainstream" when they speak, or convince democratic voters the party is going in the wrong direction?

[mmonk]

59. Is there a similar movement

in the republican party to create candidates and move their party left?

[crispini]

68. I had an interesting discussion with an old hand

about the party process (which, in Texas, is partly governed by state law). He attempted to reform the party laws and processes when he was in the lege, back in the day. Funny thing is that the Republicans wouldn't let them do it, because they knew perfectly well if they opened their process up to more participation, the far-right hardcore activists would lose their grip on the party.

Politics is a dirty business, no matter which way you slice it.

[MrBenchley]

79. The New Jersey GOP is certainly locked in a power struggle

between liberals and moderates on the one hand and the hard core crazies on the other. Christie Whitman was able to unite them, but since she flew away.....

A sizable chunk of Forrester's constituency stayed away from the polls last month....some revloted by the man's sleazy tactics. (Forrrester himself, hilariously, publicly blamed pResident Chimp for spiking the tires on his bandwagon.)

[crispini]

88. Been there, done that.

We had the bloodiest power struggle in our local county party early last year. Although it wasn't liberals vs. moderates, it was people who wanted to get rid of the current (incompetent) county party chair NOW vs. the ones who wanted to get rid of her later. :D

[MrBenchley]

89. Can't imagine the results of this last election helped the GOP at all

in that regard....

Even Rick Santorum is trying to tiptoe to the center, away from Chimpy.

[MrBenchley]

56. Let's also mention

that the DLC makes no attempt to hide what is discussed at their conferences...which anyone who visited their website could have learned.

[mmonk]

62. Good for them.

Now answer my questions.

[Cha]

101. She's asking a question and

I'm glad she did.

[crispini]

105. yes, and she got an answer.

Many in the thread, in fact.

[lonestarnot]

61. Another big hmmmmmmmmm this morning.

[MrBenchley]

67. As in "hmmmmmmm

I wonder who would start a thread about conference scheduling without looking to see what the facts are?"

Or as in "hmmmmmm, I wonder who would allege that conference proceedigns are being kept from the public without even checking to see if they are?"

Or "hmmmmm, I wonder who benefits from trying to drive a wedge between Democrats at a time when the GOP is melting down?"

[lonestarnot]

73. You got it MrBenchley. All three times, right on the head.

[MrBenchley]

78. Thanks....

[Skwmom]

76. Just call it the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

81. Wha-What? The DLC colluded with the Aspen Institute?

Surely not the same Aspen Institute which has roving roots?

[MrBenchley]

84. Them and the Dalai Lama...

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.487601/k.CB35/Home.htm

[sybylla]

87. Not two parties

The DNC is the party, governed by Dems at the local level who elect delegates to convention who make our decisions, set our platform, pronounce our resolutions and elect our party leader - currently Howard Dean.

The DLC, on the other hand, is a coalition of centrist Democratic representatives - all elected officials - who are working to promote centrist ideals. They are not a separate party nor do they have even the remotest beginnings of party machinery. They are, as one poster has already described them, essentially a think tank for centrist Dems. I like to think of them more as a cult or a fringe faction who co-opt both liberal and conservative principles to help them straddle the fence, which wouldn't be so bad if their net effect wasn't to muddy the waters so that real Dems and Dem values are no longer clearly recognizable in the minds of the Joe and Jane Sixpack. (Kind of like the religious debates that take place here where the real Xtians rail against the fundie nut jobs corrupting Xtianity as a religion and a concept)

What people forget is that the Democratic philosophy as articulated in platform and resolutions and that can only come from the DNC. And while in the past, many Democrats accepted some of the DLC centrist ideals, the Democratic Party/DNC is entirely separate and are currently the only organization capable of defining and promoting Democratic principles as "principles of the Democratic Party."

[nashville_brook]

103. such a damn good question

aren't we all getting tired of DLCr's pointing the finger to the "left" as if we're the problem? maybe THEY should get with the program.

[MrBenchley]

111. Oh it was wonderful....

"aren't we all getting tired of DLCr's pointing the finger to the "left" as if we're the problem"
Ummm....you ARE. Or didn't you notice that the "damn good question" was meaningless because the DNC moved ITS conference to coincide with the DLC's gathering, not the other wya around, and then only due to Hurricane Katrina?

Or that the "damn good question" was meaningless because one conference was pitched ot elected officals and the other was pitched to grassroots activists?

[kentuck]

107. Why is the DNC dividing our Party ?

Why don't they join the DLC? <sarcasm off>

[yurbud]

123. and why is the DNC dividing American politics when we could have ONE

party united in leading us into a corporate future?

[OzarkDem]

116. DLC is irrelevant these days

The only reason they're still operating is because of all the corporate money being pumped into their coffers.

No one pays attention to them anymore.

[MrBenchley]

129. LOL!

"No one pays attention to them anymore."
He says in one of the many clueless threads obsessively pissing and moaning about the DLC on a daily basis....

[mmonk]

122. Is the DLC basically is a political entity of

conservative dems that support "privatization" AND Roe v. Wade? They may individually be liberal on a few civil rights issues as long as it doesn't interfere with their concepts concerning the private sector. Prove me wrong

[yurbud]

131. the cultural issues are frosting. It's all about business

[yurbud]

126. I would applaud DLC if they used their corporate toadying powers for good

For example, garner the support of small businesses and other corporations against the two biggest corporate cancers right now: the oil companies and health insurance.

No one is in a better position to make that case than the business friendly (to the point of heavy petting) DLC.

They could divide and conquer corporate America, do something good for most Americans AND most businesses, and break the stranglehold of the GOP on corporate money.

But that would require some underlying core value that they are working toward, and it is honest to god hard to see that, except the value of being "the other corporate party" and any corporation, no matter how amoral and destructive to Americans or people in other countries, seems to be welcome.

And it would require some risk-taking, boldness, and blunt talk all of which are noticeably absent from a crowd that does all their business in back rooms then mouths meaningless platitudes in public.

[mmonk]

128. The large multi-national corporations

are for a political environment that favors them over small business and/or entrepreneurship.

[yurbud]

130. yep--health care is a prohibitive hurdle for small businesses

it's hard to compete for qualified employees and hold on to them.

All other things being equal, I imagine a lot of people would prefer to work for a small business or start up as opposed to being a faceless drone in a cubicle, but they feel like they have to go into the hive to get the insurance.

I would rather die.

[capitalistdemocrat]

132. DLC =

Democrats who actually want to win.

[Lars39]

133. With advice from right wing think tanks.

[yurbud]

166. Got a source for that?

[Lars39]

171. Heritage, AEI

[yurbud]

178. DLC cites them?

[Lars39]

185. Lost some of my older links...DU's Rebecca Knight's article

explains some of how it works.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=53

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11515

http://216.239.51.104/custom?q=cache:0drhzx2FTYkJ:www.buzzflash.com/southern/04/01/sou04002.html+PNAC+Heritage+Foundation&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[yurbud]

192. I'm missing the direct connection between right wing think tanks & DLC

in those links.

This sounds more like admiring the messaging and framing of the right, which is something we should be doing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

194. When the right says "Democrats are soft on terror "

If a Democrat says, "We are going to get stronger", the frame is over.
(See dissing M. Moore, Liberals)


When the right says "Democrats have no morals"

If a Democrat says, We have morals too!" the frame is over.

[Lars39]

201. Found the motherload...lots of research done in the old days:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

[mmonk]

136. The republican nomination?

[depakid]

137. setting the Republican agenda

for keeping the Dems irrelevant in national politics- while still allowing some of them to suck from the corporate teat.

Pretty impressive that they still have as many adherent as they do, considering that their "strategy" has led to 6 congressional election loses in a row.

[LoZoccolo]

138. If you're really just asking a question...

...why don't you ask someone who can answer it rather than a bunch of people on a message board who tend to overreact about things?

[Chimichurri]

139. New York's Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion Jr

was approached by republicans to switch parties and they would ensure victory for him by fully funding his campaign. He has blissfully accepted this traitorous offer. I hope he understands the absolute truth that the repukes funds will come with many many strings.

Sell out.

[MrBenchley]

141. Quick...who is surprised that this claim is not true?

Me neither. The "honesty" of the DLC bashers is on full display in this thread....

http://www.nyccfb.info/debates_vg/voter_guides/general_2005/cd_profile/BPX_Carrion_Jr_ED.aspx

[LincolnMcGrath]

143. Now, when you say DLC Bashers,

Which DLC Bashers are you Referring to?

The Irony of the Dishonesty is stunning.

[MrBenchley]

144. The Irony of the Dishonesty is stunning, all right

Sure as shit is. Now show me where I ever lied about their conference, their website, or about any of their members, as the people I'm referring to are doing in this thread. I'll wait here.

By the way, notice how old that post is. That was before I looked for myself at the DLC and what they had to say and just took the word of some people instead. Little did I know how dishonest and ignorant the DLC-bashers were.

[LincolnMcGrath]

147. I'm still waiting for some honesty.

From you.

I haven't said one word about the OP.

[MrBenchley]

148. And you got it....you just don't like it.

"I haven't said one word about the OP."
Why not? Don't tell me you leaped into a thread just to dredge up a couple old posts of mine so you could prove that I don't agree 100% with the DLC (which I'd gladly mention, had you asked). That would be beyond pathetically lame.

[LincolnMcGrath]

150. SO you are a DLC BASHER???

Thank You, I know it must have been hard to admit your hypocrisy when it comes to anyone who dare question the mighty DLC.

[MrBenchley]

151. No, since then I've learned what a pantload those guys are....

And I guess you're admitting you wasted all this time just to follow me around with an old quote of mine. Jeeze, that's Mighty Joe sad, even for a teen progressive.

[LincolnMcGrath]

152. So a 2 month old post is old......

And a 37yr old Democratic Central Committee Executive Member is a teen progressive?
Ain't that some Mighty Joe sadness.

Speaking of pantloads and stalking......

[MrBenchley]

154. Yeah, two months ago....

Since then I've learned some...

It's even sadder to learn you're what's supposed to be a grown-up.

[LincolnMcGrath]

157. Very grown-up reply MrBenchley

:thumbsup: Your two month conversion made need some more work.

[MrBenchley]

159. It's the reply you deserve....

Be sure and save some of my posts now so that you can be trudging around after me mewling for attention in February, 2007

[LincolnMcGrath]

165. See you then MrHonesty!

:hi: <--- That's me, the attention whore. :eyes:

[mmonk]

155. What's honest about the DLC?

Equating conservative politics as progressive? Calling fellow democrats names or telling people democrats are weak on security so stand with presnet bush or dems that don't agree with the republican view on Iraq encourage terrorism?

[MrBenchley]

160. Pretty much everything....

YOU, on the other hand....

[Chimichurri]

145. Wait and see.

He's looking to run for mayor in 2009 - has said so himself and will do this as a republican.

[MrBenchley]

146. In other words, your post was untrue....

Big surprise.

[yurbud]

167. Does the DLC acknowledge the business motive for the Iraq War?

[yurbud]

169. DLC shills, why image you put corporate interests before people?

If we are all wrong, where did this bad reputation of yours come from?

Isn't part of the goal of "leadership" to inspire confidence by communicating how their actions help their "followers"?

Everything major you do seems to have the opposite effect.

[FreedomAngel82]

181. Remember the note to Judy Miller?

The Aspens? :shrug: Is that the same place?

[FreedomAngel82]

183. Is there a list of who all was there?

[Generator]

188. Well we are on to their game

Aspen. Pleaaasssse. We are so on to these snakes. I don't have time to read every reply and I know it's been covered. But the DLC is really too obvious. The gig is up. Over. If Howard Dean is swiftboated I will know where to look. It took me five minutes watching Frum or is it Shrum?-Bob? on C-Span after election 2004 to know that they ARE the problem. Five minutes. It happens in every group. The group within the group that will do anything to be "the" group and undermines the real group.

[MrBenchley]

191. Yup. you sure are...(snicker)

"I don't have time to read every reply and I know it's been covered."
Nuff said.