The Democratic Leadership Council is Correct

[Demo Gog]

The opinion of the DLC in this race should NOT be ignored. And I'll tell you why.

I think many of us are letting our emotions dictate how we will vote when the Democratic primary gets to our state. And the emotions are warranted. George W. Bush is the most right-wing president in the history of our great nation, next to that other right-wing ideologue, Ronald Reagan. Anger is healthy. It creates necessary action, usually in the opposite, positively-perceived direction. But too much anger clouds the mind's ability to judge with fairness the merits of others. In our case, the other Democratic candidates.

In 1992, after a 12-year nightmare, we had a Democrat back in the Oval Office. And what a Democrat! Despite all the adversity, all of the utter shit, that the Republicans threw at him and his family for eight long years, he remains one of the most beloved Presidents among the average Democrat and the average Independent within the last 30 years. And ladies and gentleman, he was brought to us by the Democratic Leadership Council.

For those unfamiliar with the DLC, it was formed in the mid-80's in response to a string of terrible defeats for our Democratic Party in the last few national elections. It was NOT a response to the conservatism of the Republicans, but rather a very well researched PREDICTION of what the American politcal climate would be like when the Goldwater/Reagan conservatism would finally begin to decline.

And they were right. Bill Clinton and Al Gore proved it in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

The days of FDR's New Deal liberalism are forever gone. So are the days of the radical New Leftist Movements. But the days of Ronald Reagan Conservatism are also ending. So where does that leave us?
The center of the political spectrum.

In the next few decades, presidential elections will not be "Liberal Candidate" vs. "Conservative Candidate." It will be "Moderate Candidate" vs. "Extremist Candidate." And the DLC, to the dismay of many on the left, has been pushing our party into a position in which we should benefit for years to come, though in may not be seen as such currently.

The Democratic Party has to adapt and evolve. To survive, all things must adapt, and it is time we adapt to a changing, interconnected world.

First and foremost, I am a Democrat. But secondly I am both a liberal AND a card-carrying member of the DLC's New Democrats. I may be liberal; but only 20% of the rest of the country identifies themselves as such. So we have to change to accommodate us AND the majority of the country. It's time to adapt. Remember this when the Democratic primary rolls into your state.

[el_gato]

1. I disagree with you basic premise

people are becoming radicalized in this country and moving to the center just makes you irrelevant. The pressures are building because civilization itself is facing a crisis, a crisis of dwindling resources.

[w13rd0]

2. Well...

...if you are correct, that it will be "moderate" vs. "extremist", then we're on pretty good ground with any of our nominees against the right-wing extremist Bush. Some of the members of the DLC are ok. The opinion of Al From is complete shit, and I don't for a minute believe that he serves the interests of the Democratic party or the American people.

[Demo Gog]

4. I'm curious...

What makes you "more" of a Democrat than Al From?

[ulysses]

6. isn't that a straw man?

Anybody can register as a Democrat.

[Demo Gog]

9. But...

if From's opinion is "complete shit," and he is a registered Democrat, as you point out, then the accuser must consider himself "more" of a Democrat and must consider his opinion "more" valid. So I just asked, essentially, why is the accuser's opinion "more" valid than From's if they are BOTH Democrats?

[ulysses]

16. nice try, but it's not the same question.

"more valid" and "more of a Democrat", I mean.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

104. The DLC had their chance, and they blew it

That's why we have groups like DU - to organize and inform. The DLC should just get out of the way and let us get Congress and the White House back.

[Demo Gog]

106. "Organize and Inform"

Hmm...crazy conspiracies; constantly attacking liberals, whom you don't even know, for not being liberal; bashing every candidate who's not YOUR candidate...

No thanks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

108. the candidates have public records...

I don't need to know them to make a judgement about their records. By the way, what crazy conspiracy theories are you pushing here anyway? Are you going to lecture us about aliens next, or the little green men from mars? :tinfoilhat:

[w13rd0]

23. Though I am now registered as a Democrat...

...that didn't happen until 2002, before that I was registered as an Independent. And I can STILL see From for what he is...

Again, I didn't say he wasn't a Democrat. Zell Miller is a Democrat, and that bastard is endorsing Bush.

[overground1]

13. yes, even Wesley Clark

[w13rd0]

21. I didn't say he wasn't a Democrat...

...don't try to distort what I said.

[ulysses]

3. the DLC was and is the wrong answer to a valid question.

In the process of bringing us their one success (which they've wouldn't have done without Clinton's political skills and a little help from the guy with the ears) they've damn near made the party irrelevant.

[gWbush is Mabus]

5. your premise is flawed

Note: this is a response to the original author, not the reply :)


the DLC hates dean and dean is a moderate/ centrist.

they don't want him b/c they don't want to lose their power.
they owe a lot of favors to special interest groups.

[ulysses]

7. was that meant for me?

You're not saying anything with which I disagree. :shrug:

edit: just saw your edit. :D

[cprise]

35. Exactly... Dean would bust-up DLC ideology

...in the process of fighting back against neo-conservatives.

A centrist is just what they do not want. Compared with other advanced countries, the national Democratic party is firmly Center-Right.

[damnraddem]

8. They were right if ...

the only important thing is getting Dems elected -- even if that means making them into Republicans. Of course, the problem is that as the Dems moved right and took on old GOP stands, the GOP moved further right yet. By that logic, the Democratic Party could ultimately become aligned with Jerry Falwell, while the GOP moved further into the nutty right still. Maybe they could align with Fred Phelps (of both 'God hates fags' and 'God hates America' fame).

If the DLC is to be the future of the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is to be irrelevant to me.

[Demo Gog]

15. I think getting Democrats elected is the most important thing,

because, and I cannot stress this enought, I am a DEMOCRAT! The will of the people will dictate what the ideology should be. The GOP will adapt to however they see fit, but for the next few decades we would have the upper hand because WE would have the will of the people.

If the DLC is the future, I'm sure we will lose some liberals, but we will gain the majority of Americans, and in doing so, liberal ideals will become more possible.

[ulysses]

18. "The will of the people will dictate what the ideology should be."

No. When the GOP allows the will of the people to dictate its ideology, then maybe. Otherwise, no.

[Demo Gog]

24. Then we never win an election.

Would that make you happy? Hell, we used to be the party OF the people. So why don't we try representing them for once instead of socialists, Nader voters, aging hippies and the like.

[dolstein]

26. I think that's the point -- these people WANT to lose elections

You wouldn't believe how much pride some people feel are a result of being politically marginalized.

[bowens43]

65. Do you really believe that winning elections

is the most important thing? I hate to disappoint you but their are still many of us who feel that winning by becoming the enemy isn't winning at all.

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

[Demo Gog]

76. So here's an idea..

Join the fucking Liberal Party! Try looking for "Liberal Party Underground!"

[ulysses]

115. you fail to understand my point.

Not that I'm surprised.

The DLC's strategy is based on the notion that the rightward shift in the electorate is the result of some irresistable natural force about which we can do nothing, when in fact the GOP has been working for decades to effect just that shift. Acceding to that shift instead of fighting it only gives them that much more slack while, at best, garnering isolated electoral victories.

But by all means, do as you will - after two and a half years here, arguments in favor the DLC appeal less to my argumentative instinct and more to a vague sense of nausea. It's your world, fuck the party as much as you'd like. Just please, someone, let me know now if there's to be *any* representation of the left allowed at the end of all this so that, if there's not, I can go ahead and change my affiliation now and not even have to put up with your endless shrieking about the "fringe".

[cprise]

38. The people are not getting good information

It is our duty to raise the public's awareness.

[Tinoire]

43. You'll lose more than "some" Liberals

and this is the basic mathematical mistake the DLC has been making for years. The more to the right it shifts as it chases after the elusive "majority", the more of its base it loses. The majority never materializes.

Fool me once with NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Welfare Reform, Wars, Corporate Welfare, etc...

Well, you won't fool me twice. Not even with someone as charismatic as Clinton.

For that type of crap, I'd rather vote Republican. At least with them I expect it and will have someone "else" to blame. Not my own party. Absolutely shameful!

[bowens43]

48. You're contradicting yourself.

You're saying we'll become more liberal by moving to the right. That's plain silly. If Democrats become Republicans in all but name then why should we support them?

[HFishbine]

10. As an independent voter

I won't be following this advice.

[Walt Starr]

11. The DLC was the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party

And I stand 100% behind that.

No DLC, not now, not ever.

[dolstein]

17. No -- losing 5 out of 6 presidential elections between 1968-88

was the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party.

Some DU'ers want to blame the DLC for the decline of the Democratic Party. But that decline was well underway long before the DLC even existed. The DLC was formed in response to the precipitous decline in Democratic Party strength in the South and rural West. Thanks to the DLC, the Democrats retook control of the Senate in 1986 and retook the White House in 1992. It's no coincidence that Bill Clinton -- a founder and former chairman of the DLC -- is the only Democrat to have been reelected as president since FDR.

I suppose these comments are wasted on the typical DU'ers, who would much rather have lost with McGovern than won with Clinton. Oh well . . .

[denverbill]

34. And WHY did the Democrats decline in the South?

It was because the racist SOB's quit the Democratic Party in disgust at Johnson's and Kennedy's support of civil rights laws and school integration.

I'm sorry, but if ending segregation and giving blacks the right to vote is still too damned liberal for southerners, then vote Republican.

[dolstein]

42. Nice try, but not everyone who votes Republican in the South is a racist

You also ignore the fact that many pro-civil rights Democrats got elected governor in the South during the 60's and 70's. Democrats like Terry Sanford, Reuben Askew and Jimmy Carter. Sure, the passage of civil rights legislation during the 1960s put an end to the Democratic Party's overwhemling domination of the South, but it didn't make the current Republican domination inevitable.

[snoochie]

116. Actually they pretty much are

The vast, vast majority. I live in Texas. They don't call themselves racists. They don't even think of themselves as racist.

But you get em started on discussing policies, and no matter how fiscally liberal they are, when it comes to social... they scream about how the Democratic party left them by catering only to minorities and gays. Oh yeah and they always bring up abortion too.

So, yeah... part of it is due to affirmative action and stuff like that. Which, while not really racist, is still farther in that direction than any of them want to admit to themselves.

[AntiCoup2K4]

37. And what about losing 1994, 2000, and 2002?

Yeah I know Gore won in 2000. But the DLC didn't do shit to help him, which helped result in a loss in the end. And the asskissing of the Bush Fraudministration is the reason we lost the midterms. We had no agenda, because our so called "leadership" adopted Junior's agenda. IWR, the rape of Medicare, and coming soon, the Homophobic Bigotry Ammendment. Yeah, they'll pass that shit. Just like they did the Indefensible Marriage Act.

And if that weren't enough, they're trying to silence the best candidate this party's had since Bobby Kennedy. If the DLC had been around back then, they probably would have pulled the trigger and saved the CIA the trouble.

Fuck the Determined to Lose Club.

[Iverson]

45. now, now

It's far more important to make snarky comments about Greens, hippies, organized labor, socialists, and so on. Who needs 'em!

I'm a little puzzled that "poor people" isn't on the list yet either, but c'est la vie.

[Astarho]

84. C'mon

the poor don't have any money for campaign contributiions.

But the Greens, hippies, organized labor, socialists, and so on do vote (and have $) and we tell them we don't need their votes and then get pissed off when they don't vote for us.

See how it works?

[Demo Gog]

88. Don't you care?

Don't you care about helping people in this country? You haven't even addressed my post? This is the future of Democratic politics. We must adapt.

[dolstein]

47. Go ahead and look at the races we lost -- then tell me more liberal

candidates would have fared better.

Did Max Cleland lose his Senate seat because he wasn't liberal enough? Ditto for Jean Carnahan, Jeanne Shaheen and Walter Mondale.

Did all the Democrats who lost House seats in the South and the rural West lose because they weren't liberal enough?

[Casablanca]

59. Ok, here's a look

Max Cleland and Walter Mondale went into election days with double digit leads in the polls that inexplicably ended up as double-digit losses in the vote. ES&S e-voting systems were heavily used in both elections. Unless you have overwhelming evidence of a clean election, any discussion of voter motivations is moot.

As I remember, Jean Carnahan was only intending to serve one term anyway. And her husband's election wasn't a landslide. Much of Missouri outside of St. Louis is packed with southern conservatives, so what did you expect? I didn't read about Shaheen's candidacy.

Beyond these considerations, the DLC toes the statist corporatist line in it's "play to the money" ethic. The social toll of statist corporatism is far more apparent to many more voters today than it was when the DLC was founded, and even more than four years ago.

The DLC is becoming irrelevant because the nature of the game is changing, and the DLC isn't. Because the DLC is too invested in the old rules.

[dolstein]

63. So you concede, then, that the DLC isn't to blame for 2002

Or, at the very least, that you have no evidence to support a claim to that effect.

[Casablanca]

78. No to either

I'm stating the examples you brought up do not prove your point.

AntiCoup2k's midterm examples still stand. The DLC consistently loses midterm elections because it zigs leftward for presidential elections and zags rightward right after.

They are celebrated practitioners of triangulation politics, and the Democratic party can do far better than advisors that operate from Henry Kissenger's playbook.

Which explains Kerry's and Edward's active support for the Iraq war and rhetorical denial of that support - the same thing that Kissenger has been doing all of his career.

[AntiCoup2K4]

91. Max lost his seat for 2 reasons

1) The blatant smear campaign that questioned his patriotism. I guess you could call that being "too liberal" since those ads were a direct result of Max not supporting the Bush agenda 100%.

2) Diebold electoral fraud. Nothing about Max's political beliefs would have made a damn bit of difference there.

[Walt Starr]

50. Losing the Congress from 1994 through the present was worse

We get more accomplished when we have the Congress than we'll ever accomplish with just the White House.

The Third Way is the WRONG WAY!

Fuck the DLC. They are traitors to the party, IMO.

[dolstein]

61. Newsflash: We lost the Senate in 1980

That was a few years before the DLC was founded.

We'd have lost the House by then too if it weren't for Watergate, which swept in a huge class of Democratic representatives in 1974.

[Walt Starr]

75. Newsflash, the third way bows to corporate influence

at the detriment of local issues. The DLC has lost 3 of 4 elections since 1994.

The third way is the wrong way and if the DLC foists it upon us, many of us are still open to the fourth way.

[dolstein]

86. Newsflash: left-wing anticorporate rants do not an argument make

NT

[Demo Gog]

89. It's good to see you back.

I know the truth hurts, but I don't even know if some of these people are at least considering what we're talking about.

[eyeswideopened]

77. you are right

[dolstein]

12. Welcome from a fellow New Democrat

We are indeed a rare breed around here. For most DU'ers, George McGovern's landslide loss to Richard Nixon represented a high point in the history of the Democratic Party, not a low point.

[Demo Gog]

19. Thank you for the kind welcome.

Progressive pragmatism is the only way the ideals that we liberals cherish will come to fruition. The New Deal is done. The New Leftist movement is done.

But so is Reagan conservatism.

[cprise]

66. And 3rd-way is downright crispy

All those old movements you speak of have just been joined by 3rd-way neo-liberalism.

Why didn't they hold? Because socialism has not been overtly embraced as a compliment to capitalism in American politics. The problem goes back to the New Deal and the Democratic Party is largely to blame.

It is the reason why we are being outstripped by the rest of the 1st world countries. The major success of the '90s was not Clinton or even the Internet, but the EU... and NAFTA was an outrageous and cynical attempt to profit from that success, a monumental bait-and-switch.

[bowens43]

58. It was a high point

for anyone who values principle over party.

[bowens43]

14. I disagree completely.

It's the DLC's push to the right that has marginalized our party. It's their rhetoric and actions that have contributed to the world 'liberal' becoming an insult. If this is the direction the party is going many of us who have been Democrats for decades will be leaving. I'm sorry , but the survival of the party just isn't that important if we have to give that in which we believe to ensure that survival. The DLC is bad for the party, bad for liberals and bad for our country. Clinton was too far to the right. He was a good man but he did a lot of damage to our party and to programs brought about by our party. I'm sorry to see that so many are willing to give up our ideology for a win.

[Demo Gog]

20. The Republicans made the word "liberal" an insult

The DLC fought back. I don't see such "heroes," not part of the DLC, like Howard Dean proudly proclaiming himself a liberal. Quite the opposite in fact.

[bowens43]

52. No, the DLC DIDN'T fight back.

The DLC said we need to be more centrist. The DLC has corrupted the word liberal. They bastardized our ideology. They have painted the liberals as lunatics on the fringe and have painted the right leaning democrats as liberals. Their goal is to move our party to the right.
They are a propaganda machine, Rovian in their attacks on anyone who won't kneel before them. They have hijacked the word liberal and twisted it into something ugly, something it was never meant to be.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. Why does the head of the DLC Al From hate unions so much?

Al From says the "New Democrat" future won't have unions. Shouldn't that be "Old Republican"?

Thankfully, many people here don't buy the Neo-Liberal Bullshit anymore!

[dolstein]

25. I dunno -- why did union members vote for Nixon and Reagan?

NT

[Demo Gog]

29. "Thankfully, many people here don't buy the Neo-Liberal Bullshit anymore!"

This might be why we keep losing elections.

Look, if the best most of you can do is say "It's anti-Dean! It's anti-labor union! It's bad for the party!" then you don't have very strong arguments and it might be time to reassess your political philosophies. You have to back up your claims.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

32. The DLC Neo-Liberals lost Congress

Good job - you got a Democrat elected, lost Congress, got him re-elected by Clinton turning hard right, and then let the GOP steal the election.

The DLC and their Neo-Liberal Bullshit has already destroyed the party once - we're going to let them do it again? No thanks.

[bowens43]

54. If you try to claim the DLC is in any way liberal

you are being disingenuous or they have you fooled. You are the one, in your original post, making outlandish claims. You back it up.

[Democrats unite]

27. Holy Mary Mother of GOD!

I am not the only DLC here?

[Demo Gog]

36. No, you're not the only one, my friend!

It may just be my observation, but it seems like the New Democrats here are more interested in uniting EVERYONE in the party for the greater good, and in doing so winning elections. And with winning elections comes, positive, progressive CHANGE! And positve, progresive change benefits ALL Americans. And progressive benefits for all Americans helps to benefit ALL citizens of the world.

[HFishbine]

46. Okay then

What do the "New (yawn) Democrats" offer voters who marched against the war, despise the Patriot Act and bemoan the corporate control over DC?

[AntiCoup2K4]

40. Like you're really surprised?

How many more of you will come out of the closet now? That's 3 so far....

[bowens43]

55. That shouldn't surprise you.

Clarks so called campaign has been ripped right from their handbook.

[DjTj]

28. We need to take one step before we run a marathon.

The DLC helped us take the first step left...Bill Clinton in '92 and '96.

...Our next step was Al Gore, but that didn't exactly work out and we don't need to go into all that.

The United States has always been wary of major shifts in government, and we designed our government to change relatively slowly compared to the monarchy we once escaped from.

Barring an actual military revolution or an economic disaster, the battle in American politics will always be around the middle.

Our first goal should be to take one step left.

[cprise]

30. Repub Lite is visionless

... but people want something to believe in. That's why our DLC 'leadership' lost in 2002.

The DLC now produces anti-leaders.

So it is the followers (with their eyes on big money) vs. leaders who say big money is our friend.

So few will vote, and those who do pick someone who can give them a sense of vision.

In case you haven't noticed, the world is dumping our idea of 'interconnected' (read: corporate and anti-democratic). Your post strikes me as one big cop-out and excuse for why you want the return of Clinton, but he ain't coming back... much less so than anything else you you deny on the Left.

The world is rejecting neo-liberalism with the same vigor with which it derides neo-conservatism. America will meet with dire consequences if it tries another Clinton, and I do not wish to risk the achievements of social liberalism by associating with this economic trash.

This 'change' you talk about sounds like more poverty and more concentrated wealth to me. Real income will continue to fall, and we would return to a president horsewhipped with scandals by the Congress and today's media (a media environment that Clinton created).

'Do Nothing' and 'Half-Measures' mixed with an extremist international economic policy, where corporations assume control, is not governance.

[IndianaGreen]

31. The DLC reminds me of a Biblical verse from the Book of Revelation...

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Revelation 3:16

[AntiCoup2K4]

41. Bingo!

Or, "Verily!" as the Bible would put it :)

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[denverbill]

33. No, the DLC contributed to the formation of the Green and Reform parties.

That's their contribution to history.

The Reform Party came about because Ross Perot was so disgusted by the DLC's stance on NAFTA (giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico) that he started a third party and ran himself. Moderate Republicans were bailing on Bush by the score because of the economy, and they went reform.

The DLC gave us Bill who though brilliant, could barely keep his pants on long enough to do any work. Bill, in turn, gave us NAFTA, capital gains tax cuts, welfare reform, and Monica. His support of NAFTA drove many blue collar workers into the Republican Party. Thanks to the DLC, we now have control of neither House nor Senate nor the Presidency, and we've lost dozens of governors races and statehouses as well.

There used to be two parties: the party that catered to the wealthy elites and businessmen, and the party of the working man. Now, we have two parties that cater to the wealthy and businessmen, thanks to the DLC.

[cprise]

49. They never do defend Bill

...their saintly martyr bearing the Republican(TM) arrows in his back.

There is always just that big, amnesiac hole waiting there when you remind them of his achievements.

Here is a Clinton vignette from this week:
The former U.S. president delivered an impassioned plea to business leaders "to make a bigger difference in the things that we care about."  That involved creating integrated systems and infrastructures around the world. "You change the reality of human history by systematic action," he said. "Our job is to move the world from interdependence to integration."

The integration of the world under global corporations-turned-activists? Chilling.

[Iverson]

39. You mentioned that you're a liberal.

Please explain the basis for that assertion.

[Demo Gog]

53. You know what?

I don't have to prove a damn thing to you. I'm a proud liberal. But liberalism is represented by 20% of the American populace. Conservatism, 30%. Moderate Centrism, 50%.

I'd rather we win over about 40% of those moderates, keep half of the TRUE LIBERALS who want change, and KNOW the only way to do it is the Democratic Party, because the Republicans sure as hell don't, and we have 50%. A Majority. The Republicans have 30%. And egotistical, self-righteous, self-absorbed, "What's in it for me?", "liberals" would have their own little 10% which they could vote for whoever they wanted; while reaping the benefits of a Democratic administration.

[Iverson]

56. You know what?

You indeed do not have to prove anything to me.
However, you called yourself liberal, and there must be a reason.
It seems to me that a liberal should have no trouble identifying something so basic.

You seem to be having some trouble there supporting one of your most fundamental assertions.

Have a bipartisan day.

[Demo Gog]

62. So it's pretty much attack the messenger not the message, huh?

I guess I must really have made quite a point.

[Iverson]

68. eh? coherence please

Sorry if you feel attacked by my asking you the basis for your calling yourself a liberal. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I also didn't attack you, which would be a violation of this board's rules.

I could swear that almost 100% of liberals have a reason for self-identifying.

"I guess I must really have made quite a point."

Gosh, me too.

[Demo Gog]

79. Send me an e-mail sometime!

I'll list every single damn one of my liberal positions and they are extensive. But that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is proving the validity of the DLC, something that you could not, apparently, dispute.

But I leave you no ill feelings and apologize if I personally attacked you.

[cprise]

101. Political positions mean squat

...if your time, votes and money are looking under the rug of the 'lesser evil', always disbelieving in a real solution (and despite numerous examples).

The validity of the DLC is proven by the liberal charades we got from Clinton in the form of Universal Healthcare (I'll have my wife take care of it). Well, wasn't that a nice show.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[no name no slogan]

51. Yeah, what a Democrat! He governed like a REPUBLICAN.

NAFTA, "welfare reform", "don't ask, don't tell", loss of the US Senate AND US House (after 40+ yrs in control, in the case of the House), LESS Demo governors, continued aggression against the innocent people of Iraq, continued support of dictatorships (Suharto in Indonesia was "our kind of guy", according to Clinton), no meaningful environmental reform, lower fuel emission standards than in 1987,....

The only thing "Democrat" about Clinton was the "D" after his name. Clinton as president did more to advance the Republican agenda than anybody since Nixon-- while REAL Democrats were left to fight on their own.

The DLC is the CAUSE of the wane of the Democratic Party. Their pro-business anti-worker stance alienated our core supporters-- the working people of this country.

The DLC has cashed in its chips, and is on its way out, thankfully.

[Gin]

57. I guess Liberal is a dirty word.....Oh well...color me Liberal.

gin

[Demo Gog]

67. I'm pretty sure no one ever said that.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I MYSELF WAS A PROUD LIBERAL.

[Iverson]

71. ... and then someone asked a question.

:shrug:

[cprise]

74. Saying you're liberal doesn't mean you are

A neo-liberal is someone who promotes the (sometimes absolute) freedom of moneyed interests, esp. corporations. This often means reducing individuals to second-class status or worse.

This is what the DLC is about.

[Demo Gog]

81. I would say the same to you, my friend.

Just remember what "liberal" means: someone who can adapt to change.

[cprise]

95. A perfect "Who Stole My Cheese?" response!

And that's not the definition of liberal, much less in the American political sense. It means a generous attitude toward the unfortunate and a willingness to invest in people, as much as it means an 'open mind'.

Adapt to change? Is that the euphemism for self-interest and theft now?

[Walt Starr]

60. Thanks for convincing me

I'll just remove John Edwards' name from the list in my sig.

The DLC makes me want to puke.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

72. I didn't attack the messenger

I said you convinced me. Your message is diametrically opposed to everything I consider right and good, so I cannot in good conscience support any DLC candidate.

on edit: I would also note that in your claim that I was attacking the messenger, which clearly I was not, you attacked me.

[Demo Gog]

82. You are right and I apologize.

Just remember a "liberal" is someone who can adapt to change. Which is inevitable.

[Walt Starr]

83. I will not compromise my values

by becoming more Republican in order to win elections.

I will go the fourth way first.

[Demo Gog]

85. Ok

But what if by not compromising your values, you hurt people. If the nominee is Kerry and you do not vote for him, which is your right, and Bush wins, do you feel at all responsible? More people go jobless. The environment becomes more raped than ever before. The options for women, in regards to choice, become even more restrictive.

It is not your fault.

But by God, it is my belief, that sometimes are own values have to be sacrificed for the greater good.

I should tell you my eyes are filling with tears as I type this because I care so much for the people of this country and want to see Bush leave the Oval Office.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Casablanca]

69. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky

It is a poor service to your own values to adopt the central doctrines of those who are opposed to those values.

[mmonk]

73. I'm going on American principles

which doesn't include pre-emptive war or telling lies concerning matters of state. I'm also going on American principles concerning separation of church and state. I don't care how out of fashion these principles may seem. I also won't abandon disabled children or the elderly or the sick for any type of economic model. Case closed.

[edzontar]

80. NOT!!!! The DLC's DINO sell-out strategy is a MISERABLE FAILURE

nt

[Fleshdancer]

87. Here's my problem with the DLC

I like the concept of the DLC, the idea that there's an organization that thinks real hard about how Democrats can win...for the most part, that's a good thing (if only the DNC could catch on to that idea). My problem though lies in the concept that anyone who disagrees with the DLC must be some sort of extreme leftist who will pull the entire party down the toilet. Their approach is so insulting, I don't care to stick around to hear the message.

Early on, the DLC has been perpetuating the stereotype that Howard Dean is too liberal. Nevermind that he's a centrist. Nevermind that he balanced budgets when he didn't have to and that he worked to bring business into the state of Vermont. If a person is socially liberal and economically conservative, how does this not balance out to be somewhat moderate in the eyes of the DLC?

I question whether or not the DLC really has a handle on the concept of the rising neoconservatism that exists on the opposite side of the aisle and the polorarization that's occuring because of it.

I also question how the DLC thinks the Democrats can win anything while alienating the base. How many times do we have to see a substantial piece of our base go to the Greens before we realize we need them to win? If we look back at '92, would we have won if Perot never shook things up and if the Green Party was up and running? If Clinton were never born, could the DLC have produced a different candidate that would have won in '92?

The idea that a political party should evolve in order to get more votes scares me a little. If evolution takes place, shouldn't it be based on the evolution of ideas? Ethics? How far should a party move away from their core beliefs for the sake of winning more votes? How much of yourself should be compromised just to win? Would that be a race worth winning?

Moderation is great when you're the party with power because you don't need as much wiggle room for negotiation. But how does one negotiate their beliefs when they've already compromised everything before setting foot into the WH, Senate, or the House? When a moderate Democrat negotiates, where is the line crossed? When do they become Republican?

[mmonk]

90. On your last question

maybe Lieberman could give us an idea.

[cprise]

93. Extremely well said

Thank you GloriaSmith.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[cprise]

97. A poor pretense for having no rebuttal

.

[Demo Gog]

98. Hmmmm....

You certainly seem to have no rebuttal, whatsoever, to my initial post, my friend, except your disdain and contempt for me. And it's a pity because it hurts the argument of every one on your "side" of the issue.

[cprise]

103. Or...

...you're just upset because I called you on your attack of Walt Starr.

[Demo Gog]

105. Or...

you have no argument and don't know how to defend your position?

But I'm sure that's not it is it? Welcome to the Big Leagues, kiddo!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

99. Good point - Perot let Clinton win

and Clinton got re-elected because they ran Bob Dole, a total loser, against him, basically conceding before the race started.

The entire history of the DLC has been disaster.

[Demo Gog]

100. Oh really?

Perot let Clinton win? Because I could have sworn it was the people who voted for him! Silly me! The fact that he was the very definition of New Democrat probably hurt him, too!:crazy:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

110. Your "New Democrat" didn't even get 50%

Perot took a lot more voters away from Bush than the Democrats. Without Perot, Bush would have likely won.

Plus, Clinton ran as a populist - we didn't know he was an Old Republican - er, New Democrat, until the DLC lost Congress and Clinton veered to the right.

:eyes:

[Demo Gog]

111. Nothing is good enough for you Faux Liberals....

....sigh....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

113. eh? It's the DLC that wants to be Faux Liberal Republicans

The last thing we need is more from the Democratic Losers Club.

[Demo Gog]

114. My sweet holy fuck!

You're right! Look at all of the wonderful liberal presidents we've had since the 70's!!! And look at all they have accomplished!!! We should thank those self-centered, egotistical liberal voters that helped us elect President McGovern and President Jackson, etc. for all of those years!!! Why, what was the DLC thinking?!? Trying to appeal to more than 20% of the population! Sheesh, how absurd!!!

(sarcasm off)

[ACPS65]

107. YES

I have been saying this for weeks.

Long live DLC! Up with Edwards and Kerry! Go home Howard.

[Demo Gog]

112. Someone one with common sense

Good for you!

[Duder]

109. The Democratic Leadership Council is Incorrect

Sam Smith shows how well the evolution under Clinton was:

'An analysis I did in 1998 found that during Clinton's administration, the Democrats had lost:

- 48 seats in the House

- 8 seats in the Senate

- 11 governorships

- 1,254 state legislative seats

- Control of 9 legislatures

In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.

While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968).

In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.'