A question for DLC detractors - can you rise to the challenge?

[wyldwolf]

Inspired by this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2677450

1. Instead of bashing the DLC for being the DLC, have an intelligent factual discussion on policy. This doesn't mean picking your favorite issue and then criticising the DLC's stance or percieved stance on it. It means linking to a detailed policy plan on an important issue of today from an organization that you feel better represents you (DFA? PDA?) and explaining why THAT plan is more sound than that of the DLC.

2. Avoid red herring-type diversions. Before you ask what the DLC's plan is on something, show us a detailed alternate plan from another group. Extra points if that plan tells how it will be financed.

3. Finally explain to us the level at which certain activities is unacceptable. A big complaint of the DLC is they and their candidates take corporate money. Yet, ALL politicians (even Democrats) do. At what point is it too much? Just beyond the amount your favorite candidates recieve?

4. Avoid rehashing the same threads:

Today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2677450

Been there, done that. Instead of asking the questions in the thread above, why not show us the detailed plans of DFA and PDA?

Let's try to avoid all the "corporatist whore sellout blah blah blah" reactionary stuff, ok?

[redqueen]

1. "ALL politicians (even Democrats) do"

Wrong.

[wyldwolf]

2. I asked for a factual discussion and I get this doozy right of the bat!

Throw out some names who haven't.

[William Seger]

19. You asked for a "factual discussion" but you don't really want one?

I'm confused. You stated as a fact that "ALL politicians (even Democrats) do it (take corporate money)." Redqueen correctly pointed out that you are wrong. That make me wonder what sort of "factual discussion" you had in mind.

Anyway, the real issue is not simply taking corporate campaign contributions per se, but effectively selling a pro-corporate agenda -- same as the Repugs. If the DLC took corporate contributions but still stood up for labor and consumers -- the traditional Democratic base --- I wouldn't have a problem with it. We don't need TWO parties selling political power to the highest bidder.

[wyldwolf]

23. 0-8!

[William Seger]

33. That's the best response you could come up with?

You're making a fool of yourself. Buh-bye.

[wyldwolf]

43. I'm trying to figure out how that applies to the OP...

[redqueen]

25. Exactly. YOU asked for facts, but don't care enough to have yours straight

This reminds me of a republican tactic, and I'm not at all interested in playing this game.

Good luck persuading anyone.

:hi:

[wyldwolf]

30. 0-11 (unless you can name said Democrats)

[redqueen]

37. Of course I can, but why should I do your homework for you?

Once again, a very republican tactic. (Surprised am I? No.)

Fine. Since I don't expect anything from you that I wouldn't from them... Dennis Kucinich.

[wyldwolf]

40. It isn't my homework... but if you can't answer the question...

[redqueen]

42. So you don't consider it your obligation to be prepared with facts

before you start a thread like this?

Again... surprising? No.

And, ahem... I already did answer the question.

[wyldwolf]

46. ah, yes, a quick edit right before my reply... Kucnich...

Prudential Realty
Weyerhaeuser Co

[redqueen]

49. Source? n/t

[wyldwolf]

51. I'll also add Forest City Enterprises for $35,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?cycle=2006&cid=N00003572
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?cid=N00003572

[redqueen]

52. Did you miss this part?

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

53. no

So, because the corporations and the employees put money into a PAC, and them give it to Kucinich, it isn't corporate anymore?

:eyes:

[redqueen]

54. Once more, but slowly.

"its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families"

Try calling his office... or shall I do that for you, as well?

[wyldwolf]

56. o...k.... slowly...

If my company sets up a PAC where it, me, and my family contribute to it, then that money is handed out, it still comes from my company.

[redqueen]

57. True... however...

just because those names are on the list, this dons not automatically mean that there is a PAC involved.

When I give donations, I have to list the name of the company I work for - but a dontation that came from me didn't come from the corporate PAC of the company I work for... I made those donations as an individual.

I'm checking to find out if his policy of not accepting corporate PAC money has changed. I don't make a habit of making assumptions. I'll get back to you on this.

[DainBramaged]

3. Hmmmm, well, think of the potential if the DLC really

cared about elections instead of furthering the political futures of it's members?

http://scott_shields.mydd.com/story/2006/5/27/55951/1586

This article speaks volumes for most of us. Oh, and if you happen to BE a DLC member, go away, we don't like you.

http://www.dlc.org/

DLC Leadership Team

Tom Vilsack Tom Carper Jennifer Mann Michael Coleman Hillary Rodham Clinton

What have they done for us lately? The DLC credo is from 2001. This is 2006 and we are dragging our balls in the dirt hoping to change things in November, and you folks haven't updated your credo in 5 years?\


Give us a break

[wyldwolf]

5. you guys are 0-2 in this thread already

[DainBramaged]

6. So what, tell us what the DLC DOES for the DU and maybe we'll listen

We are so far apart from your version of politics it isn't worth the toilet paper to scribble your position on.

[wyldwolf]

8. that's for that other thread... but as for this one... 0-4!

[Bjorn Against]

138. Can I ask why you did not respond to that other thread?

You cited a thread that at this moment has not had a single response from a DLC supporter yet.

If you want anyone to rise to your challenge I would think you could take the time to rise to theirs first.

[LoZoccolo]

10. It looks like you already have the link to that, right? n/t

[Clark2008]

27. Actually, no they're not.

They're answering your questions, but you refuse to accept them.

[wyldwolf]

29. good God! 0-10!

Looking at each of my questions, show me an answer to one of them.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Clark2008]

139. 0-10?

I didn't even attempt to answer your idiotic questions... you need to retract that, fast.

[spag68]

16. DLC

I think that we as dems. should give at least tacit support to any group attempting to unseat rethugs.

[spag68]

21. DLC article

By the way this article has made me sure that I will give my meager contributions to Mr. Dean, while I hope everyone else contributes their part.

[wtmusic]

4. The enemy of my friend is my enemy

They went after Dean early on, and are centrist war enablers. End of story.

[wyldwolf]

7. 0-3!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

12. can I count you twice? 0-5?

[redqueen]

28. "pretend you have an audience"

Oh, there's an audience all right, they're just not going to be getting the impression wyldwolf seemingly intended for them to get.

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

17. Apparently you can't "rise to the challenge"

of refuting any of my claims with facts. Ironic.

[wyldwolf]

18. what is this now? 0-6? Wait! I've counted you already.

[Yollam]

287. Centrist?

Representing the center between what two points? Mainstream dems and the ultra far right. Hardly centrist.

[Robbien]

11. No. Not interested in helping you try to paint a good face on the DLC

Your prior efforts have failed to bully Progressives into supporting the DLC so now you are challenging Progressives to give you the ammo to help you in your bullying campaign.

No Thanks. If the DLC is such a great organization you wouldn't need all this bullshit.

[wyldwolf]

13. 0-6!

[LoZoccolo]

14. I think he's asking you to paint a bad face on the DLC, right?

That's what I get from reading the post.

[Robbien]

15. Why would we want to help paint a bad face over a bad face?

All this thread is doing is firming up the opposition to the DLC. This DLC "I win and you lose business" going on here makes them so lovable does it not?

[LoZoccolo]

50. So by asking you to give your own substantive argument, it helps us?

Interesting.

[madfloridian]

20. Bull Moose is a DLC blogger....making fun of us again.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/06/foil-heads-and-level-heads.html

I have loads of good stuff in my journal about the DLC, not attacks, their own words.

Bull Moose is the voice of the DLC online, and this is one very hateful diary today.

[wyldwolf]

22. 0-8! No, wait, 0-7 (I was just anticipating 0-8)

[madfloridian]

24. No one pleases you.

You have done this for 3 years now. You have made fun of many of us since the 04 primaries. There is nothing anyone can say to please you, nothing.

Bull Moose is insulting. Al From is insulting. Vilsack, while AT YearlyKos insulted the Kos community.

Insult, insult, insult...the culture of humiliation in action at the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

26. I'm sorry, do you have anything to contribute to the OP?

Apparently not. No thread hijacking today.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Sadly

Neither do you.

[wyldwolf]

36. fortunately, I do everytime an anti-DLC thread gets started but..

No one wants to talk actual policy and reality.

[LittleClarkie]

44. Sorry, but sometimes you appear to be baiting the opposition

there was one bizarre thread where you were talking about yipping anti-DLC dogs complete with the yip, yip, yip thrown in. That one got locked pretty quick if I recall.

You're not helping open a dialogue, that's for sure.

Sad really, because I used to think you were reasonable. Now you're just a mirror of those who annoy you.

[wyldwolf]

48. So... I should just chalk the daily anti-DLC threads up as childish...

..and uninformed ranting and just pretend not to see them?

[LittleClarkie]

84. How does being childish in return help?

No, I'm not suggesting that you not rebutt them. But your temper is getting the best of you. You're not doing the DLC any favors by reducing the debate to the level of a grade school sandbox.

I used to admire, even if I don't always agree with you, the way you managed to state your case in a level-headed, civil, mature manner.

It's disappointing to see cyber-mooning your opponents instead.

[wyldwolf]

88. I haven't lost my temper. This is actually very relaxing

But it does become an exercise in truth squading.

For the same reasons (though on a much smaller scale) Al Franken (A DLC Democrat I might add) wrote "Liars and The Lying Liars," it has become necessary to not just call them on the BS but to take the fight to them.

[LittleClarkie]

32. No you could at number 8

As I like your original premise in the OP, but you've disappointed me in the body of the thread with your attitude and glee in responding to each person with some kind of weird tally taking. Not conducive to the debate you said you wanted. In fact, you're well on your way to another flamefest. Again. Gee, just what we needed.

So, if you please, you can be the eighth zero.

I tend not to get in the middle between flamebaiting progressives and flamebaiting DLCers, so this is not an answer to your original question, but only an outside observation from someone who's getting sick of all y'all

[wyldwolf]

39. in the OP, I asked for specific legit information from DLC-detractors

Predictably, I've gotten what I asked not to get. Vitriol, non-answers, red herrings.

[LittleClarkie]

45. And you're having a gay old time highlighting each and every one

Sorry, looks like a brewing flamefest to me. And you're egging it on.

[brindis_desala]

31. I have resisted entering these spurious debates

because the inherent conflicts are patently obvious. If one accepts the SCOTUS' egregious ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that money somehow equals "speech" then certainly the DLC strategy of triangulation makes political sense. IT does not however make it democratic (capital D included). I suspect the Supremes understood the falsity of their premise since they essentially split the baby leaving us in this parlous state of flux where we tip ever closer to corporate fascism.
The DLC did not exist when the Democratic Party began to jettison its populist roots so I view their policies as pragmatic but ultimately flawed and for those who believe in democratic government dangerously misguided. Lets take the most fundamental issue which should be the number function of government: the health of its citizens. Progressives support what every other advance nations already guarantees: access to medical care. For the DLC the people are not citizens with inherent rights but merely consumers. As a FDR-Great Society Democrat I find the premise heretical. The third way more often than not appear to advocate liberty and justice for all.. who can afford it... (quote)
"With universal coverage and a consumer-empowered health care system, Americans can finally get the health care they deserve. By making affordable health care available to everyone through tax credits or buying cooperatives, we empower individuals to take responsibility for their own coverage. By turning health care into a market-driven service in an information-rich environment with government protections against abuse, professionals will feel more accountable to patients, and health insurers will be more responsive to consumers' unique needs and preferences. Universal coverage, coupled with consumer empowerment, is the strong medicine we need now to make our health care system healthy."

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/money_notspeech.html

Now look at what a real Democrat would propose:

"Medicare spends nearly 98 percent of its funds (our tax dollars) on actual medical care. In contrast, as economist Paul Krugman noted in his recent New York Times column, Aetna, one of America's largest health insurance companies, "spends less than 80 cents of each dollar in health insurance premiums on actually providing medical care."

The rest goes to profits, marketing and administrative costs-including screening out people likely to have big medical bills. In short, health insurance is one area where a government program has proven not only fairer but more cost-effective than the private sector.

National health insurance made sense when President Harry Truman proposed it in 1948. Today, it may be the only sensible way to fix America's health care crisis."
http://pdamerica.org/policy/health/docs/PlanForUniversalHealthCare.pdf

Oh and BTW... 65% of the public STILL agrees with Truman.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/shownews.php?nid=240&sid=2&subid=6

[wyldwolf]

35. ok, here's what I see

The PDA wants universal healthcare and they know some statistics from Medicare and Aetna. But where is the plan and why did you give a link to Reclaimdemocracy.org?

[brindis_desala]

41. The quote is from Al Fromm but of course you should KNOW that

Right???

[wyldwolf]

47. where? I read the link, did a search for DLC, Al From... where?

[brindis_desala]

119. I assumed you would recognize the quote. The link was for

some historical perspective which seems all but lost in the current manifestation of the Democratic Party. How much clearer does single payer universal health care have to be for you to get it?- or should we wait until ALL the good jobs are exported to countries with responsive govts? There's already a proposed bill signed by 90 odd Democrats it's HR 676.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=1009
DLC | Blueprint Magazine | April 1, 2000
44,000,000 & 98,000
By Al From

snip>8 Steps to Start the Consumer Revolution in Health Care


2. Demand Responsibility by Requiring Everyone to Acquire Health Insurance. Mandating health insurance the same way we mandate automobile insurance would be a huge step toward universal coverage while dramatically widening choice and dampening prices. All individuals would have the responsibility to acquire their own health insurance, whether through jobs or elsewhere.

[wyldwolf]

136. you forgot to include point 1:

1. Expand Opportunity to Purchase Health Care. Critical to achieving universal coverage is the creation of a market in which everyone has equal insurance opportunity. While most Americans get coverage through their jobs, millions are left out: the self-employed, workers in small enterprises, the unemployed, and the poor. With few options to buy coverage on their own, they need access to the same purchasing power as large employers, through affinity groups. For those who cannot afford insurance, Congress and state governments should provide tax credits and state grants. This would eliminate the gross inequity in our tax system that gives workers a large tax break only if they are provided insurance through employer plans.

Let's see. If I'm poor and/or unemployed, tax breaks and governmentgrants would give me the same purchasing power as a rich guy! I like it!

Then, as point 2 says, I would then be my responsibility to use that purchasing power. No body to hold my hand. MY responsibility. Like a free tank of gas that I have to pump myself.

[brindis_desala]

137. The point is an obfuscation because it merely shifts the burden

while not addressing the root problems- availability, equity and cost. Besides which, employers will not be able to carry the insurance burden much longer (look at the pension debacle for a peek into the future). Basic Health Care is not the equivalent of driving a car, nor is a commodity like a gallon of gas, it's a human right (which is why the sick are not easily turned away for being poor). As a solution I find his position shallow and shortsighted.

[wyldwolf]

141. what part of grants and tax breaks didn't you understand?

The plan would level the field, giving the poor and unemployed the same access as the rich. The only burden that is shifted is that they would be responsible for acquiring the healthcare.

[lastliberalintexas]

142. What part of more money into a broken system don't you understand?

And basic economics means that the system of grants and tax breaks supported by the DLC means that healthcare costs continue their sharp climb. That kind of a system does nothing to improve the quality of care (which is sorely lacking in America despite the propaganda to the contrary) or access in certain areas of the country.

It also does nothing to improve the lot of the people in the vast middle of this country- those who earn too much to typically qualify for government assistance but who do not have enough deductions to itemize on their federal taxes (which is actually most Americans, btw).

The system advocated by the DLC basically equates to yet another transfer of my tax dollars to CORPORATE interests in this country, namely insurance and pharma.


The DLC position on healthcare is hardly better than the helth savings accounts advocated by the repubs. Souns warm and fuzzy, but does verrry little to help Jane and Joe Shmoe.

[wyldwolf]

144. no it doesn't

Giving people more access to the healthcare will not drive up the costs.

The proposal isn't the typical government assistance.

[brindis_desala]

156. I find your tone only rivaled by your obtuseness.

From From's article: "Paying for tax credits and grants will be a big challenge, too. But the cost is uncertain." Oops! How on earth would the poor have the same access to health care unless the burden for PAYING for it is spread more widely? From proposes having that burden pawned off onto the states: "Additional grants to states to supplement the federal tax subsidies would let Congress nudge the states to provide more coverage and choice."
The best conceivable result would be a two tiered system leaving the poorer states sicker. I hardly find that Democratic big or little d. This is the kind of fingers-crossed, three card monte approach that bequeathed us skyrocketing costs and limited coverage, nor does it address the burden on business. Read up a little on the subject before you attempt to be condescending. I notice you have conveniently ignored the philosophical thrust of my rebuttal but that is to be expected. Sorry I wasted both our time.

[wyldwolf]

157. I find your tone only rivaled by your obtuseness

Still waiting for that PDA or DFA link that shows the wonder-plan!

Predictably (as in the OP), you can criticize but not offer an alternate plan.

[Jed Dilligan]

Have you ever applied for a government grant?

The thought that all the poor people in America can actually do this is astonishing. If they were adept at doing massive and complicated amounts of paperwork while attending hearings and pleading their cases to various officials, the poor probably wouldn't be poor--since those are the job "skills" most relevant in the service economy...

[LittleClarkie]

38. I don't enter these spurious debates much myself.

But I congratulate you on your civil, literate response. Sadly, I'm reckoning it might be one of the few from either side.

[ulysses]

55. I was going to pony up, thinking that Zhade's thread was a copy

of this one, but then I realized that it's the other way around, and instead of answering his questions you started this thread on your own terms. Not interested.

[LoZoccolo]

60. Why not? n/t

[ulysses]

61. why? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

69. Because you said you were about to anyways. n/t

[ulysses]

71. I changed my mind.

It's quite evident that y'all aren't interested in discussion unless you dictate the terms. Why should I be?

[LoZoccolo]

75. You were about to even after you read the terms though. So why not? n/t

[ulysses]

76. see #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

77. Right. "I was going to pony up," So why not? n/t

[ulysses]

78. see #71.

This isn't difficult, LoZo.

[LoZoccolo]

79. The terms were the same before you read Zhade's post. So why not? n/t

[ulysses]

81. again, why should I? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

82. For the same reason you posted #50. n/t

[ulysses]

87. you posted #50. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

91. Excuse me, #55. n/t

[ulysses]

93. #55 is about why I won't. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

112. Right, why not? n/t

[ulysses]

113. read #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

114. Why did you post #50? n/t

[ulysses]

115. why are you being silly? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

117. Why did you post a message about why you don't want to post a message? n/t

[ulysses]

121. to make a point.

Some of us have them.

[LoZoccolo]

123. Then why didn't you make your point against the DLC? n/t

[ulysses]

124. read #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

126. Why did you change your mind? n/t

[ulysses]

128. read #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

129. The terms were all there, they didn't change. Why did you? n/t

[ulysses]

131. I didn't. read #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

132. "I was going to pony up," Why didn't you? n/t

[ulysses]

133. read #55. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

134. See you in November.

[ulysses]

135. LOL - I'm plonked?

:D Enjoy.

[ulysses]

116. hey, as long as you're here,

what do you think about this idea that the DSCC might support Lieberman in an independent bid for his Senate seat if he loses the primary to Lamont?

[LoZoccolo]

118. Don't hijack the thread. n/t

[ulysses]

122. this from the guy whose posts

have devolved into absurdity.

[LittleClarkie]

143. You guys ever hear of Abbot and Costello?

Who's on first?

[ulysses]

145. LOL!!!

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

59. yes, as long as people keep replying

[DainBramaged]

64. Nah, I rediscovered my ignore button, cya DLC lackey

[wyldwolf]

66. doesn't matter. We'll go on without you.

Cya left fringe lackey!

[LoZoccolo]

70. I hate to adapt a saying hatched by Protest Warriors, but...

...when I see people say they are seceding from the party or staying home or not participating, I kind-of think of this sign displayed by Bellygirl, one of my favorite right-wingers (not favorite for political reasons of course, but others that should be pretty obvious though I'll probably get accused otherwise):



Substitute "fringe left" or something for "France" of course.

[wyldwolf]

72. well..

If I'm a DLC lackey (as he said), he's certainly a fringe lefty lackey.

[LoZoccolo]

73. Ha yeah I guess he didn't say he was dropping out.

I got crossed signals from being on here too much or something. When I tell someone we'll go on without them it's usually because they're threatening to leave the party or something so I got confused about his post.

[Radical Activist]

62. Yawn. How about Universal Single Payer Health Care.

DLC Democrats will always be too timid for this. The DLC wants a health care system that continues to enrich the insurance industry which forces the public to waste money on duplicative insurance industry bureaucracies and executive salaries. It is one clear case where the DLC's habit of being timid and tied to corporate interests leads them to a position that does not serve the public as well as the more liberal plan, universal single payer health care.

Here are some position papers if you want them:
http://pdamerica.org/policy/health/index.php

[wyldwolf]

63. Yawn. How about a specific PDA ratified plan and not statements...

...on "what they want."

[Radical Activist]

65. That's what the link is for.

Its right there.

[wyldwolf]

67. yes. It says very briefly "what we want."

No real detail or explantion of how to pay for it. That's what I asked for in the OP.

[Radical Activist]

68. Its becoming more difficult to take this thread seriously.

If you click on the pdf file "Plan for Universal Health Care" it does say how they want to pay for it. It doesn't appear that you really want a detailed discussion at all. I guess you don't have an argument as to why the DLC position, which benefits the insurance industry at public expense, is better than the PDA plan.

I'm guessing that this is really about the DLC's new weekly policy proposal they release that no one reads or cares about. You think its great and want to brag that other organizations don't issue as many masturbatory programs on press releases.

[OzarkDem]

74. Here's a start

Get rid of Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy and pull out of Iraq. That should more than cover the cost.

Also, remember to factor in the high cost of NOT providing access to affordable health care for everyone.

So what is the DLC's plan?

[bettyellen]

235. you just made this thread is a joke.

you ask for links and then don't read them?

[wyldwolf]

236. you just made this thread is a joke.

I did read the links, that's how I know it wasn't a specific PDA ratified plan.

[bettyellen]

237. oh ratification is what matters. not content at all. gotcha priorities

clear now.
as the OP turns to straw.....

[wyldwolf]

238. right

Linking to someone else, or a serious of links, then piecing them all together and saying this might be our policy, but we all haven't agreed yet - DOESN'T make for official and detailed policy...

... as the OP is resurrected from the straw.

[bettyellen]

241. PREMISE:: DLC policy best because it is "detailed and official" WOW!

have fun selling that snake oil.
reminds me of "Democrats stand for nothing" .....


edit: tense

[wyldwolf]

242. misrepresentation

Once detailed and official competing policy is brought to the table, only then can quality of the plans be discussed. :)

[bettyellen]

243. Translation: Only the DLC plan is worth discussing, so I'll make up

standards like "detailed" that can mean anything i want them to.
then i don't have to debate with people, and i can deem them unworthy!

well, it works when they do it on faux, right? more politics of destruction. more eating your own.
have fun with that.

[wyldwolf]

245. translation: If there are official detailed competing plans... quality ..

...can be determined.

[bettyellen]

247. *Post rejected as unworthy of response due to lack of detail*

you'll know what's "detailed" enough when you see it, i'm sure.
;)

[wyldwolf]

249. suit yourself.

[lojasmo]

80. Can, but won't. EOM

[Placebo]

85. That doesn't make any sense.

"I can prove you wrong, but...eh...I don't feel like it."

:shrug:

[lojasmo]

102. No. If the OP had wanted an actual discussion

S/he would have had it in the original thread. I am mimicing his/her behavior.

Or perhaps I should start yet another thread that better suits my own agenda/comfort level.

[wyldwolf]

105. On the contrary

I didn't want to enter yet one more thread where the goal is to dump on the DLC. Been there, done that. To have the conversation I wanted would mean trying to hijack that thread. In contrast, I've asked that instead of dumping on the DLC, anti-DLCers present alternate sound, sourced, and in depth policy plans.

[alvarezadams]

83. Simple

Approach this for the first time instead of shrugging it off.

The DLC supports neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy. Thus they ultimately support the most divisive core issues of today's GOP.

So... one can support the neoliberal and neoconservative GOP because they're tight on abortion or immigration or gay marriage... or the DLC because they're neoliberal, neoconservative and light on abortion, immigration or gay marriage.

Or you can be a Dem and reject neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

Until you get this through your thick skull you're just making an utter fool of yourself.

[Placebo]

86. How does the DLC have a "neocon" foreign policy?

As far as I can tell, that is just an empty talking point (easy to digest and fun to throw around on forums such as these, I'll admit) with absolutely no policy substance to back it up.

[alvarezadams]

90. PLENTY of substance

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1534

If you're marginally curious you can search from this point. All I can say is to follow the money, the connections to PNAC, to Bradley, to AEI, to Skippy...

If you scratch the surface all one finds in the DLC is GOP "lite" inasmuch as its rhetoric is less anathema to progressives while its actual policy is every bit as radical as the extreme RW GOP.

[wyldwolf]

94. alvarezadams thinks Harry Truman was a neocon...

[alvarezadams]

97. And wyldwolf thinks that Adolf was DLC

Gimme a goddam break, wyld. Until you address the question I have asked you on more than one thread (to date), your credibility is zilch.

[wyldwolf]

100. the only difference between my claim and yours is I have a link to yours

The king of subject changers is complaining his question hasn't been answered?

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

125. POT KETTLE BLACK? How so?

I've not seen you start a thread with "neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy" as the OP.

However, you keep trying to inject that into other threads. Thread jacking.

[alvarezadams]

149. If you want to discuss policy

you need to discuss ideology. The support of neoliberal economics and neoconservative policies is a fundamental issue when discussing candidates and orgs, at least for progressives. You refuse to contemplate them as you insist on pushing the DLC.

This is avoiding the question. And since you avoid it I will continue to bring it up -- because to elicit support for a group (the DLC) without deigning to contemplate the basics is plainly dishonest.

[wyldwolf]

155. major difference in ideology and policy

Ideology: Everyone should own a computer!
Policy: Here is how everyone can own a computer.

Ideology is discussed 24/7 on DU. Policy seldom is.

But, hey! Start your own thread!

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[alvarezadams]

167. Perhaps you should study up

"As far as I can tell, that is just an empty talking point (easy to digest and fun to throw around on forums such as these, I'll admit) with absolutely no policy substance to back it up."

Look up the PPI. Look at the DLC's founder's stance on PNAC (he's signed some PNAC letters regarding Iraq).

It's there if you want to see it. If not, close your eyes and forget about it.

[wyldwolf]

240. All I need to know is you think Harry Truman is a neocon.

[SaveElmer]

89. Why this debate doesn't work...populism isn't about solutions...

Populist movements aren't based on comprehensive solutions to existing problems, they are about pointing out the perceived flaws in the proposals or policies of others.

Populism is by nature adverserial. It needs an enemy. Many times this is warranted. Populist movements are often benficial. But populist movements will never gain power on their own accord because it necessarily fractures the population politically and economically.

Eventually, populist movements either have some of their agenda subsumed by larger polictical structures and they cease to exist as their own entity (Farmer Laber in Minnesota, Non-Partisan League in North Dakota), or they remain a left wing splinter group with no real power (Greens).

Wyldwolf, you are asking those who mainly are only interested in criticizing the status quo and those who propose solutions that do not alter policy radically toward their world view, to describe a comprehensive policy to counter the one they criticize. But in reality, these groups do not typically believe that is their role. They may advocate a specific policy for a specific problem (though not usually), but they do not have a comprehensive structure for governance. The reason for this is simple...it is impossible to govern a country like ours peacefully without compromise. And compromise is the one thing these groups criticize the most.

[wyldwolf]

92. WHOA! I'm going to quote the hell out of this! WELL DONE!

[alvarezadams]

96. I'm not surprised

Grasping at straws seems to be a DLC-supporter mainstay.

[wyldwolf]

103. your replies are living proof of what SaveElmer wrote.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[alvarezadams]

108. Lieberbush is considering running as an ...

...independent! Some DNC loyalty, eh? World just shaking under your boots?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_on_el_pr/senate_lieberman

ROFLOL@U

[wyldwolf]

127. You called Harry Truman a Neocon!

Some DNC loyalty, eh? World just shaking under your boots? ROFLOL@U

[alvarezadams]

150. DNC Loyalty?

"Some DNC loyalty, eh? World just shaking under your boots? ROFLOL@U"

I'm not a lockstep follower - like many GOPers seem to be. And as YOU seem to be.

As for Truman and neoconservatism; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson .

Might this not define Truman?

"Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism, tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, supported civil equality for blacks and other minorities, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles even if that meant unilateral action. Indeed, domestic policy does not define neoconservatism — it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism."

[wyldwolf]

153. Who would have ever thought the left would think that was a BAD thing...

..based on THAT definition.

So when you guys complain about neocons, you're actually complaining about the majority of the Democratic party and every elected Democratic president since FDR.

So, why are YOU a "D"emocrat and not a socialist?

[alvarezadams]

165. Bad?

"So when you guys complain about neocons, you're actually complaining about the majority of the Democratic party and every elected Democratic president since FDR."

Whenever we've wandered into an unjust war we've ended up with our fingers burned in one way or another. At best we come away with a diminished reputation, at worst we end up in a quagmire.

To a great extent the anticommunist hawks of the 1950's-1980's weren't fighting communism - they were fighting in favor of corporate interests. The "Domino Theory" has as much basis as "Democratic Dominoes" - which is next to none. Some of our most egregious "interventions" were against democratically-elected regimes and in favour of one quasi-fascist dictator or another - short term expediency almost always won out, leaving seeds for even greater conflict in the longrun.

Why am I Democrat and not a Socialist? I didn't know that one precluded the other, especially in a two-party system. But I could just as easily ask why you're a Democrat and not a falangist (and no, I'm not implying that you are one).

You might have asked why I am a Democrat and not a paleocon Republican (they are isolationist after all).

[wyldwolf]

176. Again...

Who would have ever thought the left would think that was a BAD thing...
..based on THAT definition.

So when you guys complain about neocons, you're actually complaining about the majority of the Democratic party and every elected Democratic president since FDR.

[wyldwolf]

120. when you can't speak to the fact, personal attack, alvarezadams

[alvarezadams]

147. What goes around comes around

Of course, if you'd actually address the questions repeatedly addressed to you instead of repeatedly saying the same thing in multiple threads...

You're flaming and thus my reaction. If you do as above I will cease to retaliate in kind.

[wyldwolf]

152. where? Al you have to do is start a thread instead of hijacking one

..and, of course, play by the rules.

[alvarezadams]

166. That's a matter of interpretation

You think that my comments or questions are non-sequitors. I think that your avoidance of them is copping out.

For the life of me I can't see why something so basic as economic and foreign policy have no place in a political thread. You must have a reason for wanting to avoid these issues.

[wyldwolf]

177. playing by the DU rules is simple

No personal attacks (like the post of yours that got deleted), and not thread hijacking. Neither is a matter of interpretation.

[alvarezadams]

184. No personal attacks?

"(like the post of yours that got deleted)"

Hmmm. You haven't exactly been a model of decorum.

"and not thread hijacking."

On a thread about the DLC I can't ask about its stance on economics and foreign policy?

Grow up.

[wyldwolf]

200. yes, no personal attacks

You can tell when they happen, they usually get deleted. As it stands, YOU need to grow up.

On a thread about the DLC I can't ask about its stance on economics and foreign policy?

In this thread, only if you present alternartive policy plans from an official progressive group.

[alvarezadams]

251. FYI

You have become a part of my very short ignore list. I won't "debate" with someone who will not answer forward questions and that will cry foul at the slightest criticism while criticizing in spades.

Bye!

[wyldwolf]

265. personal attacks aren't "the slightest criticism."

And I'm happy on your ignore list. Now I can say all kinds of stuff about you and you'll never know!

[SaveElmer]

111. Thanks!!!..nt

[alvarezadams]

95. A little disingenuous

Populism? What is more populistic - a group that masquerades as one thing while propounding another... or another with a set of values that is undermined by the former?

It is a common human trait, especially amongst the most "illustrated" amongst us, to try to find a "common ground" and to unite for a common goal. It is no less a common human trait to try to take advantage of this human "frailty" in order to achieve selfish goals via the acquiesence of those with a big heart.

The DLC ... what is their ideological base beyond the shallow talkingpoint minutia that they shamelessly abuse come election time? Their leitmotif consists of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy. They appeal to those predisposed to support candidates with a "d" after their names, not to those with progressive ideals.

How on earth can you speak of demagoguery when we live in an environment where the conservative/corporate element spends $1 billion EVERY year, election or no election, AGAINST progressive causes? Where these self-same elements have embraced the fundamentalist fringe as an electoral base on the basis of appeasement of values that they probably despise? In an environment where the guiding "lights" show their positions quite clearly (see the Scaife, Bradley, Olin trusts- that support the likes of AEI, Heritage AND the DLC)...

Gimme a fvcking break.

[SaveElmer]

110. Your argument illustrates the point...

"It is a common human trait, especially amongst the most "illustrated" amongst us, to try to find a "common ground" and to unite for a common goal. It is no less a common human trait to try to take advantage of this human "frailty" in order to achieve selfish goals via the acquiesence of those with a big heart."

Getting past the flowery language, I presume you are accusing the DLC, because the bulk of their funding comes from corporate sources, of aiding and abetting those corporations in taking unfair and immoral advantage of the citizenry? As evidence of this, you cite the neoliberal economic and foreign policy proposals of the DLC.

In fact you have created a cause and effect based on populist notions of correct policy, not on evidence. The fact is, the DLC is hardly alone in its acceptance of corporate money. You can count on one hand the number of politicians not taking corporate money. Are we to infer these liberal politicians espouse their causes based on the money they get from corporations?

Fact is, capitalism is here to stay, and the main expression of that capitalism are the companies and corporations that employ millions of people. Most Americans, for as much as they rail against corporate greed, are quite contented living within a capitalist society, so populist rhetoric making corporations the enemy is going to have little permanent resonance. This has been true throughout American History.

They do expect government will hold corporate America accountable for its misdeeds (Enron etc), expect that it will be well-regulated to prevent abuse of its power, and that corporations should be expected to contribute some of their wealth to the benefit of society through taxation. Obviously whether that has been successful (it certainly was in the 1930's), and whether Government is doing its job in this regard is open to debate. However there is no support for a fundamental reworking of our economic system.

It is true the DLC does not hold the populist notion that corporations are inherantly evil or are fundamentally bad for America. And they do not see any reason to make corporate America the permanent enemy of the Democratic Party. Therefore they look to find a way between the corporate hating left, and the anarchic de-regulation proposed by the right. Bill Clinton proved progressive governance coupled with fiscal discipline could be good for both the American people and corporate America.


"The DLC ... what is their ideological base beyond the shallow talkingpoint minutia that they shamelessly abuse come election time? Their leitmotif consists of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy. They appeal to those predisposed to support candidates with a "d" after their names, not to those with progressive ideals."

Given your assertion that evidence of DLC immorality can be based on their idealogy, it naturally flows you would make this statement. You view the economic and foreign policy views of the DLC as illegtimate so naturally you cannot envision compromising with something you view as inherantly immoral. I would assert that many the policies the DLC asserts are not immoral, but in fact a way to reconcile the expectations of different sectors of society into a more progressive mode.

The DLC publishes a wide variety of papers on virtually every aspect of American life, and the vast majority of them very few Democrats would have a problem with. They make very good arguments for reorienting the debate on such issues as abortion, gun rights, and the environment away from the polarizing turf that tends to benefit the right, to one that will present the Democratic Party as the Party of common sense.

"How on earth can you speak of demagoguery when we live in an environment where the conservative/corporate element spends $1 billion EVERY year, election or no election, AGAINST progressive causes?"

I did not accuse populists of demogouery. Many populists in history have been demogogue's (Huey Long, Father Coughlin), but I would not say even a majority have been. And as I said, populism can play a beneficial role. I would also argue that you have falsely conflated corporations and conservatives. There are many conservative (right wing) corporations...there are also many that are not. Because there are very bad people in many corporations, does not mean all corporations are the enemy, or that policies aimed at strengthening corporations while not abandoning other progressive principles is a bad idea.

I do not agree with the DLC on everything either, they often take positions on trade matters for example that I oppose. I simply argue that the fact they take this position is not evidence of evil, nor can it simple be dismissed as illegitimate when trying to formulate a structure of governance.

[alvarezadams]

151. Response

" I presume you are accusing the DLC, because the bulk of their funding comes from corporate sources, of aiding and abetting those corporations in taking unfair and immoral advantage of the citizenry? As evidence of this, you cite the neoliberal economic and foreign policy proposals of the DLC."

Not exactly. I mean that the DLC - by identifying itself with SOME "liberal" causes, in fact supports the very conservative causes such as the current misadministration, neolib and neocon thinktanks, etc. It is no accident that they are SPECIFICALLY funded by the very same corps and orgs that support AEI and PNAC. They are playing "bait and switch", and I propound that if it wasn't necessary to appease the progressive element of the DNC, these people would feel very much at home at the right side of the GOP, and the GOP with them.

"In fact you have created a cause and effect based on populist notions of correct policy, not on evidence."

True on this thread but I have previously identified the cause and effect, the "evidence".

"The fact is, the DLC is hardly alone in its acceptance of corporate money."

But it is totally alone amongst the DNC inasmuch as it SPECIFICALLY receives money from the likes of Olin and Bradley, paladins of the most reactionary conservative movements.

"Fact is, capitalism is here to stay, and the main expression of that capitalism are the companies and corporations that employ millions of people. Most Americans, for as much as they rail against corporate greed, are quite contented living within a capitalist society, so populist rhetoric making corporations the enemy is going to have little permanent resonance. This has been true throughout American History. "

I have nothing against capitalism - if it is regulated. I -AM- against corruption, and the ever-increasing influence of corporations in government is indeed corruption. Their powers and rights have increased under the legislation of conservative policymakers. We have repeatedly gone to war over corporate interests and not national interests. I, for one, feel that this is a perversion of democracy and something to be fought against, tooth and nail. If you don't, don't complain about illegal wars of aggression, pollution, the loss of jobs or of household wealth.

"Obviously whether that has been successful (it certainly was in the 1930's), and whether Government is doing its job in this regard is open to debate. However there is no support for a fundamental reworking of our economic system. "

The system HAS been reworked since the 1930's. Yet I am not calling for a change from capitalism
to some other utopic model -- I call for the dropping of the neolib laissez faire model that has been embraced by the GOP and DLC. I also call for POLITICAL reform with regards to corporate finance, and the "rights" of corporations that dwarf those of actual citizens.

"I would assert that many the policies the DLC asserts are not immoral, but in fact a way to reconcile the expectations of different sectors of society into a more progressive mode. "

I'm sorry, but the support of neoliberal economics and neocon foreign policies are indeed immoral. They are also dangerous, turning the world against ourselves and even against the very system that we would wish to export. Our economic policies with regards to the 3rd World (based on neoliberalism) are indeed imoral. Our policy of "preemptive" wars of aggression is imoral.

". They make very good arguments for reorienting the debate on such issues as abortion, gun rights, and the environment away from the polarizing turf that tends to benefit the right, to one that will present the Democratic Party as the Party of common sense."

Sure - they sell us cake without providing for bread. They are the ultimate "realpolitik" folks - they publicly embrace causes that make few waves and enact policies which are anathema for those few progressives who were foolish enough to support them... such as Iraq.

"I would also argue that you have falsely conflated corporations and conservatives. There are many conservative (right wing) corporations...there are also many that are not. "

This is an error of appreciation on your part, due to the fact that you probably never saw previous messages linking SPECIFIC corps with specific policies: for your benefit http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463 (and hit the links to the PPI, Will Marshall and Third Way). For info on the SPECIFIC supporters of the DLC, here's a couple: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation , http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation

"I simply argue that the fact they take this position is not evidence of evil, nor can it simple be dismissed as illegitimate when trying to formulate a structure of governance."

Evil is a subjective term. In the two most important areas of governance the DLC's positions are anathema to anything progressive - which is my point. As for "expediency" or "strategy", I believe that supporting a right-leaning group from the party that is traditionally "left" in a corrupt atmosphere of indoctrination is counterproductive. The pendulum must swing and helping it to maintain momentum towards the right is NOT the way to go.

FWIW, I live abroad. The neolib/neocon movements are far from being parochial American concepts. Blair's "third way" philosophy is about to lose Labour's hold in the UK as the progressives abandon him and his "lite Thatcherism". Neolib/neocon thinktanks abound around the world, funded by the self-same cabal that funds the GOP and DLC. Increasingly there is no political opposition as traditional left-leaning parties embrace neolib/neocon ideals - and the immense majority of progressive citizens are finding themselves unrepresented. Spain (where I live) is under a Socialist government - and it is virtually emulating Blair in all areas except for foreign policy. And I dare say that if it wasn't for an overwhelming 85% of the population that was against participating in the Iraq War, the Socialists would have remained in Iraq.

This is a world-wide problem and I see the neolib/neocon gang as every bit as insidious and organized as the Comintern - with whom they share many common traits as well as personnel.

[SaveElmer]

186. Back at you...

"Not exactly. I mean that the DLC - by identifying itself with SOME "liberal" causes, in fact supports the very conservative causes such as the current misadministration, neolib and neocon thinktanks, etc. It is no accident that they are SPECIFICALLY funded by the very same corps and orgs that support AEI and PNAC. They are playing "bait and switch", and I propound that if it wasn't necessary to appease the progressive element of the DNC, these people would feel very much at home at the right side of the GOP, and the GOP with them." (Emphasis Mine)

Exactly...it would be far easier to join the party in power. If, as you say they are hiding behind a mask of pregressivism to nefariously drive the conservative agenda, why not simply join the Republican Party? After all they are in power, and the DLC folks would have immediate access to the levers of that power. The fact that they do not join the GOP simply reinforces my point that on the whole folks in the DLC are committed Democrats looking for a way to widen the appeal of the Democratic Party.

"I have nothing against capitalism - if it is regulated. I -AM- against corruption, and the ever-increasing influence of corporations in government is indeed corruption. Their powers and rights have increased under the legislation of conservative policymakers. We have repeatedly gone to war over corporate interests and not national interests. I, for one, feel that this is a perversion of democracy and something to be fought against, tooth and nail. If you don't, don't complain about illegal wars of aggression, pollution, the loss of jobs or of household wealth."

I agree with much of this, but it is the Republican Party that has driven these wars. You are wrong to assert the DLC has wholeheartedly supported these policies. Look at the DLC papers on energy policy, the environment and corporate scandal and you will see they are in direct opposition to the policies the Republicans used to create the conditions they use as an excuse for war.

"The system HAS been reworked since the 1930's. Yet I am not calling for a change from capitalism
to some other utopic model -- I call for the dropping of the neolib laissez faire model that has been embraced by the GOP and DLC. I also call for POLITICAL reform with regards to corporate finance, and the "rights" of corporations that dwarf those of actual citizens."

My point about the 1930's was that FDR, through stricter regulation saved capitalism from itself. I disagree that the GOP approach to corporate regulation bears any resemblance to that proposed by the DLC. There may be some points in common, but the thrust is wholly different (that topic could sustain a thread by itself). I agree that in some areas corporations have been given rights beyond what they should and those are areas of legitimate debate. I hadn't intended to get into a debate over specific DLC proposals, as the subject of my thread was the legitimacy of the DLC point of view in formulating a structure of governance, and the contrast with populist views. However, I reject the notion that DLC economic and foreign policy is "anathema" to everything progressive. Like Evil, progressive is a subjective term.

Back to the point, populism is not about governing, it is about criticism. Populist movements must have an enemy to succeed thereby insuring that at most, some of their issues will be addressed by a major party structure. In the U.S> no populist movement has ever succeeding in forming a governing coalition of any strength. Some have succeeded at the state level (Minnesota, North Dakota, Louisiana to some extent), but even there have been assimilated. The reason I bring it up at all is that many on this board equate their liberal political philosophy with populism, which I contend is a formula for irrelevency. Half of this country is at the very least is moderately right of center, and any philosophy of government that does not take the views of these people into consideration is doomed to failure.

[alvarezadams]

188. Back at back at you

"If, as you say they are hiding behind a mask of pregressivism to nefariously drive the conservative agenda, why not simply join the Republican Party?"

I am most concerned with those who are pushing the levers than their minions. These want to cover all the bases and thus AEI et al support the GOP and the DLC. The motivations of the DLC may be above-the-board but this doesn't make them any less of tools for their intentions. And their subservience to neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policies makes them odious to me.

"but it is the Republican Party that has driven these wars. You are wrong to assert the DLC has wholeheartedly supported these policies. "

I refer to Will Marshall's signing of two PNAC letters plus many other supporting blurbs by any
number of DLC'ers.

"Look at the DLC papers on energy policy, the environment and corporate scandal and you will see they are in direct opposition to the policies the Republicans used to create the conditions they use as an excuse for war."

I read them and I see spin. And rather shallow spin at that.

"The reason I bring it up at all is that many on this board equate their liberal political philosophy with populism, which I contend is a formula for irrelevency. Half of this country is at the very least is moderately right of center, and any philosophy of government that does not take the views of these people into consideration is doomed to failure."

Have you considered that this "expediency" pov is in itself populistic? And have you considered that the "conservatism" you refer to can be greatly attributed to 60+ years of corporate-funded propaganda, which in itself relies on "populism"?

I reject the expediency argument because I feel that it merely legitimizes and reinforces the artificial conservatism. The GOP swallowed the Dixiecrats and have been dyspeptic ever since.

[benEzra]

215. The DLC is a POLARIZING force on the gun issue...

They make very good arguments for reorienting the debate on such issues as ... gun rights ... away from the polarizing turf that tends to benefit the right, to one that will present the Democratic Party as the Party of common sense.

The DLC is a POLARIZING force on the gun issue...it was largely the DLC that pushed the party at large into jumping on the disastrous ban-nonhunting-guns bandwagon, based on their egregious misunderstanding of gun law and gun-owner demographics.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=119&subid=157

From one article:

Nobody pretends this issue has anything at all to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Nobody uses these weapons to protect themselves or their homes. Nobody uses them to hunt. They are useful primarily to criminal gangs who want to kill law enforcement officers...

They are referring, of course, to all civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out; civilian shotguns that hold more than 5 shells; full-sized civilian handguns; and the most popular civilian target rifle in America.

Why they were so clueless:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Alienated Rural Democrat

They even have articles on that page written by the gun-ban lobby itself. Is it any wonder that the DLC alienated gun-owning Dems and indies in '00 and '04?

[Placebo]

98. It's so true.

We can criticize Republicans and conservatives all day, and rightly so, but the fact of the matter is that it would be impossible to achieve any sort of political goals without compromise.

And when you compromise, you're called a traitor, or a DINO, or a Repuke-lite.

Progressivism is a feeling without a policy. The fact that no policy examples have been given in this thread as of this moment, only attacks and slander is evidence of that.

[Armstead]

282. That would be a bunch of Hoo Hah -- You are missing a key point

Many in what you call "populist" movements ARE based on a g=uiding principle of governance. It's the same basic approach that kept liberalism as a healthy counterbalance and force for positive change for decades in the 20th Century.

It's a call for a return to the badic principles of the New Deal, New Frontier, Great Society principles of what used to be mainstream Democratic liberalism. It's the same theory of governance (and compromise) that brought us thiungs like Social Security, medicare and regulations that kept the worst ecesses of "free markets" within bounds.

What the "populists" are crtiticizing is a FLAWED form of governing philosophy of the DLC that has basically sold out to the same basic principles as the GOP.

Times change, and any restoration of the liberalism of the mid 20th Century would have to be updated. However, using a progressive populist critique is a necessary starting point, if we are to restore liberalism as a potent force in modern politics and governance.

[karynnj]

99. It depends on which politician associated with the DLC leads

If you look at the voting records they range from Kerry, whose votes have more in common with Kennedy than with other DLC people to others where you dislike many of their votes. Kerry actually was a New Democrat and they were allied with the DLC. He is clearly not controlled by corporations. From his record, I would assme that he would be a President for the people, not the corporations.

As to corporations funding candidates, Kerry is the only person to run 4 Senate campaigns with no PAC money. Their was a CSPAN show with Teresa mentioning this at an Iowa gathering, pointing out that this commitment came at a cost of Kerry having to spend far more time at fundraisers rather than simply calling corporate executives. (By the way, when you give money, they ask who you work for - so many reports that show who "companies" contributed to are really reports of where the people working for those companies contributed.) Beyond that, Kerry authored the Clean Elections bill that he and Wellstone sponsored. Here is one of the floor speeches Kerry gave in 1997 - at least from what I have seen, this is one of the strongest statement in the Senate record (from Thomas) on the problems of corporate financing and control. (It also explains the dilemma that a principled politician has - elections are expensive.:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.

Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
GPO's PDF
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean el ections'' fu nded by ``clean mo ney,'' elections wh ere our citizens are the ones who make the difference

[Hippo_Tron]

192. THANK YOU

You would have to be blind to see that John Kerry has an incredibly different voting record than say Ben Nelson. I'm still not a big fan of the DLC but it's not like Al From pushes a button and they all vote the same way.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[lastliberalintexas]

140. I doubt I'll get an intelligent response, but let me play the optimist

One issue, and then if I get an intelligent response supporting/explaining the DLC's position, I'll continue to play- bankruptcy "reform" that the DLC has supported.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=2647&kaid=103&subid=110

It hurts the average American, and studies repeatedly demonstrate that the vast majority of bk filings are precipitated by medical emergencies and the resulting deluge of bills. Yet the DLC has chosen to take the side of the CORPORATE interests and supported the Consumer Penalty Bill pushed by the Bush administration. Please tell me why?

[wyldwolf]

146. you're in the wrong thread

This thread wasn't started for the DLC to defend their positions. It was started for anti-DLCers to offer sound alternative policies from a competing progressive organization.

Do you have links to either the DFA's or PDA's answer for dealing with those filing for a "fresh start" under Chapter 7 of federal bankruptcy law who are upper or upper-middle income Americans with stable or rising incomes, and cooly calculate that filing for bankruptcy offers a better "deal" than paying off creditors?

[lastliberalintexas]

170. Sorry, I'm not playing your little game

You and others claim that liberals don't want to discuss the issues and that we only want to bash the DLC. I asked a very specific policy driven question, as I've done many times in the past, and still don't have an answer from the pro-DLC crowd. If you can't defend the position that the DLC has taken *with respect to this issue* then simply say so.


You can search through my posts and see that I've never said that the DLC itself is bad- though I have bashed From and a few of the particular "leaders" of that group. The DLC serves a purpose, or at least it did when it was first created. But it has become nothing more than a supposedly more palatable version of the Chamber of Commerce with liberal positions on social issues. So, they get credit from me for being pro-choice, but I still reserve the right to bash the hell out of the *positions* they take on economic issues.


Now, if you care to actually defend the position that the DLC has taken with respect to bankruptcy issues, please do so. I'd love to hear a cogent explanation of why creditors should be in such a prefential position in every bk, even though only very few are in any way fraud based. The trustees do a darn good job of going after debtors who are using bk to hide/protect assets, and they are usually very good at recovering what they can for the creditors when there really is money in the debtor's estate. However, the cases in which I have personally seen the most fraud on the part of the debtor have been in- wait for it- corporate bk filings. Yet the republican bk "reform" supported by the DLC didn't even address such filings.

Now, again, if you would like to explain why the DLC and Bush/republican belief that corporations should be treated better than individuals in the bk system is a good policy, I'm game. Otherwise, I'll assume that this is of course nothing more than a vanity thread for people who wish to bash liberals rather than actually debate the ISSUES and policy positions of the party.

[alvarezadams]

171. They only want---

... to play by their rules. If you bring up something they don't want to talk about they consider it otiose and take their ball away after throwing a very little tantrum.

Good luck - just as this thread's mirror needs luck: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2677450

[Zhade]

175. Just to be clear, Wyldwolf's thread (this one) was posted AFTER mine.

He couldn't answer, so he started this thread.

This thread is a mirror of the one you've linked.

[wyldwolf]

178. correction -- I WOULDN'T answer again

Every now and again, threads like yours pop up.

[Zhade]

185. You'd have to successfully answer it once to not do it again.

You never have.

[wyldwolf]

198. "successfully" is your caveat.

I've been in too many threads where I've presented DLC plans and had suffered ad hominen attacks for them, including that famous "DLC, I'm Calling You Out! You MUST answer these questions" thread that got locked right out of the gate.

But speaking of not answering questions, for the 4th time, link to Clinton referring to himself as a Rockefeller Republican?

[Zhade]

244. So you keep saying, but it's not true.

NT!

[wyldwolf]

266. say, Zhade, about those two factually challenged quotes of yours...

...go back and tell whoever told them to you that they just ain't true!

[Zhade]

269. If they weren't true, I would.

NT!

[wyldwolf]

272. prove them for all the good people here

Surely all the anti-DLC people would benefit from such secret information.

[Zhade]

278. It wasn't secret when it first came up, I'm not alone in recalling it.

Okay, so here I'll asmit that I may have confused myself. This is part of what I've read in the past:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:VkYkuUBXQWMJ:www.pbs.org/newshour/shields%26gigot/powell_clinton_11-3.html+bill+clinton+called+himself+a+%22rockefeller+republican%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

...and it's entirely possible that I misremembered that as Clinton himself saying that, rather than someone else stating that he called himself that.

Now, apparently this Gigot fellow is a known liar. So it's possible that this statement, read years ago, was in fact false, and I may in fact be wrong about Clinton calling himself a RR (although I truly do recall reading the phrase "We're pretty much Rockefeller Republicans" being attributed to him - again, possibly inaccurate).

At this point, I'll retract the Rockefeller Republican charge and keep looking, because I can't yet find anything that indicates Clinton referred to himself as such.

On the PNAC/PPI angle, it was linked here in the past. As I am not currently a donor due to some disagreement with the mods, I do not have search capabilities. Links that used to be in my sig, before the change in sig policy, had sources for the office/phone number thing, but that old sig is saved in a text file at home (I'm at work right now). I'll look into it tonight, but for now I'll state that it remains to be confirmed (I most definitely recall reading about it, because it was so shocking to me, far worse in my mind than the Clinton thing).

So as it stands, the Clinton thing may be hearsay, and the PNAC/PPI matter has yet to be resolved. Stay tuned.

[wyldwolf]

284. hint:

Go to the PNAC site and the PPI site, check the "contact us" buttons, check address and phone numbers.

[Zhade]

285. Right, because if they ARE working together, they'll list it openly.

Come on, that's just silly!

[wyldwolf]

199. It isn't a game.

If you want to ask a specific policy question of the DLC, do it in Zhade's thread.

THIS thread is for you to present alternative plans from progressive groups. Read the OP again.

[lastliberalintexas]

201. So still no defense of the DLC position, right?

And that isn't what Zhade's thread is about. There he is also asking for DLC supporters to defend and explain DLC positions. So far, he also has no takers.


As I said, I've asked for a defense/explanation of DLC *positions* from many pro-DLC posters in the past, and have yet to receive a single response from any of you. I am left only to assume that you can't defend their positions, and thus dodge and evade with BS parameters for debate conveniently set by you. Have fun playing that little game. And in the meantime, I'll continue to fight the DLC's economic policies as vigorously as I fight the CoC, since they're really one and the same on these issues.

[wyldwolf]

202. still no policy plans from "progressive" organizations, right?

[lastliberalintexas]

205. I'm not a member of PDA or DFA, and I'm not the one

spamming this board saying how great those orgs are. You and others keep claiming that the DLC is just dandy without defending their positions. See the difference? Yeah, I'm sure you do.


*shakes head wondering htf she lets herself get drawn into this shit*

[wyldwolf]

206. well, then, this thread wasn't aimed at you.

See the difference?

[alvarezadams]

148. Here you go

"1. It means linking to a detailed policy plan on an important issue of today from an organization that you feel better represents you (DFA? PDA?) and explaining why THAT plan is more sound than that of the DLC."

That's the problem - the conservative move of the entire DNC makes it very little representative of progressives. True progressives can be counted on one hand and don't seem to be part of an "org". At best we have a very "lite" progressive tone in the DNC, mostly consisting in rather unimportant stances and weary generalizations (such as "affordable healthcare for all" without actually saying "how").

"2. Avoid red herring-type diversions. Before you ask what the DLC's plan is on something, show us a detailed alternate plan from another group. Extra points if that plan tells how it will be financed."

I see no plan anywhere, just the above mentioned "generalizations". And that goes for every party and subsection of each. Perhaps politics has been "dumbed down" so much that politicians rely on soundbites, but even websites (which should be a platform for details as well las soundbites) are pretty empty in this respect.

"3. Finally explain to us the level at which certain activities is unacceptable."

Neoliberal economics at ANY level and neoconservative policies at ANY level are both utterly unacceptable to me. They are the antithesis of progressive ideals.

"Let's try to avoid all the "corporatist whore sellout blah blah blah" reactionary stuff, ok?"

Why? I think that it is key because corporatism has perverted our political system and turned political discourse into manipulative rhetoric/spin. Any number of minor issues are open to debate but the big issues (especially pertaining to corruption) are left behind.

I am willing to vote for ANY candidate from ANY party that stands on a platform of real reform - taking business out of government. We won't see it except from some few progressives in the DNC, some Greens and a few other fringes though. And we CERTAINLY won't see it from the DLC, being funded as they are by the same cabal that supports the neocons, the most extremely conservative GOPers, AEI and Heritage.

Given the choice I'd vote for a libertarian GOPer before I'd vote for a DLC candidate.

[wyldwolf]

154. all that writing to arrive at one conclusion-you hate the Democratic party

You've said "progressives" don't need detailed policy plans and that having such is "conservative," and that the economic and foreign policy of the Democratic party is "neocon."

LOL!

[alvarezadams]

168. Hmmm?

"You've said "progressives" don't need detailed policy plans and that having such is "conservative," and that the economic and foreign policy of the Democratic party is "neocon."

No need to put words in my mouth. I've never said this - in fact, quite the opposite (regarding policy plans). As for the DNC being neocon - this kind of logical fallacy comes up quite often amongst cons. Is it something wired into your mindset?

"Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration "

[wyldwolf]

179. Don't need to put words in your mouth. Your implication is obvious

[LittleClarkie]

183. Why do you hate America?

Hating the party and thinking the party could use some fixing does not mean that someone "hates" it. Strikes me as the same spurious reasoning that brings out such phrases as "Why do you hate the President" or "Why do you hate America".

To reduce someone's point of view down to such a binary emotion is too simplistic It's as if you're saying that there is no thought there, just emotion.

But then I guess you're not interested in opening an honest dialogue, even with those who approach you civilly. Nor do you seem to be interesting in "winning hearts and minds," as it were.

Oh well. Enjoy your smug-fest.

[wyldwolf]

197. why not offer something productive?

The above poster clearly has ttumbed his nose at planned and detailed policy, and believes the party is based on "Neoliberal economics" and "neoconservative policies."

Boy, those Clinton years sure were a bust! LOL. Oh, and he called Harry Truman a neocon, too.

Smugfest? I one thing amazing about you popping in and out of this thread.

Where is your "cool head of reason" in the many "FUCK the DLC, I hate the DLC" threads?

When an ant-DLCer offers an honest dialogue with supportive facts, I'll be open to it. It is the point of the OP.

[LittleClarkie]

230. I am. I'm looking for dialogue without anger on both sides

I'll not get it, least of all from someone who refers to the opposition as chihuahuas at one's ankles (yip, yip, yip).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2426790

Nor will I get it from those who froth whenever they see the letters "D" "L" and "C" anywhere near each other.

It's alittle like watching Israel vs the Palestinians.

Neither side is going away. I just wish y'all would stop thumbing your noses at each other. I wish alot of things.

All I know is that a factious party isn't going anywhere. And threads like this from either side aren't healing any wounds.

More productive would be to ask what you guys have in common.

And actually I've been accused of BEING a DLCer in some threads, not because I was agreeing with them, but because you guys have a right to state your opinions same as anyone else, and the anti DLC rhetoric does go way over the top on occasion.

Sorry you hadn't noticed.

[wyldwolf]

239. the problem is, you don't want to get it

Where is your self righteousness in the many "FUCK the DLC" threads? You turn a blind eye to them, yet you zero in on mine.

Go back throught all the still-active anti-DLC threads and spread your message of togetherness there as well. Then start you a thread on it.

[mmonk]

158. If we can't use the truth in discussions,

how do we approach it?

[wyldwolf]

159. the truth requires corroboration

[mmonk]

161. Then maybe I should

post what their leaders say about war, the economy, our new police state, and fellow democrats? Do you REALLY want to go there?

[wyldwolf]

162. well, I could post the same from so-called "progressive" leaders.

However, if you'll read the opening post, you'll see that this is a call for policy discussion.

[SOS]

160. Why bother doing this now?

If we want to read a plan with detailed policy from an organization that better represents us,
we only need to wait for the 2008 Democratic Party platform.

[wyldwolf]

163. because policy discussions are more productive than vitriolic ...

...strawman attacks and broadbrush painting of entire groups?

[Beacho]

164. Instead of bashing the DLC for being the DLC, have an intelligent factual

Let you DLC hacks start first. Clean up your own backyard

[rucky]

169. The burden of proof is on the DLC

when they claim to speak/act in the party's best interest, but fail every time.

[Blue_Tires]

173. +1

[wyldwolf]

180. the burden if proof of what? My OP asked for no proof

Just a comparison of policy plans. Show me yours. I'll show you mine.

[rucky]

182. Usually what happens is this....

a "maverick" like Murtha presents a plan for Iraq withdrawl & Hillary Clinton feels the need to call a press conference to say why she thinks it's a bad idea.

[wyldwolf]

196. of course, that has nothing to do with the OP or "burden of proof."

Is Murtha part of a "progressive organization" like DFA or PDA?

[Upfront]

172. With out a doubt!

When I vote!

[Dr Fate]

174. The DLC should get something right b/f issueing challenges.

The DLC was WRONG about supporting Bush on Iraq and WRONG about supporting Bush on tax cuts for the top 1%. In fact, they have been wrong in every instance where they suggested we support Bush or give him a free pass.

The DLC, like the Republican party needs to get something RIGHT before they issue challenges to a group that has been correct on the issues.

I know- I know- supposedly you guys won some elections for us over 10 years ago.

[wyldwolf]

181. the DLC hasn't issued a challenge

I have - - for "progressives" to put forth policy plans that are alternates to that of the DLC.

I know- I know- supposedly you guys won some elections for us over 10 years ago.

LOL! Ongoing.

[Dr Fate]

187. How about not supporting wars based on lies -and saying so.

And how about basing our foreign policy votes on reason istead of what rigged polls, Bush and the media says?

As far as you turning my own quote around on me- it does not work, considering that for 10 years or so the party has been steered by conservatives and "moderates"-and shyed away from being as agressive or as progressive as party activist would like.

In general, I think the "me too" strategy of many DLC types has failed us in 2002 & 2004.

Again- when the DLC and other conservatives can show us something major it has gotten right, then they will be in a position to issue challenges such as yours.

The DLC and conservatives were WRONG about supporting Bush in Iraq and WRONG about tax cuts and wrong about refusing to be agressive against Bush- Until you guys can admit this,dont expect us to assume you are right about anything else.

[wyldwolf]

194. LOL!

Now does the DFA or PDA (or the greens) have any advanced policy plans for tackling todays's problems or oare they all just whiners?

[Dr Fate]

209. You asked for a valid alternate viewpoint, I gave you one.

I think most voters would find that NOT supporting wars based on lies is pretty reasonable-even appealing.

You dont need slick used-car salesmen policy papers to express honesty on this issue- all you need is plain talk based on plain old common sense.

[wyldwolf]

214. irrelevant to the OP, though.

[Dr Fate]

218. Yes- the Iraq war is such a non-issue.

I stand corrected.

;)

[wyldwolf]

219. did you know Teddy Roosevelt liked baked apples?

[Dr Fate]

222. Heh- Anyway "policy" does include how we enter into wars.

Your OP asks for alternate "policy" so I gave you one.

Did you know that those "swing-voters" and "moderates" that we bend over backwards to impress dont even read, much less base their vote on long winded policy and position papers heavy on details?

If they did, Bush would not have gotten elected twice.

[wyldwolf]

225. that's true, but you didn't give me an official detailed policy

You gave me your viewpoint.

[Dr Fate]

226. Details: Dont go to war based on lies. Do it based on facts. Period.

There- I just saved the Democratic party tons of ink and paper- and those sought after "swing-voters" will understand it and agree with it.

As an added bonus, it puts the GOP on the defensive as to how their continuing dishonesty got us into this mess and will continue to get us into deeper messes if unchecked.

Perhaps the DLC and others needs to understand that long-winded, detailed policy papers dont win the day. Just ask Bush, who never presented them either, yet he WINS his elections.

[wyldwolf]

227. still isn't what the OP is addressing so it is irrelevant

Why not just say no "progressive" organization has detailed plans to get us out of Iraq or how to handle future foreign policy issues. Then you can give your viewpoint once the OP content is addressed.

[Dr Fate]

228. What "progressive" organization am I supposed to be a member of?

I'm a registered Democrat. I'm also a moderate.

I'm discussing this from the point of view of Democrat- not some microcosm w/i the party.

As far as future FP- my policy is to defend the USA based on facts and honesty instead lies and propaganda. I think voters would agree with that 100%.

As far as getting out of Iraq- my "details" including leaving that god-damned desert ASAP and handing this mess over to REAL colaition as opposed to that FAKE coalition that Bush and the DLC insisted existed.

My main beef with the DLC is their seemingly blind support for Bush in invading Iraq- I tend not to trust their general judgement anymore after that.

[wyldwolf]

229. You're not. But the OP specifically called for policy from one

[Dr Fate]

231. I'm giving you what I think should be the Democratic party's policy.

Does the Democratic Party count as a "progressive" organization?

In any event, I think the simple yet appealing position I laid out is quite mainstream and moderate:

-Dont go to war based on lies, go based on facts.

-No WMDs in Iraq? No Saddam-9/11 connections? Then we need to leave and get back to building schools, hospitals & roads in the good old USA instead of in that god-damned desert.

I believe that swing-voters across the nation would stand on their sofas and cheer if they saw a Democrat on TV with the guts to express the issue in those blunt, simple, common sense terms.

[wyldwolf]

232. good for you! But is isn't what the OP requested to be addressed

..and even if the actual DNC were to be included in the equation, you haven't provided policy from them, but from yourself.

[Dr Fate]

233. Oh- well excuse me for not letting you define the debate!

Which is one big reason why we keep losing elections-we let conservatives define the debate- its a trap I never fall into.

You are right- I'm expressing what *I* think should be done rather than what the "strategists" who lost the last 3 election cycles will end up doing. I stand corrected.

I'll concede. You "win" the internet chat-room debate. I hope your very narrow debate constructs somehow translates into actual election wins too. (they will not)

You may have the last word- our debate has helped me learn a lot about why we lost the last 3 election cycles- so thank you for that insight.

Cheers!

[wyldwolf]

234. I haven't defined the debate. I started a thread. You're welcome to..

...to do the same.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[alvarezadams]

190. Too much

"that libs sure can whine. I don't know if they can rise to any sort of challenge, but boy can they viciously attack people (sadly facts aren't involved though)."

Speaks for itself. From a poster that steadfastly refuses to answer questions on policy because he doesn't like the answers - and that now has the gall to attack whining libs on DU itself.

The big "H" word applies.

You're on ignore, dude.

[Hippo_Tron]

191. I'm totally game and I've suggested this all along

Pick a topic and lets talk

[wyldwolf]

195. I'd love to, but as the OP says:

1. It means linking to a detailed policy plan on an important issue of today from an organization that you feel better represents you (DFA? PDA?) and explaining why THAT plan is more sound than that of the DLC.

(this means YOU pick the policy, YOU show the DFA pr PDA's official policy plan, and compare it to that of the DLC.

2. Avoid red herring-type diversions. Before you ask what the DLC's plan is on something, show us a detailed alternate plan from another group. Extra points if that plan tells how it will be financed.

3. Finally explain to us the level at which certain activities is unacceptable. A big complaint of the DLC is they and their candidates take corporate money. Yet, ALL politicians (even Democrats) do. At what point is it too much? Just beyond the amount your favorite candidates recieve?

[Hippo_Tron]

221. Alright, we'll do this next time the opportunity in a thread comes up

Mind you, this is only really applicable to certain threads. If it's a debate about whether Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont is better, there's no real detailed policy plan that says that is true or isn't true. But if we are having a debate about policy, I will provide a policy plan from an alternative group and argue its merits. Then you can do the same for a DLC policy.

Keep in mind one thing, though. In some instances there is no think tank that has a detailed policy that I agree with. For example, I don't support the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 but I also don't support the AFDC system that we had before it. I have my own arguments and ideas for why welfare doesn't work and how it could work.

[WyoBlueDog]

193. Wyldwolf,

I find it always good to keep this factsheet handy. They can denounce all they want, but facts are stubborn things...

-----

-- In the last 26 years, the only Democrat elected President, Bill Clinton, was a founding member of the DLC, as well as DLC Chairman (Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was also a founding member).

-- In the last 38 years, only Clinton and centrist southerner Jimmy Carter have been elected president on the Democratic side. In 1972, the liberal George McGovern carried only one state; in 1984, the liberal Walter Mondale carried only one state; and in 1988, the liberal Michael Dukakis carried only ten states.

-- In 2004, five of the six legitimate candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination were affiliated with the DLC, and two of them, Gephardt and Lieberman were former DLC Chairmen. Wes Clark identified himself as a “New Democrat” and was publicly praised by DLC Founder & CEO Alvin From, and endorsed by two former DLC Chairmen, former Sen. John Breaux and former Sen. Sam Nunn.

-- The 2004 Democratic ticket of Senator John Kerry and Senator John Edwards were both self-identified DLC New Democrats.

-- The House Congressional Progressive Caucus has 38 members. The House Blue Dog Coalition of Conservative Democrats has 35 members. The House’s centrist New Democrat Coalition has the most with 40 members.

-- The Senate’s liberal Democratic Study Group has 12 members. The Senate’s centrist New Democrat Coalition has 20 members.

-- The DLC’s think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute is the ONLY Democratic Party-affiliated think tank to come out with new ideas (whether you agree or disagree with them) EVERY WEEK.

-- In 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council named “100 New Democrats to Watch.” The list includes the following names: Ben Chandler (then AG of KY, now a US Rep), Gavin Newsom (then Board of Supervisors for SF, now Mayor), Barack Obama (then State Senator in IL, now US Senator), Ken Salazar (then AG of CO, now US Senator), and Allyson Schwartz (then State Senator in PA, now US Rep).
And consider these names on the 2003 list, all looking for a significant political promotion in November: Phil Angelides, Ethan Berkowitz, Kathy Cox, Dan Malloy, Eliot Spitzer, Peter Sullivan, and Mark Taylor.

-- As of April 2006, a SurveyUSA poll had Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, as the most popular senator in the country with a 73% approval rating. He is the most conservative Democrat in the US Senate, and a member of the DLC.

-- A May 2005 Harris Interactive poll found that the majority of Americans look positively on moderate candidates at 79%. Next, 48% of Americans look positively on conservative candidates, and only 41% of Americans look positively on liberal candidates.

-- A November 2004 Zogby poll (a poll the same month of the last presidential election) found that 48% of DEMOCRATS consider themselves “MODERATE.” Only 28% of Democrats consider themselves “liberal,” and 21% consider themselves “conservative.”

-- A stunning 20 of the 22 current Democratic governors are associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The only 2 that are not, are Ted Kulongoski of OR and Ruth Ann Minner of DE.

---------


The Agitated Grizzly -
http://agitated-grizzly.blogspot.com/

[iconoclastmadrid]

204. Out of curiosity

are you and Wyldwolf the same poster?

[wyldwolf]

207. no

Are you and iconoclastNYC the same poster?

[Dr Fate]

211. Errr- why all the bragging? We LOST in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

I'm not sure that holding up these so-called "successes" of the last 3 election cylces we lost makes your point.

If we had WON those elections, you would have a point- but we did not.

[wyldwolf]

213. I thought the elections were stolen

At least that's what folks on DU keep saying. Are you know saying the Supreme Court didn't rob Al Gore, Diebold didn't fix the votes around the country in 2002 (specifically in GA) and that the fraud in Ohio didn't happen?

[Dr Fate]

217. Not according to silent conservative Democrats.

You cant have it both ways.

You wont see me making that claim until credible leadership is prepared to go on TV and back me up on that.

They wont.

As far as SCOTUS robbing Gore, the DLCers and everyone else in the Senate could have backed up the Congressional Black Caucus in what became the final stages of that fiasco- they didnt.

[wyldwolf]

220. How many Democrats say it?

As far as SCOTUS robbing Gore, the DLCers and everyone else in the Senate could have backed up the Congressional Black Caucus in what became the final stages of that fiasco- they didnt.

DLCers in the Senate are a minority. So the blame can't be layed at their feet. Where was Feingold? Kennedy?

[Dr Fate]

224. No arguement from me- they all acted like cowards that day.

Dont confuse out-of-touch elected Democrats with regular old activists on the ground who knew exactly what was going on.

Are Finegold or Kennedy supposed to be my infaliable saints or something? I like them AND many DLC DEMS- but I dont have to agree with everything they all do.

If you take the position that the elections were stolen, fine- then write a letter to your conservative DLC leaders and others and demand that they openly adress it. (Good luck)

Until you can do that, dont take that position just for the sake of argument. We LOST in 2000, 2002 & 2004. Period.

[Solon]

208. OK, I'll bite...

On Health Care, an excerpt and then a link:

Toward an Appropriate Health Care System

By Jerome Liebman

The health care system in the United States is anachro-

nistic, fragmented, frequently dehumanizing, ineffective and

in desparate need of re-design. In 1972 Americans for Demo-

cratic Action (ADA) predicted today’s chaos and presented a

solution: a single payer type of national health service, which

extended across state lines. Since then many other excellent

groups have developed single payer types of plans, including

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and Uni-

versal Health Care Action Network (UHCAN). On one occa-

sion a serious complete plan was presented as a bill in Con-

gress, by Rep. Jim McDermott and the late Senator Paul

Wellstone. Wellstone and McDermott were greatly aided in

their efforts by members of PNHP.

Page 8 of this PDF:

http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Summer_2005.pdf

OK, this article is an introduction at best, they reference the http://www.pnhp.org/ website.

As far as how much more sound this plan is to the DLC's plan, found here:
http://www.dlc.org/documents/Fixing_Health_Care_092205.pdf

Well, They mention 6 points, and I'll give credit where credit is due, they actually tell the truth about the lack of runaway costs due to malpractice claims, in fact, they want to make it easier to sue for malpractice, can't say I'm against that. However, while that is one good point, I did encounter problems, first, they did not address the runaway administration costs associated with Private Insurance/Hospital system, which is as great as 30% in many cases. In addition to this, they plan on funding this program by raising taxes on premiums to health insurance, premiums that already are escalating out of control. Also they advocate tax credits at the same time, especially for middle income workers, to supplement their insurance, however, if they raise taxes on those same premiums, wouldn't that negate the tax credit to begin with? They do talk aobut modernizing medicine, and getting rid of wasteful paper, in triplicate, as it were, and that is part of the cost for overhead, no question. However, they fail to mention how they would address the insurance industry in general, which has a bad habit of increasing premiums when the stock market fluctuates.

Perhaps most egregious is that they plan for tax penalties to those who refuse to sign up to employer provided insurance, if available, with no distinction in the plan for inadequete coverage in such plans, nor to income. Overall, this is a plan that is, at best, a stop gap measure on escalating health care costs, and they didn't even cover how the government programs would negotiate for equitable prescription drug prices. the PNHP plan, however, provides for a single payer, comprehensive, single public insurance program, while still keeping choice in the picture. This addresses the out of control administrative costs, in addition to providing quality health care to every American, and also being able to do it much more cheaply than the current system. If you want to see details, here you go:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/liberal_benefits_conservative_spending.php

OK, now onto the next point you mentioned:

3. Finally explain to us the level at which certain activities is unacceptable.

OK, financing, to be honest, I don't really care unless its to outright buy votes, such as for the Bankruptcy Reform law. That is unacceptable, now, other activities include accepting Republican framing of issues, such as the old "Partial Birth Abortion" debate. Also avoiding putting foot in mouth, like Hillary's "Young folks don't work" Clinton, or Joe "Don't Question the President" Lieberman. That's just dumb.

[wyldwolf]

212. You did a great job critiquing a DLC plan, but where is the alt. plan?

The Socialist Democrats "plan" is more of a policy platform statement. They give stats, and tell us whats's wrong, but where is their detailed solution?

The Journal of the American Medical Association article (reprinted in the PNHP) sounds great upon first read and I applaud you for stepping up to the plate.

I'm going to study the Journal of the American Medical Association article more closely. In the meantime, I would recommend it be given it's own thread for discussion (not that I don't mind continuing it here - but I do find it more attention-worthy.)

Some of the Senators who voted for the bankruptcy bill did so on behalf of their constituents. The Delaware congregation specifically.

Foot in the mouth disease is common - just ask Howard Dean.

[Solon]

216. Actually, I mentioned that in my post...

That's why I linked to the http://www.pnhp.org website, the Democratic Socialists of America pretty much agrees with this plan, I figured it was easier to just put the website down, rather than listing individual links to EVERY article they wrote, also the article I linked to originally also referenced a previously published version of "Democratic Left". You can look at all issues here:

http://www.dsausa.org/dl/index.html

Also, just an FYI, Democratic Socialists of America is NOT a political party, they endorse or are affiliated with, by and large, progressive Democrats, with the occasional Independant thrown in(Bernie Sanders). They have traditionally been a Democratic affiliated org, just so you don't think they are yet another third party.

As far as foot in mouth disease, I harshly critisized Dean for the 700 club controversy, so don't think I'm being a hypocrite here.

[Solon]

223. OK, I'm going to post a thread on this subject. n/t

[Armstead]

210. It's what the DLC IGNORES that bugs me

Here's my basic problem with the DLC (and the brand of Democrat) it represents.

When I've read their platforms and positions, I frankly don't find much I disagree with on domestic policy. They have some good ideas.

(WITH THE OBVIOUS EXCEPTION of IRAQ and their Neo-CON orientation on foreign policy.)

HOWEVER they TOTALLY IGNORE the core problem that is at the base of so many other issues. That is the supremacy of corporate power and the related problem, which is the surpression of all human values that don't yield a profit.

Before you call that a "pet issue," let me respond that it is a matter of core values, priorities and how almost every other issue is dealt with.

The DLC buys into the vision of corporate America, which is that private power is always superior to public power. The DLC accepts the existance of an oligarchy. Worse yet, the DLC turns to the Oligarchs for support and they lionize them.

The blind worship mof Alan Greenspan, for example, is a classic example of what is wrong with the DLC. And how the DLC has UNDERMINED the true liberal/progressive principles of the Democratic Party.

Lemme put it anotehr way. Research the positions and message that Bernie Sanders has advocated for over the years. Then go back and look at the DLC's positions and message.

Bernie is a populist progressive WHO WINS BY HUGE MARGINS by telling the truth, and advocating that government actually do something positive.

[LynneSin]

246. And can we make sure we properly label who the DLC democrats are

simply because one democrat doesn't agree with one issue does NOT mean that person is a member of the DLC. I get so fricking sick and tired of people claiming JOe Biden is a member - he has not been nor has he ever been a member. Tom Carper, our other delaware democrat is the DLCer. ANd after having Rick Santorum as my senator - I can honestly say I'm pleased as punch about both of my senators.

I think this was a great thread and worthy of a recommendation. I have no problem with debating the merits of any democrat on any given issue is worthy posting material. But posters screaming like a rabid banshee to "VOTEOUTALLTHEDLCERSNOWORELSEILLNEVERVOTEFORADEMOCRATAGAIN" mentality just blows. Have a plan or go post on the Donkey Nintendo threads

[xxqqqzme]

248. go to:

http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm

click on any of the titles under 'Issues'. This is PNAC disquised in 'liberal' language.

Then start asking questions

[Zhade]

252. Well, it is telling that PPI and PNAC both SHARE AN OFFICE.

And a phone number.

[wyldwolf]

254. hey, Zhade...Got a link on that Clinton quote yet?

..and one on this latest "fact?"

[Zhade]

260. Shared both a loooooooong time ago.

There's no point in dredging it up for you, since you'll just ignore it AGAIN, the same way you ignore the fact that founders of far right think tanks also fund the DLC.

[wyldwolf]

261. not with me. They're both just your fantasy

Clinton, in fact, never referred to himself as a Rockefeller Republican.

PPI and PNAC, IN FACT, do NOT share an office and phone number. Perhaps someone has mislead you.

[Zhade]

268. If you say so, it must be true!

:rofl:

I think I believe my own reading of those facts more than your anonymous denial of them, WW.

[wyldwolf]

273. I think you're passing along someone else's bullshit...

...because I certainly wouldn't want to think someone like you was lying.

[Zhade]

277. Well, thanks for the vote of confidence.

It's sweet. I doubt you mean it sincerely (I wouldn't be surprised if you think me to be a liar), but thanks anyway, I guess.

[wyldwolf]

283. oh, I honestly do.

afterall, why would you knowingly spread two false pieces of information?

[Zhade]

286. See, here I can't tell if you're fucking with me or not.

NT!

[mmonk]

250. Any true debate

has to deal with Iraq and the propaganda concept of "war on terror" and I really don't think you'll see the DLC use that approach.

[PWRinNY]

253. I don't hate the DLCers

But they frustrate me. I don't speak poorly of them. I don't think badly of them. In fact, this is the first I've ever posted about them.

My problem with them is quite simple, actually. It's the way they compromise. All the compromises end up right of center - they're trying too hard to please everyone and tend to forget about their base. For some reason they actually think that most Americans are right of center. I don't get it. Most Americans may THINK they're right of center, when, in fact, they're centrist or slightly left of center. The only people right of center are a very small tyrannical minority in this country - who happen to be the squeaky wheel. They don't represent the vast majority in this country. But many DLCers compromise as if they do.

Look at the RW - their compromises, when there are any, are NEVER left of center. They always win. Well call me a sore loser, but I'm damn sick of it.

I want our leaders to STOP compromising, stand their ground, and be as loyal to their base (us) as the RWers are to theirs.

Is that too much to ask?

[mmonk]

258. They've haven't compromised away the rights of Americans

by letting those that would take them away by setting new legal precedences and removing older ones take seats on our courts. That was surrender.

[Jed Dilligan]

255. That's really fucking easy

DLC plan: keep spending billions of dollars jailing marijuana growers, dealers, and smokers.

Alternative plan: tax the trade in marijuana and fund either education or healthcare or both.

[wyldwolf]

256. apparently not so easy

As the OP states, you've provided no links to a DLC plan or a competing plan from a "progressive" organization

[Jed Dilligan]

257. Also easy

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Drugs.htm

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3375

[wyldwolf]

259. apparently not so easy

Your link went to a site that has the DNC's position on drugs, NOT the DLC's, and your other link didn't go to a competing progressive organization.

[Jed Dilligan]

262. What the fuck

is a "competing progressive organization"? Who died and made you the Maker of Rules?

[wyldwolf]

263. you like that word, don't you?

here's how things work. Someone (that would be me) started a thread. The OP has specific things in it. Per DU's rules, you can't change the topic or post irrelevant replies.

[Jed Dilligan]

264. Well, enjoy your tallywhackin'

I think I'll go fuck... Or do something else that is more productive than talking about real policy issues with a DLC supporter.

[wyldwolf]

267. ok.

enjoy... yourself...

[Writer]

270. Now that is fucking sad.

"When people undertake to reason, all is lost."

- Voltaire.

[Jed Dilligan]

276. Who's reasonable here?

I don't see anyone undertaking to reason in this thread. You can't mean wyldwolf, can you? The guy is keeping score. That's not reason--it's childishness.

[Writer]

280. ...

(shakes her head at point completely lost)

[Jed Dilligan]

281. Could you restate "point"?

[Zorra]

271. This OP appears to be a strawman argument.

First of all, the PDA is a fledgling grassroots organization, and does not have an extremely detailed policy plan as far as I can tell. It does not, at this juncture, have an immediate need for one, and one of the strawmen you have set up is your apparent implied but unwritten premise that the PDA, or DFA, etc. should have a detailed policy plan, and if they do not, then they are somehow inadequate, and inferior to the DLC as a political organization.

It appears to me that a primary goal of the PDA is to weed out legislators that are beholden to wealthy multi-national corporations because of funding they receive from these corporations, funding that corporations deliberately use to buy influence with legislators in order to get these legislators to vote in their respective corporate interests, and against the interests of the People. Until this primary goal of the PDA, etc., is achieved, any detailed plan that these organizations drafted would be moot, and this situation would be analagous to the American Colonists drafting a Constitution immediately after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and before the War for Independence from the British was even begun.

The DLC, on the other hand, is well-established, and is well funded, almost exclusively by corporations that seek influence within the Democratic Party so that members of the Democratic Party will vote in their respective corporate interests. Many of these same corporations also contribute heavily to republican legislators and organizations, in order that they may likewise have some control of the republican party. So, naturally, the DLC has a detailed policy plan - they wouldn't be getting all that funding to do nothing, (not counting those times when doing nothing is somehow expedient, of course).

The problem that many of us have with the DLC is that it is allied with, and seeks to perpetuate, a broken, and corrupt, system of government - a system of government that is rapidly moving away from democracy, and toward complete corporate governance. Instead of being part of the solution, they contribute to the problem by their very acceptance and support of the status quo. There is no denying that some of the policies promoted by the DLC are commendable, and that these policies address some of the symptoms of the cancer that is eating away at our democracy, but they propose nothing to cure this cancer. The cancer is corporate control of our government, and we can not save the life of our democracy unless we eliminate this cancer. I am not aware of any DLC detailed policy plan to permanently remove corporate influence from government.

The PDA does not (yet) have need of any detailed policy plan, because no plan can be effective until the PDA, in conjunction with other grassroots pro-democracy organizations and individuals, is successful at eradicating corporate control of our government by getting pro-democracy folks that have integrity elected, in a majority, to high level legislative positions.

In order to re-establish democracy in this country, corporate money and influence must first be eliminated from having effect on our government. The only way, short of bloody revolution, to do this is to identify those legislators that consistently promote corporate interests over democratic interests, use grassroots tactics to get them booted from office, and vote in legislators that have the integrity to refuse corporate money and to institute a transparent system of public campaign financing in which corporations are completely excluded.

The basic plans of action of grassroots organizations such as the PDA are far more realistic than the detailed plans of the DLC, due to the fact that they actually present an eventual solution to the essential problem faced by our nation - and that essential problem is corporate governance.

BTW, one organization to which many of us belong, the Democratic Party, does have a somewhat detailed policy plan, and that plan is known as the Democratic agenda:

http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

[wyldwolf]

274. no

On the contrary, my premise is that because the DLC is criticized so much, other organizations must have better ideas in the form of policy. But where are they?

[union_maid]

275. More initials? Why?

I've been reading this for days. Wonk this, wonk that. The DNC should be good enough and that should stand squarely for fair trade, a social safety net, civil rights for all Americans and a foreign policy based on reality and not a fantasy world hatched in a conservative think tank. We will always have legitimate disagreements about how those goals are best reached, but the reason that the DLC is criticized is that some Democrats believe that the DLC doesn't share some of those basic goals.

Personally, I think there's plenty of variety among DLC Democrats, with the majority of them being quite superior to anyone in the Republican party. I think that a lot of Democrats who embraced the idea of the "third way" have quietly realized that the third way led us to a situation too easily abused and that conditions and problems have changed the dialogue considerably from what it was a decade ago and solutions are now needed for problems that were not really anticipated. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the most widely quoted members of the DLC - Al From and Marshall Wittman.

[LincolnMcGrath]

279. A new low

among the many dlc staffer written self-masturbatory threads.

Congrats!

[Yollam]

288. Here's a better question:

Why continue to support DLC candidates when they have shown no better track record at winning than mainstream or liberal democrats? In fact, to quote David Sirota, "The rise of the DLC within the Democratic Party has coincided almost perfectly with the decline of the Democratic Party's power in American politics -- a decline that took Democrats from seemingly permanent majority status to permanent minority status. In this last election, just think of Democrats' troubles in Ohio as a perfect example of this. Here was a state ravaged by massive job loss due to corporate-written "free" trade deals -- yet Democrats were unable to capitalize on that issue and thus couldn't win the state because the DLC had long ago made sure the party helped pass the very trade policies (NAFTA, China PNTR) that sold out those jobs."

This is not my favorite issue. Name almost any issue and I'll be in disagreement with the republican-lite position on it.

And talk about red herrings - your "challenges": meet the definition of such perfectly:

"2. Avoid red herring-type diversions. Before you ask what the DLC's plan is on something, show us a detailed alternate plan from another group. Extra points if that plan tells how it will be financed."

Well, in the case of NAFTA, there needn't be an alternate plan. Existing law was working well, and NAFTA was simply a horrible idea to depress wages and export jobs and put more money into plutocrats' pockets. The alternate plan was to keep trade agreements as they were, with democratically-enacted environmental and worker protections in place, the same goes for NAFTA's demonic children, CAFTA AND FTAA.

And if you look at wyldwolf's "challenges", they are essentially a reiteration of the GOP taunt that "the Dems have no ideas" when they propose something as preposterous as betting the Social Security nest egg at the Stock Market Casino. We do have a plan - it's called Social Security and it has worked great and will continue to work great with only the slightest of tinkering, and doesn't need to be privatized or "saved". But that's the DLC's modus operandi - to act as the GOP's surrogates within the democratic party to find ways of getting democrats to support ideas that democrats who give a fig about working people are naturally opposed to.

You want a health plan that works? Instead of concocting corporate welfare schemes, did it ever occur to anyone in the DLC to simply look at the numerous western European countries' national health care plans and simply copy them? They are all much cheaper than our present system or the Hillarycare approach that was resoundingly defeated in a bipartisan fashion. DFA or PDA? I live in Japan right now and I pay less than $100 a month to cover my family of 4 with low copayments, short waits, excellent care, a free choice of doctors and inexpensive prescription drugs. It works great and has done so for decades. So simply copy the Japanese plan, or the Canadian plan, or the British plan. ANY of them would be far superior to the present nightmare or the DLC's corporate welfare alternative.