The DLC threatened Clinton with losing for not toeing the line. 1994

[madfloridian]

This was interesting to me. I had not read it before. Al From seems to have been projecting a lot of power on the party then as well. I frankly was not aware of the ins and outs of the CLinton health care bill, but I sure did not know the DLC was so against it. This is a fascinating article from over 10 years ago.

It looks like Clinton tried to govern differently than they expected. Read the whole article. Interesting.

Party centrists issue stern warning to White House - Democratic Leadership Council

...."But the DLC's growing hostility about the Clinton White House's move from New Democratic ideas really began last fall, when the president unveiled his health care reform plan. DLC leaders flatly rejected the government-run plan crafted by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying it was an old liberal proposal that could not pass. At the time, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, a DLC vice chairman, said the plan was "too big, too costly, too bureaucratic." Publicly, DLC leaders who wanted a cheaper, more market-oriented plan kept their criticism focused on the policy implications of the health care issue. Privately some of them criticized the first lady for pushing the plan on the party and giving Republicans a chance to use it to define her husband as "another big-government liberal."

"When that came out, it was a defining moment for clinton and for our party," said a DLC House lawmaker who asked not to be identified. "That's when some of us began having our doubts."

..."I think for President Clinton there is a pretty blunt message in this poll," DLC President Al From told reporters this week. "It's `Get with the program or you'll have to pay the consequences.'"

Will Marshall, who heads the group's Progressive Policy Institute, said the poll showed that swing voters who helped elect Clinton were sending the president and the Democrats this message: "We are disappointed in what you've done, but we haven't given up on you. You have one last chance. You govern as a New Democrat, unequivocally as a New Democrat, and you can win us back, and you can win back the vital center of the electorate. But if you don't, you're in big trouble."

They said Clinton had failed to identify himself, his administration and his party with their new, more centrist approach to government.

Interesting. Same key players who attacked Howard Dean in 03. And called him liberal and wacky, and called us fringe. Yet he governed as a centrist and had been one of them. Didn't toe the line.

Calling us fringe

I feel it is important to look back at the history of who is controlling the party and pulling the strings. I realize some think I am attacking. No, I am not. I am aware that large forces are still at play, and they should not be ignored.

There is more from From in this article...and it is astounding in the power he seems to think he wields. Amazing.

Such criticism, with its implicit warnings of withdrawn support if Clinton does not heed the DLC's advice, feeds speculation within the party that the president could face a challenge from his party's centrists if he stays his political course.
From believes that "it's not too late for the president to save his presidency," but that he first must acknowledge his errors and set about to correct them. Yet, as one conservative Democrat remarked this week, "So far, they don't want to admit that they've done anything wrong."

The party Democrats today are echoing the strategy words of this group in almost everything they say about policy. Going down the same road.

[whistle]

1. Jesus, back in 1994 Joe Lieberman revealed his true stripes

...yet this guy was kept on for a dozen more years. It is good that he is out of the party.

[Warpy]

2. From and his merry band of Wall Street Democrats

need to stop calling themselves CENTRISTS.

87% of the people in this country want a substantial increase in the minimum wage, and they want it to kick in immediately, not 3 years' worth of inflation down the road.

A majority want the US out of Iraq, either immediatly or on a time schedule.

A majority of people in this country are ready for national health. They know the insurance industry has failed miserably at extending coverage to all people, and having a fifth of us uninsured is unacceptable.

A majority are sick of seeing good jobs go overseas. They're none too secure in their own jobs, between offshoring, illegals, and mechanization.

That's where the center is. The DLC Democrats are CONSERVATIVES. As long as they stay in power, the party will continue to lose. And it will deserve to.

[madfloridian]

3. Took the power away from the people of the party.

That's the sad part.

[Dr.Phool]

4. The bastards are still running amok here in Florida.

They are really pissed that we decisively defeated their boy in the 5th district primary. We went to a couple of DEC meetings Saturday, and they were foaming at the mouth.

I got a lot of feedback today about what went on after we left the meetings early for other events. DLCer's are not happy at all.

I think they would be happier if Ginny Brown-Waite is re-elected over a progressive Democrat.

[madfloridian]

7. They picked Penberthy.

He was a good man, a nice person. So is Russell. They were training him already.

[Dr.Phool]

10. Sure he was a nice guy.

But very maleable. He went to DC, and started getting training by the likes of Jane Harman. His own campaign manager (Kevin Cate) actually said, at a DFA meeting no less, that all the media is very liberal. Especially FOX! Which btw, was his former employer.

[madfloridian]

11. Yep.

I heard about that, but couldn't believe anyone would say it.

[madfloridian]

15. Here's one of the big players in Florida....from 2000.

He is running for a judgeship now. He was pretty much in charge of our county party for a long time, and since no on realized what this group was doing...the party sort of followed along.

This is from a TNR article I can't find now, but I have a lot of the text;

That, as they say, was then. Now Rosenberg can't walk five feet across the convention floor without shaking a hand or kissing a cheek. Everywhere we turn, it seems, he's running into a congressional candidate or city councilman or state representative or another "one of the bright young stars we're working with." Making his way through the Florida delegation, for example, he's greeted by the state party chair, the head of the state DLC, and a gruff lawyer from Lakeland named Bob Grizzard. Defiantly wearing a t-shirt from Clinton's 1992 campaign over his checkered oxford shirt, Grizzard tells me he's a "proud member of the DLC." When I ask him about the prominence of liberal speakers on the convention docket, he says, "We're the party of diversity and inclusion," then pauses before adding, "and if they don't want to swallow DLC, we'll stick it to 'em." A minute later, he grabs the shoulders of an African American delegate and pulls him over. "He's not quite with us yet," Grizzard confides to me jokingly, "but we'll give him time." Grizzard's friends are a little embarrassed by the gesture but share his triumphalism nonetheless. "The DLC is the wind in our sails," says Bob Poe, the state party chair."

http://www.tnr.com/082800/foer082800.html


So, my friend, that is how it is done.

[JeffR]

5. Before the usual suspects show up to hijack this thread

Let me just say thanks for posting this.

K&R!

:kick:

[madfloridian]

8. Well, they would miss me if I didn't do this stuff now and then.

They really enjoy the discussions we have. :-)

[Jim Sagle]

9. Someone will soon be driving up in a Bentley.

;)

[AtomicKitten]

17. these guys?

no charge for the bump

[wyldwolf]

18. you mean when someone shows up to disrupt the echo chamber?

[KoKo]

52. .....don't bother their here"....Hi Wyldwolf... n/t

[wyldwolf]

77. sorry to bust up your dittofest

[CarlVK]

6. HAhaaha, beautiful!

ExPOSED!!!! And the DLC went on to steer us into a corral reef in 2004.

Thanks a ton, assholes. I hope Al Fromm is sunk to the bottom of the sludge pile by now.

[madfloridian]

12. In light of that article, I am concerned about unions aligning with DLC

And they are doing it strongly now. They are tied with the DLC very much.

"In attendence were IAFF President Harold Schaitberger and SEIU President Andy Stern, as well as pol. dirs from several other unions.
Labor officials and DLCers are generally at daggers drawn over trade (NAFTA, CAFTA) and over the nature and future of the American economy.
But Stern (who regularly meets with GOPers on Capitol Hill) and Schaitberger (whose Kerry-endorsing union has centrist members and maintains good relations with the GOP leadership)are not your average labor leaders.

The conversation this morning was cordial and frank, according to participants. The labor leaders made clear they did not appreciate the DLC's touting of those Dems who voted in favor of CAFTA. The DLCers defended their economic principles. Attendees hope for more meetings in the future.

"The table is set for us to come together on an ongoing basis," Schaitberger tells The Hotline.

Vilsack spent almost three hours on 11/8 with the remnants of the labor/America Votes coalition and labor pol. operatives, part of a series of dinners put together by ex-AFL-CIO pol. dir/ex-ACT CEO Steve Rosenthal.

Big-name participants included consultant Mike Lux, ex-America Votes Pres. Cecile Richards , AFL-CIO Pol. Dir. Karen Ackerman, EMILY's List's Ellen Malcolm, Anna Burger of SEIU and Change to Win, ATLA's Linda Lipsen, League of Conservative Voters' Deb Callahan, the NEA's John Stocks, MoveOn's Tom Mattzie and Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solomnese.

Said one attendee: "Tom Vilsack brings good credentials and sincerity in problem solving which our country needs."

Another: "I don't think he's fleshed things out overall but he has a solid foundation and is comfortable with himself."

The same group plans dinners with other potential '08 contenders."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/11/vilsack_bridges.html

My concern is that these unions are not just working with the Democratic party, they are just as supportive of Republicans.

AND they are working with the groups who shipped their jobs overseas...the DLC and the Republicans. More and more it seems like there is so much working together, that it is looking like one party stuff. That is not healthy.

I realize this is Vilsack's doing, trying to bridge. But this is the group that was formed in order to distance themselves from the traditional people in the party like the unions.

Just color me sort of suspicious and sort of confused.

[Greyhound]

13. The Corporate Party has their operatives everywhere...

They pretty much rule the re:puke: party and they have a disproportional influence in ours.

Their agenda is not what many would like to think it is.

[madfloridian]

14. I am rather concerned about MoveOn's ties to them.

I am glad to see organizing going on across the party, but I just sort of get the uh oh feeling...like where will their loyalties lie.

"big-name participants included consultant Mike Lux, ex-America Votes Pres. Cecile Richards , AFL-CIO Pol. Dir. Karen Ackerman, EMILY's List's Ellen Malcolm, Anna Burger of SEIU and Change to Win, ATLA's Linda Lipsen, League of Conservative Voters' Deb Callahan, the NEA's John Stocks, MoveOn's Tom Mattzie and Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solomnese."

I am all for unions becoming powerful again. I just hope this will turn out ok.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Thanks, madfloridian. One to bookmark. K&R.

[wyldwolf]

19. So Russ Feingold lied?

Your article:

"But the DLC's growing hostility about the Clinton White House's move from New Democratic ideas really began last fall, when the president unveiled his health care reform plan. DLC leaders flatly rejected the government-run plan crafted by first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying it was an old liberal proposal that could not pass."

Russ Feingold:

"It was the DLC that came up with the health care plan with the Clintons that was so complicated nobody could understand it."

[madfloridian]

20. I doubt he lied....DLC does disinfo very very very well. They use threats

Look what they did to a very centrist, sensible, practical governor from Vermont. They made fun of him, attacked him, called him a fringe. Just like they called those who supported him.

They spread disinformation about him, they started it in May 03.

BTW let's listen to Feingold's speech again about they instilled fear in Democrats who oppose the war,

Heck, they were instilling fear in 1994 on another of their own. Don't get me wrong. Both Clintons are too centrist in their support of corporate goals...for me at least.

But they did threaten Clinton, their own man, in 1994.

Here's Feingold's speech.
http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2006/08/09/feingold-tells-the-truth-about-the-dlc/

Some here adopt threatening tones when questioned, but they just don't realize it.

[wyldwolf]

21. So the DLC tricked Feingold into saying that? Mind control?

Which is the disinformation? What Feingold said or what the article said?

Fiengold said something that wasn't true. Something he should have known wasn't true because he was there at the time.

Meets my definition of a lie - or else he didn't know what he was talking about which is common among "progressives" when referring to the DLC. As Josh Marshall said at TPM (paraphrased): People on the left get all their information from the DLC from other people on the left.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

37. It's a bit more complicated than that

Agree or disagree with Paul Wellstone, he does lay out what happened in his book. He says that the initial healthcare plan was fairly simple and affordable (although single-payer was still preferable). But when Clinton compromised that's when it became unaffordable and too difficult to unerstand.

Feingold's logic is that the DLC (or at least some of its members) is responsible for forcing the compromise, which could be argued considering that there would have been no need for compromise had every democrat in congress lined up behind the initial Clinton healthcare plan and it was the more centrist wing of the party that would not do that.

That being said, I think that we get into trouble when we lump all DLC members together because I'm sure that are some that did support the initial Clinton healthcare plan. David Boren and John Breaux, while DLC members, also pretty much represented a very conservative wing of the democratic party that for the most part no longer exists.

Also, I think that it is a lot easier to make judgements 12 years later. I'm sure that if the leaders on all sides of the party could go back and time and do this over, they would.

[madfloridian]

51. You are right. The plan became more complicated than it had to be.

And you are right. We should not lump all together. I really don't think I have done that. I am very concerned about certain of the leaders who started it. I believe they have affected our party tremendously through the last few years.

[paulk]

22. you do realize that the author of this article is the chief political

correspondent for the Washington Times? Google "Donald Lambo".

This is his interpretation of what the DLC said, and considering his political leanings, should be read with that in mind.


---------------------------


This is a new low for you, MF - using the 12 year old rantings of a right wing pundit to attack Democrats with.

[madfloridian]

24. From 1993...Clinton discussion with reporters. Were words in quotes true?

Did the reporter correctly report quotations from the DLC leaders? If he did, then that is true.

Obviously something was going on. I did not know it was then, and I was not paying attention to the health care plan ins and outs. However, if the words in the quotes are true, then they did criticize him. I found this interview that indicates something was going on between Clinton and the DLC. I don't know what.

The fact remains that they are doing the same thing now to the activists in the party as they did in 03. They give Bullmoose credence in his flammatory words toward Lamont and his supporters. Read the memos from Al and Bruce from 2003 I posted above.

If the words in the quotes are true, they were saying that Clinton could not win without their support. If the words in quotes in the article are not true, then I guess they did not say that.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=46194

From 1993

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=46194
The President. "He saved the budget. But the DLC—well, there's no political correctness test here. Nobody can agree on every issue. But the DLC endorsed the Brady bill early. The DLC was an early supporter of the Brady bill, an early supporter of family medical leave, and—

Q. You haven't been critical about them, so they've been a little critical of you.

The President. "Yes, but that's why I—they said some things about the budget earlier on that I thought were not accurate. But Breaux didn't; he stayed with us on it and helped us pass it. So did Lieberman. So did Steny. So did most of the leaders. But I think they were wrong, and I said that.

On the health care thing, if you go back and read the DLC's health care package, which was written by Jeremy Rosner who now works in the White House, I think we're much closer on health care than you think. I think that a lot of this stuff has been overbloom. Every time one of them or one of us says, "Here's what the difference is between our two health care plans," somebody says, "Oh, they're dumping on each other again." I think that it's just an honest discussion. I predict that you will see an accommodation that will cause a health care plan to pass next year that has universal coverage and good benefits, and that's what I want."

[wyldwolf]

26. It's more of those DLC Jedi mind tricks discussed in post 20

See, Feingold didn't lie because somehow the DLC used disinformation and threats to make Feingold be dishonest.

[paulk]

23. The copyright for this article is held by Rev. Moon's Unification

Church - News World Communication, Inc.


------------------------


10 recommendations for greatest page so far....

way to go DU!

[madfloridian]

25. Did the reporter misquote Will Marshall and Al From?

Did Marshall say this?

"Will Marshall, who heads the group's Progressive Policy Institute, said the poll showed that swing voters who helped elect Clinton were sending the president and the Democrats this message: "We are disappointed in what you've done, but we haven't given up on you. You have one last chance. You govern as a New Democrat, unequivocally as a New Democrat, and you can win us back, and you can win back the vital center of the electorate. But if you don't, you're in big trouble."

Did Al From say this? If these things are true, they were power plays against Clinton. And I did not know they did that. Were they true?

..."I think for President Clinton there is a pretty blunt message in this poll," DLC President Al From told reporters this week. "It's `Get with the program or you'll have to pay the consequences."

[paulk]

32. what are your objections to what From and Marshall said?

These statements were made right after the 1994 midterm election debacle - and would seem to be an accurate assessment of the public's reactions to the first two years of Clinton's presidency.

The "power play" stuff resides in your imagination. The DLC doesn't make policy - they're a think tank - they give out advice.

Advice Clinton apparently took, since he moved to the center after 2004 and easily won re-election in 2006.


-----------------------

[wyldwolf]

27. this is just so much more hypocritical nonsense from the anti-DLC brigade

MF's beef seems to be that the DLC somehow threatened to kick Bill Clinton out of the party or make him lose over the healthcare initiative, although that isn't what the editorial says.

But even if that was what was being said, "progressives" constantly threaten elected Democrats with "losing" if they don't toe the "progressive line." Do you not think the DLC should have that option, too?

"Progressives" often attack other Democrats openly. The DLC isn't allowed to?

[madfloridian]

28. What is going on is dangerous.

I have some more stuff but I am not going to post them right now. Have some places to go and things to do today.

I think what is going is dangerous. I asked if the words were truly spoken by Marshall and From. No answer.

I have questions about more things as well.

Whenever you try to impugn my character, I will not back down.

[wyldwolf]

29. yes, it is dangerous. But not for the reasons you think

I have some more stuff but I am not going to post them right now.

I'm sure you do, but there is nothing new under the sun.

I asked if the words were truly spoken by Marshall and From. No answer.

Do you believe everyone should answer questions posed to them? Do you?

I asked you questions all day yesterday that you avoided. And you avoided my questions in THIS thread today.

[tkmorris]

33. I do

"I asked if the words were truly spoken by Marshall and From. No answer.

Do you believe everyone should answer questions posed to them? Do you?"

I think that one should be answered, because that's the crux of the matter. The source of the article is irrelevant if the facts presented within it are true.

[paulk]

34. see post #32

The crux of what matter? That the DLC mind control monsters made Bill Clinton do ..... something (I'm not sure what)?


"I asked if the words were truly spoken by Marshall and From" is a meaningless question. It's a non sequitur. So what if they're true? How does that prove whatever it is MF is trying to prove?


-------------

The source of right wing propaganda is never irrelevent - especially when the "facts" are taken out of context or twisted to fit an ideological agenda. And you can bet money that any ideological agenda pursued by the Washington Times or the Reverend Moon is not to
your advantage.



-------------------

Congratulations to all those who recommended this garbage - another blog that picked this up here:

http://www.spectator.org/blogger_comments.asp?BlogID=1457


Yeah, that's right. The American Spectator. You're in good company.

[paulk]

31. no one needs to impugn your character

that you would post an article written by a known right winger who works for a right wing news organization -

an organization owned by Reverend Moon of the Unification Church

as a prop in your never ending war against fellow Democrats


says it all.

[CarlVK]

38. You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

30. Dean supported NAFTA in 1995!

:boring:

[bobbolink]

35. Gotta love that DLC.

That's why so many state organizations are doing their best to put them out to pasture.

We'd just like to have our party back.

[madfloridian]

36. Staying in Iraq and spreading Democracy to other countries...

appears to be the goal. I have articles from left sources and right sources. I have articles from middle sources. I don't like Jackson Diehl at the WP, but he puts it very clearly about the dangers that exist in the policies of the DLC.

I am tired of having my character blasted on this topic, so I will take a break from posting about them while I gather more.

This article is very clear, and I think we should beware. This is not about my personality, or about the source I use. I have OH SO MANY sources.

This is about a group formed to pull us to the right and join the Republicans with goals that are similar, especially in foreign policy. It is dangerous to the health of the people in Iraq, our soldiers, and to our economy. We will not survive as a great nation any longer if we keep on trying to change the middle east.

Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101182.html

Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism.

Their problem isn't only that some people (mostly Republicans and independents) don't believe they exist. Or that the flamers at MoveOn.org would expel them from the party if that were possible. They also face the formidable task of rescuing what they believe is a quintessentially Democratic policy agenda from the wreckage of the Bush administration, so that a future president can do it right.

This month they published a fascinating book that lays out what the foreign policy of a winning campaign by one of those Democrats -- or perhaps Hillary Clinton -- could look like. Sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, which is an outgrowth of the Clinton-friendly Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), it's called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty."

Like most of its authors, editor Will Marshall, a DLC founder who now heads the policy institute, sees himself as reviving the foreign policy of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, who formulated the Democratic response to the totalitarian menace of communism. Jihadism, Marshall says, requires a similar exercise of intellectual muscle. "Democrats have always been at our best when we have defended democratic values against illiberal ideologies," Marshall told me last week. "When we do that we can appeal to a broader public, not only at home but globally."

Unfortunately, Pollack and his fellow Democrats acknowledge, no liberal policy in the Middle East will work if Iraq fails. While Democrats differ over whether the invasion was right, notes an introduction by Marshall and Jeremy Rosner, both national interests and national honor demand that "we not abandon the Iraqi people to chaos and sectarian violence."

This group will most likely prevail. We will probably not leave Iraq ever, and we will continue to spread our love and peace over all the middle east.

And anyone who tries to call attention and say look what is going on behind the curtain will be attacked.

If the words I posted from the mouths of Marshall and From are true, then they believe they control the party and controlled the presidency as surely as the religious groups think they do in the Republican party.

[wyldwolf]

39. ...back in the real world.

Staying in Iraq and spreading Democracy to other countries appears to be the goal.

Well, MF, the American people are still pretty much divided on when and how to withdraw troops from Iraq, but you speak as though it is a forgone conclusion that getting out of Iraq immediately is what everyone wants. Truth is, the Democratic party can't seem to agree on exactly what plan to put forth on Iraq, but the DNC's website claims we will ensure success in Iraq. Ensuring success in Iraq certainly doesn't involve packing up and leaving. Even Howard Dean has reservatons about leaving Iraq. He laid out three ways that a withdrawal from Iraq could endanger the United States.

"An American pullout could endanger the United States in any of three ways , Dean said: by leaving a Shiite theocracy worse than that in Iran, which he called a more serious threat than Iraq ever was; by creating an independent Kurdistan in the north, with destabilizing effects on neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran and Syria, and by making the Sunni Triangle a magnet for Islamic terrorists similar to the former Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. 'That's where Al Qaida will set up,' he said." (Conrad Defiebre, "Howard Dean Warns Of Danger In Iraq Pullout," Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN Star Tribune, 4/21/05)

And Dean has embraced a plan that would redeploy troops in the region.

I also find it interesting that you would put the passage concerning Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy in bold (as though you disagree with it) while at the same time, you seem to have an issue with spreading Democracy to other countries. But spreading Democracy to other countries has been the backbone of Democratic foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson ("Liberal Internationalism.")

---------

Funny thing is, the entire basis of your continuing crusade against the DLC is that they are somehow this vast apparatus who are pulling the strings of the Democratic party. Yet, Howard Dean himself said of the DLC: "I don’t think the DLC is a serious force of politics outside Washington (DC). I don’t think anybody knows who any of them are, and know that they pay much attention... I mean I don’t think the average American or the average voter, ( they ) have no idea who the DLC is nor do they care."

And I'll go one further - the entire "progressive" movement, including the failed Dean presidential run, is based on the myth of a Democratic establishment (the DLC?) that must be overcome:

...perhaps Dean's most impressive feat, admirers and critics alike agree, has been "taking on the Washington Democratic establishment," as pundit Tucker Carlson recently put it on CNN. Dean has faced a phalanx of Washington-based candidates--Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)--each of whom enjoys such establishment advantages as name recognition, a passel of ace political consultants, and deep Beltway roots.

A week before Christmas, I decided to seek out the Democratic establishment, hoping to stride through its halls of power and behold its vastness firsthand. Catching a cab a few blocks from the White House, I made my way down K Street, passing by the trade associations and corporate offices that today rarely hire a lobbyist without approval from Republican leaders on the Hill. Veering onto Massachusetts Avenue, we drove by the gleaming wedge of glass and concrete that houses the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank spearheading President Bush's effort to privatize Social Security, and circled around the Capitol, where Republicans control both chambers of Congress and Democrats have trouble lining up rooms to caucus in. We passed by the Heritage Foundation, numerous alumni of which now help set national policy in the Bush administration, turned right, and meandered over to Capitol Hill, a funky neighborhood perpetually on the verge of gentrification.

The driver let me off in front of a modest, four-story brick office building which houses, among other things, a temp agency, a dry cleaners, and the National Barley Growers Association. The security guard ignored me as I slipped into the elevator, rode to the top floor, and stepped out into the modest, pastel-colored reception area of the Democratic Leadership Council, which helped get the last Democratic president into office, and whose early and frequent criticisms of Dean have helped highlight his fight against the Washington establishment. I was led through a quiet warren of cubicles to the large, paper-strewn office of Bruce Reed, the DLC's president, chief policy thinker, and resident wit. Reed is a cheerful, outgoing sort who usually appears younger than his 43 years. But today, an air of resignation lurks behind the smile.

When I ask him what the establishment is doing to stop Dean, Reed grimaces slightly, as if he's just taken a sip of castor oil. "What are we doing to stop him?" asks Reed. "From our standpoint, this has always been up to the candidates themselves." Reed and his colleagues at the DLC--often painted by liberals as a centrist Death Star, bulging with corporate money and insidious influence over party affairs--have published a few op-eds comparing Dean's candidacy to George McGovern's disastrous 1972 run. But that's about it. Some DLC operatives are working with Lieberman, others with Edwards. The New Democratic Network, a DLC-descended PAC, hasn't attacked Dean; instead, they've praised his use of the Internet to build a campaign organization. "Let's back up to your central premise," Reed continues, gazing wearily at a 7-inch-tall cup of Starbucks sitting before him on a conference table. "There is no establishment. We"--meaning Washington Democrats--"are a constellation of interest groups and ideologies and congressional voices. The evidence that there isn't an establishment is just the mere fact that we have so many candidates--and such a collective inability to choose between them."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0401.confessore.html

-----

And finally, you really should get over the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is attacking you.

[madfloridian]

40. Read this. Please never again say they did not attack Dean and us.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

As to staying in Iraq....it does not matter what we think. Actually I was not sure how I felt for a while. Now I think our military is going to be hostage if we don't start getting out. Either we kill many more and have many more killed or we get out.

I am after the truth. They supported this invasion. They don't want us to get out. They make anyone who speaks sensibly about the horrible civilian deaths and military losses sound foolish and weak. That is so sad.

What Dean thinks now is not really a concern at all, because as he reiterated Sunday on Fox...he speaks for the party and the cumulative stances they have.

You talk to me as if I don't have a brain in my head, and I very much resent it. That is how the DLC has been treating the party for years...talking down to them. Here in our area, it still rules supreme. Those who want our Democrats to stand up and say what we did about Iraq was wrong....are told that we are sounding like DFA. They quit using the Deaniacs word...now we are acting DFAish.

Of course we are just ordinary people who don't like the direction the party took when it went to war, when it passed CAFTA, when it passed the bankruptcy bill.

And would you tell Bruce Reed when you see him that I don't ever remember anyone I know calling that group the Centrist Death Star. I just think they have higher loyalties. They have corporate loyalties well met by this war of profit. They have no need for the people, they effectively discounted us years ago.

[wyldwolf]

43. where did I say or imply "they" did not criticize Dean?

And why do you lately refer to a journal entry of yours as proof of a point no one is even arguing?

[Cocoa]

41. I wouldn't turn to Donald Lambro to understand Pres. Clinton

he's not exactly a reliable source...

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/donaldlambro

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&cof=AWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3BBGC%3A%23FFFFFF%3BT%3A%23000000%3BLC%3A%230000CC%3BVLC%3A%230000CC%3BALC%3A%230000CC%3BGALT%3A%23008000%3BGFNT%3A%23000000%3BGIMP%3A%23000000%3BDIV%3A%230000CC%3BLBGC%3A%23FFFFFF%3BAH%3Acenter%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&q=lambro+clinton&btnG=Search&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

[madfloridian]

42. Actually the article made me feel pretty good about Clinton.

It really did. It has bothered me to see with the Bush family so much, and to hear about Hilary and Murdoch.

I felt better about Clinton after reading this. So in that way it was very good.

I have many sources from left, right, and middle about the DLC. I think we need to know about the group that persuaded so many good honest Democrats to vote for a wrongheaded war.

[Cocoa]

44. but I wouldn't think it's based on the truth

ok you feel better, but can you trust it?

Both Clintons have a lot of misinformation said about them, much of it designed to sound believable, but still not true.

I wouldn't think I knew anything more about Clinton or the DLC after reading this. I would know what a RW rag is spreading about them, which is nice to know, but it's not the same thing.

[madfloridian]

45. The game of semantics is dangerous to all of us.

When playing word games takes the place of addressing real issues, then we are all in trouble together.

[wyldwolf]

48. so quit doing it.

[madfloridian]

50. More "dumpster diving"?

Is that what it's called when we worry about our party's direction? When we worry that some want to stay in Iraq so we can go on spreading Democracy? When we worry about the draft coming if this continues, and more and more lives lost.

Then a new meme is developed....and it is directed at me and those like me. I call it research and being knowledgeable about my party. Some call it "dumpster diving." I was said to be doing that here a few days ago.

Kind of sad. Ran across this on a search for more on what Feingold said.
http://donkeydigest.com/?p=333

Oh, and as much as I respect Josh Marshall who is referred to there, I beg to differ. Before the Iraq war most of never heard of this group. We just saw strange things happening in local parties. Things like play nice, don't be ugly to the Republicans..it will divide our country. Things like we have to trust the president to defend us without question. Strange things coming from Democrats.

The first time I was called "fringe" was in 2003. I knew something was very wrong. I am about the least "fringe" person you would ever meet. Strong Southern Baptist background, fitting in comfortably in my conservative area. It was the DLC who called us that, and it was because we supported a VT governor named Howard Dean.

I call it research because I am worried about my country. Some call it "dumpster diving."

I guess time will tell.

[wyldwolf]

53. apparently so

When someone spends an enormous amount of time digging through archived articles trying to find a little dirt (or info perceived as dirt), THAT is dumpster diving.

If you were truly worried about the party's direction, you'd set a better example and not try to spin everything remotely related to the DLC as sinister.

Remember what your idol Howard Dean said...

(and we thank you for sending us hits to the blog!)

[madfloridian]

54. Could you define the line between dumpster divinig and research?

Could you tell when one ends and the other begins? Does it matter at all that truth on this topic is overwhelmed by name-calling?

http://donkeydigest.com/?p=333

I notice this site also used Lambro as a source in an article. Guess it depends on who does it.

I would never imagine calling someone a dumpster diver.

[wyldwolf]

56. Thank you! Because of you, I have $2.38 more in Google Adsense today!

...and rising.

Political Dumpster Diving: an obsessive quest for any piece of information that can be spun to meet an agenda.

Research: To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner.

[madfloridian]

57. You are welcome. I was not sure that was you.

Glad you verified.

[wyldwolf]

59. its partly me, One of three

Now you have a NEW place to dumpster dive!

[madfloridian]

65. Actually it's not a bad blog at all.

Lots of good stuff there. I disagree about Malloy, I liked him. But then I am a mixture of moderate and liberal and probably some Southern fundamentalism still inside me.

[wyldwolf]

67. well, thank you. I'll pass along the compliment.

[madfloridian]

68. Did you have to say "fringe lefties"? I mean, isn't that getting old?

You, Al, Will, Bruce...Marshall...just quit right now calling any of us fringe.

It would go a long way toward working together. I believe some are trying to modify the tone...but the "fringe lefty" stuff is just old, getting older.

[wyldwolf]

69. I guess the same would go for...

Repub-lite, DLC mole, Republican...

[madfloridian]

55. Another site quotes Lambro.

http://donkeydigest.com/?p=323

No disclamer when linking to the Washington Times in a recent article. Just saying.

[wyldwolf]

58. excellent

See how that blog uses a rightwing source and a more nuetral balanced source (E.J. Dionne) to arrive at the same conclusion?

Notice Lambro wasn't the only source cited to make the point.

[madfloridian]

60. Ok, will ready some more for another thread sometime.

I have left, right, middle sources.

[wyldwolf]

61. by my count, that is the third time you've "announced" that.

And we're all shaking in our boots.

[madfloridian]

62. Not really.

;)

[wyldwolf]

63. yes really. We're all real scared you've found something real damning!

Me, the DNC, the DLC, and the rest are all shredding documents as I type this.

[madfloridian]

64. Now that is funny.

:7

[wyldwolf]

66. I'm sorry, the shredders are too loud. Could you repeat that?

[paulk]

70. there's no disclaimer needed, all they needed was to mention

the name, Donald Lambro, and that he's writing for the Washington Times. Indeed, the context makes it clear that the opinion expressed is coming from the right side of the aisle. The quote is used to support the idea expressed by EJ Dionne in the previous article that Democrats will gain seats in the upcoming election. It's not used to cast aspersions on Democrats, like your (unattributed) article.

here's the full article -

"Indeed, Donald Lambro at the Washington Times contends history favors the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

The race for Congress and the nation’s governorships bolted from the Labor Day starting gate yesterday, with voter-preference polls tightening between the parties in an election that both sides said will be even closer by November.

Historically, the party that holds the White House usually loses seats in Congress in a second term, and campaign strategists in both parties expected Democrats to make gains in the House and Senate — while two top election forecasters predicted they will win 15 or more seats that will give them majority control of the House.

If “the political climate remains as it is today — a very big ‘if’ — Republicans will likely lose the House and their dominance of the nation’s governorships, but hang on to the Senate by a thread,” veteran analyst Charlie Cook said last week in his National Journal report.

Analyst Stuart Rothenberg predicted that Democrats would gain between 15 and 20 additional House seats, “which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats — and a majority — in the next House.” "

[madfloridian]

71. Washington Monthly: the DLC "squawked when Bill strayed."

This is from a source quoted above. The Washington Monthly critiques and analyzes Kenneth Baer's book, Reinventing Democrats. Again, my point is that the group kept Bill Clinton on a tight rein apparently. This article seems to verify the other one, and I was just surprised to find this out. I am always being told they just think up stuff, but I still contend they do much more than that.

So if you are going to talk about me at other forums, do it fairly. Do updates, be fair.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0004.pomper.html

"How did a group of elite politicians and operatives transform a political party?

First, they gave themselves a little bit of distance. After several unsuccessful attempts to influence the party establishment from within, the reformers formed the DLC as an extra-party organization in 1985. This avoided what Bruce Babbitt referred to as the "Noah's Ark problem"---the need to satisfy diverse constituents by taking representative positions on behalf of each one. They could also raise their own money (which DLC honchos like Virginia's Chuck Robb were notably good at), start their own think tank (the Progressive Policy Institute), and publicize their own views without tangling with the cumbersome Party bureaucracy.

Second, they worked the rules. They pressured the party to create a new class of "super delegates" consisting of state party leaders and elected officials who, they hoped, would balance out the interest groups that had come to dominate Democratic conventions. They also lobbied to cluster Southern and Western state primaries on "Super Tuesday," so that candidates who were strong in that part of the country (especially conservative Southern Democrats) would get an early boost that could offset a poor showing in more liberal Iowa or New Hampshire.

Third, they aimed for the top. After the Dukakis/Bentsen defeat in 1988, the DLC decided to groom their own hand-picked candidate for the White House. Baer reports that in 1989 Al From flew to Little Rock and told then Governor Bill Clinton: "Have I got a deal for you... If you take the DLC Chairmanship, we will give you a national platform, and I think you will be President of the United States."

And finally, they squawked when Clinton strayed. Baer describes the rising fury within the DLC when Clinton spent his early political capital on "Old Democrat" issues like gays in the military, Lani Guinier, and universal health care. After the disastrous 1994 elections, Dave McCurdy (an Oklahoma congressman who had lost his job) denounced Clinton as a "transitional figure" and PPI began working on a "Third Way Project" that might be the basis for a third-party movement. An embattled Clinton mended the fence by "triangulating" toward more conservative positions and pushing ahead on welfare reform---and by the 1996 elections, the DLC was confident they had him back in the fold."

[wyldwolf]

72. where's you issue in any of this?

1. Clinton's approval ratings were low (as low as 36%) during the first two years of his administration and and averaged in the low 60s (reaching a high of 73%) during the "triangulation" period you mention above.

2. The problem with the Democratic party electorally since 1972 has been their pandering to every special interest group. That is one of the main reasons we've lost on the national level. As mentioned in Kenneth Baer's excellent book, Reinventing Democrats, the DLC and Clinton took the cue from JFK and put the interests of the country as a whole before every faction on the left.

One interesting passage in the book details how everytime someone recommended a policy idea based on national opinion for Mondale to campaign on, he had to go to this organization and that organization to see if it would fly with them.

3. Everyone and their brother has created, or at least attempted to create, extra-party organizations.

The article you quote only proves how politically savvy Clinton and the DLC are.

[madfloridian]

73. The DLC threatened Clinton with losing for not toeing the line. 1994

That was my original point, that is my point now.

I was right.

[wyldwolf]

74. no, Madfloridian, they could not have possibly done that

They could not have possibly threatened Bill Clinton. They apparently believed and warned him he would lose if he kept the course of his first two years. And indeed his early approval ratings seemed to indicate he might be a one term president. But the DLC could not have threatened to make him lose. That wasn't in their power to do.

[madfloridian]

75. You are amazing.

Completely amazing. Congratulations.

[wyldwolf]

76. well, thank you. All it takes is a little bit of reasoning

I might say to the manager of the New York Mets or any sports team, "You guys keep playing like that, and you'll never make it to to the championship."

Now, I didn't just "threaten them with losing." I just pointed out the reality of their situation and a logical conclusion based on it.

[Zhade]

80. What, specifically, is wrong with these groups?

The problem with the Democratic party electorally since 1972 has been their pandering to every special interest group. That is one of the main reasons we've lost on the national level.

The groups you speak of include unions, women's rights groups, GLBT rights groups, etc. Are you seriously suggesting it was wrong to support things like workers' and equal rights? Especially when polls show (at least currently) that most Americans support what conservative factions of the party don't, like single-payer health care and reform/elimination of anti-American-worker policies like NAFTA?

You know, there was another group that didn't like the Democratic party "pandering" to "special interests". They were called Dixiecrats.

So tell us, what's wrong with supporting ("pandering", in your language) things like unions and equal rights for all?

[wyldwolf]

82. ah, Zhade...

before I begin... got those addresses yet?

Now, there is nothing wrong with any of those groups. Where did I say there was?

[annabanana]

78. Marshall (PPI. . PNAC. . .,DLC)

Will Marshall's signature shows up on some PNAC statements, even though his name is no longer on their primary pages..http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030319.htm

[Greyhound]

79. I think the results of this are self-evident. The power brokers of our

party have exercised pretty much total control since those pivotal years 1968 - 1972. They demonstrated that they would rather see Re:puke:s in power, than to give up theirs.

[deaniac21]

81. I try to NEVER think about 1994.

:(