There is no difference between the DLC and the GOP - they are both beholden to corporate interests.

[arendt]

Item 1 - Secret DLC trade deal w Bush (May 12, 2007 http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7422)

Item 2: DLC member Diane Feinstein provides key votes to confirm AG Mukasey and racist judge Southwick; supports telecom amnesty. (http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/censure)

Item 3: DLC member Jane Harman introduces the Orweillian "Homegrown Terrorism" thought control study (HR 1955).

Item 4: Ex-Dem, former VP-candidate, and proud member of the DLC, Joe Lieberman, endorses John McCain.

Item 5: DLC member Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to Poppy Bush and gets egg on her face; votes for Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (pre-NIE); refuses to apologize for Iraq War vote.

-----

If I were to expand the above list to include non-DLC members of the Democratic leadership (with a small "l"), we could add:

Item 6: Nancy Pelosi says "impeachment is off the table"; makes Pete Stark apologize.

Item 7: Harry Reid refuses to filibuster any of Bush's budgets or nominees, but allows GOP filibuster threats to paralyze him; then he tries to ram through telco immunity and is filibustered by his own party.

But, I won't do that because it blurs my focus on the DLC.

----

We have witnessed seven years of DLC acquiescence to (or outright collaboration with) the Bush agenda of foreign wars, domestic repression, corporate ripoffs, and budgetary irresponsibility. Everyone at DU is aware of what the DLC (and their dopplegangers: the "Blue Dogs", and the "New Democrats") stands for: coddling and aping the GOP; negotiating with the thugs who said "bipartisanship is just another word for date rape".

Via vast amounts of expensive PR, the DLC has managed to maintain the bare minimum of "plausible deniability" for its constant undermining of the historical role of the Democratic Party's championing the rights of the working people of America. For instance, at this very moment, when DUers can recite the list of DLC senatorial sellouts from memory ( Nelson, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu, Feinstein, Cantwell...) the DLC can point to someone we respect, Chris Dodd, as a DLC member.

The reason the big money is moving from the GOP to the Dems is that the DLC wing of the Democratic Party offers big money what Bush and the flawed field of GOP candidates cannot: a screen of plausible denaibility behind which the looting of America and the colonization of its government by the multi-national corporations can continue unabated.

As long as the rump of the Democratic Party continues to do business with the DLC and the Democratic leadership that follows the DLC, the rump makes itself an accomplice to the sacking of America. Even the clueless fundies have woken up to being used by the corporate Repubs. When will the clueless enablers of the DLC among the Democratic rank and file wake up to being used by the DLC?

------

I cannot remember ever being seriously attacked on DU for slagging the DLC. Holy Joe is someone we all love to hate. The moderators certainly don't find anti-DLC sentiment to be objectionable.

The purpose of this post is to ask people to connect the dots. If the DLC is bad news, then why are the individual Democratic politicians most deeply involved and identified with the DLC not automatically given the same opprobrium as the DLC itself?

(You probably have at least one such person in mind; but this is not about one person. Its about drawing general conclusions. If you don't get this distinction, see the comment above about Chris Dodd.)

To me, this disconnect is like saying "sure Exxon is a price-gouging, law-breaking, corrupt corporation; but the CEO is really a decent person, and I won't hold the $400M retirement bonus he got against him."

As long as the DLC continues to be an honored and dominant partner in the Democratic Party leadership, the party resembles the corporate media. That is, in the media, the low-level reporters may be intelligent and even liberal people; but it is the editors who decide what gets published - and the editors are corporate to the bone. Ask yourself what you think of the corporate media. Now, how do you feel about the corporate Dems who run this party and campaign to be our president?

-----

The first one to drag Ralph Nader into this thread will win the prize - Al From's voice on your home answering machine.

arendt

[BootinUp]

1. remember 2000.

I'll delete the voice mail without listening to it. lol.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Drat! n/t

[BootinUp]

6. LOL. I win!

[arendt]

11. LoZoccolo wins. He used it in the title, where I saw it first. n/t

[BootinUp]

13. rasberries! nt

[arendt]

18. You can try again next thread :-)

[LoZoccolo]

19. I am going to be like John Travolta in /Saturday Night Fever/ and give you the prize.

You are the one who really deserves it.

[arendt]

22. Aaaw, how sweet, a buddy movie. n/t

[arendt]

12. Looks like I win this debate. Nothing but predictable sneering here. n/t

[BootinUp]

34. see my post below.

[LoZoccolo]

2. That sounds like the Big Green Lie that Nader promoted. n/t

[ulysses]

5. easier than responding to the points in the post, huh?

[LoZoccolo]

20. If someone posted "the Earth is flat" in the subject, I wouldn't respond to that either. n/t

[arendt]

23. So you are on record as supporting the DLC? Can I quote you? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

25. No, you cannot quote me.

It is against the rules.

[arendt]

39. Huh? Seriously, what rule? I have been quoted all over this board, often quite nastily...

If there is such a rule, I have a backlog of complaints to file - all probably long since past the statute of limitations.

Please educate me.

arendt

[arendt]

40. I will honor that, but it is a non-answer. What did your previous statement mean? n/t

[arendt]

61. I read the rules and searched them for the word "quote". Can't find your rule.

If you can't show me the rule, then I will think that you are making it up; and your credibility with me will go down.

arendt

[LoZoccolo]

67. OK, my credibility with you goes down then, lol.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[ulysses]

43. true, but the round earthers eventually provided proof of their position.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Congressional voting records, which is where it counts.

There are party-line votes even by DLC members. Even Joe Lieberman voted along party lines 90% of the time where the two parties differed.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/09/01/lieberman/

[ulysses]

49. "where the two parties differed"

And where they didn't?

Besides, Joe supports a Repuke for president - oh wait, according to you, that's all right.

[LoZoccolo]

52. Do not say that I say that something is alright when I did not say that it is alright. n/t

[arendt]

63. honest question: did you mean this as a response to my #39 above? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

66. No. n/t

[ulysses]

107. didn't you inform me recently that a Dem voting for a Repuke

was simply taking the strategy of voting for the other party? Maybe I missed the condemnation there...

[LoZoccolo]

116. No, that doesn't sound like me at all.

I did say once that single-issue voters might be better off joining the other party and diluting their position, but that was more of an academic argument.

[ulysses]

118. here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3783072#3783573

16, 19, 20 & 22. You are correct that you didn't say it was ok, but as I recall, there were some questions left hanging about why Dems voting for Repukes didn't get their own nickname like "splinterists".

[LoZoccolo]

119. They don't get their own nickname because they don't hang out here.

The strategy I employ for someone who's maybe gotten sucked in to the Republican propaganda is going to be different than someone who knowingly approaches me with a threat against my life and happiness, a threat that entails institutional racism and indirect acts of terrorism. I approach the former with persuasion because I'd like to turn them around make a solid Democrat out of someone impressionable enough to cross the line (if they could be persuaded one way, they show signs of being able to be persuaded back). The latter I approach with ritual shaming because they already know the truth and are out to harm people as a strategy to get what they want.

[ulysses]

120. well, this should be fun.

So, voting third party out of frustration with an increasing rightward drift of the Democratic Party "entails institutional racism and indirect acts of terrorism"? Do tell.

The "ritual shaming" thing is a hoot, too. :D

[LoZoccolo]

121. I've explained it over and over again.

My message is basically to take responsibility for your actions, which seems to be hugely controversial. Cause and effect is apparently a contentious subject. Or people are attention whores who take delight in being nagged, whatver.

[ulysses]

122. it's not controversial, except when applied in the opposite direction.

Democratic conservatives don't like being told that they pushed me to vote third party twice, but facts is facts.

[LoZoccolo]

123. Lame. n/t

[ulysses]

124. again with your "I have no response" response.

:eyes:

As I said, Democratic conservatives don't like being told the truth.

[Forkboy]

125. Don't be so hard on yourself.

[ulysses]

126. perhaps we've reached another point at which

LoZo will retire for the evening, to return to the same well-worn ideas in another thread at a later date...:shrug:

[Forkboy]

127. I think that point was reached years ago with him.

At least that's when I stopped taking him seriously enough to try to actually converse with him on anything more important than the color of orange juice. I make it a habit not to try talking to people who think, "dooga dooga dooga" passes for intelligence and social commentary. :)

[Usrename]

93. OK, explain this one to me then.

Ok, if you are such a parilimentary expert on this, please illuminate us all about this question:

41 votes were needed to stop the Alito confirmation.

42 Senators voted that he was unfit for the office.

There he sits.

Go ahead, illuminate us idiots who just don't know any better.

We are sooooooooo fucking wrong, right?

[arendt]

7. YOU WIN THE PRIZE. Exactly the thought-stopping cliche that I predicted. n/t

[bunnies]

3. I hope you're wearing flame retardant clothing.

:popcorn:

[arendt]

9. I am beyond caring. I am utterly disgusted with DLC-enablers. Thanks for your concern, tho. n.t

[bunnies]

21. for the record...

I dont think anyone despises the DLC as much as I do. But you're braver than I, my friend.

[Mountainman]

8. Just as there is no difference between Genghis Khan and FDR.

They were both good leaders.

[arendt]

10. Gee, its amazing how no one can stick to the subject. How unexpected - NOT. n.t

[Mountainman]

14. Maybe they don't want to partake in your flame baiting thread.

[arendt]

17. So bashing the DLC is flamebait? I thought this was DU, not a GOP site. n/t

[Mountainman]

24. When someone keeps adding to his own thread it is usually flame bait.

If it looks like a duck ................................

[arendt]

27. Utterly lame reasoning. You are adding, not me. You want it to stop, then stop posting. n/t

[L0oniX]

92. Freedom of speech on DU? Yea ...freedom to bash and insult those who don't agree with you.

and sometimes if you bash back they go an cry to the mods. Participating in DU is getting less appealing every day. I might just bow out and make some Hillbot corporate shills happy.

[fascisthunter]

15. You Brought Them Out

Thanks

[BootinUp]

30. I'll take a stab

don't take this the wrong way but.

Your premise ignores the fact that the DLC's goal is not enriching of the rich. It IS winning elections in a time when most Americans do not favor the more liberal policies of the 60's and 70's. Winning the presidency is challenge to be sure based on the Democratic party's performance in Presidential elections in the last few decades. The only clear wins for us were politicians in the DLC type mold. Currently the 2 top contender's for our nomination are clearly candidates that have some policy and rhetoric that harkens back to Bill C. the original DLC man. So your premise does not deserve more response or discussion in my opinion. This is about winning and this is about having a Democrat in the WH. If you want to review Bill C. record to see what a D in the WH can do try these:

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[arendt]

37. Its not "winning" if we replace one corporate puppet with another.

> The only clear wins for us were politicians in the DLC type mold.

But, the wins weren't for "us"; they were for the corporations. Bill Clinton spent his political capital screwing the working man: NAFTA, GATT, Telco deregulation. Next you will be telling us that the pure DLC ticket of Gore/Lieberman was undermined by Al Gore's closet liberal tendencies. Face it, except for Bill, the rest of the DLC are pathetically uncharismatic. All they have is corporate money. That is the stated reason for the formation of the DLC - to get corporate money to "compete" better with the GOP.

> Currently the 2 top contender's for our nomination are clearly candidates that have some policy and rhetoric that harkens back to Bill C.

Oh, you mean the two people who get all the media coverage and literally hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate money just happen to be leading after a year of unprecedentedly early heavy campaigning - at a point when most people don't pay any attention to next year's election.

----

I find that a lot of DLC/GOP bullshit can be decoded by inserting/substituting the word "corporate" for the word "voter" or "people" or "Democrat".

So, I would say:

The only clear wins for the CORPORATIONS were politicians in the DLC type mold.

Currently the top contenders for the CORPORATE nomination are...

----

But, seriously, thank you for taking up the challenge. It was refreshingly polite.

arendt

[BootinUp]

42. What is your definition of corporate money?

Corporations cannot contribute directly to a candidate's campaign.

[cascadiance]

44. If they can't, it won't be long before they claim they can, since they claim they are "persons"!

... and therefore will claim they have the right to contribute directly to candidates just like people can.

The only problem is that, one big corporation as one person staying within the individual contribution limits wouldn't be able to donate much, so they probably don't pursue that. They indirectly contribute the big bucks instead, which they are loophole allowed to do now courtesy of folks like Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff.

[arendt]

59. Corporate money is "soft money"; bundled contributions, akin to Bush Pioneers...

I know companies that give extra salary to executives with the implicit (literally unspoken or it would be illegal) understanding that the money is to be contributed as some leading executive indicates by his own contribution.

The campaign finance laws are toothless. Mandatory public funding is the only way to end the system of legalized bribery.

arendt

[fascisthunter]

16. Kick and Recommend (nt)

[dbackjon]

26. Nice Flamebait...

Criticizing the DLC is fine. But to suggest their is no difference between them and the Thugs is downright idiotic.

[arendt]

29. I just gave you five solid reasons. There is no difference. Prove there is. n/t

[dbackjon]

35. Supreme Court #1

really, if you don't see any difference, then nothing anyone writes will change your mind, since it has already decided that the DLC is evil corporatists.

[arendt]

38. ? Alito? Roberts? - they were not stopped. Feinstein votes racists onto the bench.

Besides, Bush has already blown off the SCOTUS on its Gitmo decision, and the Dems have done zip to reverse that.

The corporate Dems are toothless. They will trade their profits for our rights any day.

arendt

[tblue37]

45. But a DLC Dem in the WH would not put a Roberts or Alito up

for confirmaton in the first place.

[dbackjon]

47. Ya think??

That is the point that the OP doesn't seem to understand.

[cascadiance]

48. But a DLC Dem wouldn't put up a *strict* constructionist that would overturn corporate personhood!

That way they would be consistent in also not overturning Roe v. Wade. Often wished one of them would ask that of Alito or Roberts (How they could call themselves "constitutional constructionist" judges and allow a court clerk activist decision from the 19th century to still be used as a basis for corporations having rights as "persons"). Of course none of the DLC Dems took that opportunity to ask Alito or Roberts that, did they...

[cali]

28. I have no use for the DLC.

but the old saw that there's no difference blah, blah, blah, is not one I buy into. And if people aren't commenting on the supposed meat in this thread, that could be because there isn't much. Furthermore if you're actually suggesting that individual members of the DLC don't get opprobrium on DU, well, what can you say to such nonsense?

[asdjrocky]

31. I could not have said it better-

Thanks so much for the post. You hit all he right points.

Might I add, Mark Penn is a darling of th DLC?

[arendt]

32. I acknowledge an "ignored" person. n/t

[BootinUp]

33. lol. nt

[cali]

36. I'm the ignored person. It's a badge of honor.

I can't abide pretentious, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but I gotta admit the OP's thread in GD yesterday, in which he compared DU to a Cromwell's battlefield, was a riot.

[stimbox]

50. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"I can't abide pretentious, pseudo-intellectual nonsense"

Coming from the queen of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual nonsense that's pretty funny.
I nominate you for a Duzy.

:rofl:

[cali]

54. I'm snarky as hell, but pretentious? not even close

Pseudo-intellectual? Ha. I don't even claim to be an intellectual.

Your dislike of me motivates your bullshit and forced humor. And I'm afraid your nomination, like your failed attempt at snark, is doomed to failure.

Oh yeah, I can do little emoticons too:

:eyes: :hi: Wow. Two of them.

[stimbox]

55. Nice try but no cigar... n/t

[cali]

57. aww, pookie, can't you do better than that? n/t

[sniffa]

76. .

:thumbsup:

[arendt]

41. Time out - several hours to commute home and eat dinner. n/t

[sarcasmo]

51. Preach on Brother.

The only one who isn't a sellout to Corporations is Bernie Sanders.

[PassingFair]

53. How suspicious am I of the DLC?

(Affixes tin foil hat firmly)
For a moment, I ACTUALLY considered that Dodd was
trotted out to filibuster in an attempt to strip
primary votes from Edwards.

WHY didn't Clinton or Obama take the point on
the FISA provision? They were against immunity...
why not be the champion themselves?

If Dodd goes out there and does it, he splits
the progressive primary votes that are wavering
between Kucinich and Edwards.

Obama missed a golden opportunity to pick up
voters AND volunteers, IMO.

I like Dodd, but his current DLC membership
put him out of the running for me. I don't
like his "club".

Not. In. The. Least.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Five badly stretched points of similarity is now "no difference?"

Funny how people are willing to ignore standards of evidence to "prove" points they like.

[arendt]

58. You call endorsing McCain, putting Mukasey in, etc "badly stretched" and you want "proof" from me?

I venture to guess that there is no fact or set of facts that you will find to rise to the status of "proof". I could give you five hundred instances, and you would call them "coincidence" or "insufficient" or whatever.


arendt

[LaPera]

60. Cheers to the great Howard Dean of the DNC - Fuck the DLC!!

Yhe DNC (and Howard Dean) - The Democratic Party

http://www.democrats.org/

[cali]

90. lol. People cheering Howard don't know much about him

He was my guv for 11 years, and if you don't think he's working with the DLC and every other dem group, you're flat wrong.

[ozone_man]

108. But he's not DLC.

He stands for the Democratic wing of the party, not the corporate wing.

As DNC chairman he has to represent the party as a whole. But as you probably remember, the Clintons were not happy to see him as chairman.

[Cha]

62. Yo, arendt!

Thank you, for this latest compilation of dlc trying to outdo the repucons.

"Item 5: DLC member Hillary Clinton tries to reach out to Poppy Bush and gets egg on her face; votes for Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (pre-NIE); refuses to apologize for Iraq War vote."

This # 5 is no aberration..hillary wears the whole omelet.

[arendt]

64. Hm. Occam bandage says "not guilty"; you say "guilty". I'm with you. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

65. K&R n/t

[Armstead]

68. DLC -- Democrats Lose Conscience

I read your post, and it made me wonder about my own pick, John Edwards. He was kind of in the DLC mold while in Congress, and he spoke ay some DLC events.

But looking it up, he apparently chose not to join the DLC.

( http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12479

Despite a widespread perception to the contrary, Edwards never joined the Democratic Leadership Council, though the organization courted him heavily. "That was not the route he wanted to go," says Elizabeth. Indeed, all the way back in 2002, The New Yorker noted that "Edwards has chosen to present himself as a rollicking, full-throated, us-against-them populist." )

I feel better now.

In any case, I wholeheartedly agree that the DLC has been a growing tumor within the Democratic Party. When it comes to abortion or other non-economic issues, they may be good Democrats. But on the issues that matter -- Wealth and Power -- they are eating away at the core of Democratic values.

[Tactical Progressive]

69. Not a dime's worth of difference.

[bagrman]

100. Differant sides of the same coin. We need a complete change.

[defendandprotect]

70. So what are you recommending --- ?????

And, if you are opposed to the DLC ---
and Nader is opposed to the corporate-sponsored DLC ---
why am I winning a prize?

[arendt]

80. Vote for a non-DLC candidate in the primary. Its your right.

It is also your right to point out, during the primary season, all the rotten things said DLC or corporate-pandering candidate has said/done (much like my list at the beginning of the thread).

Re: Nader

Nader is now used as a club to bash anyone who points out the corporate hand inside the DLC puppet. I didn't want to have that discussion, because it is buying into a frame in which you are guaranteed to lose the argument. So, lets just keep Nader out of it. Nader around here is "fighting words".

arendt

[defendandprotect]

71. Here's what Russ Feingold says about DLC in his book ---

pg 163 ---

Feingold begins with comments after NAFTA and the split that caused in the Democratic party
reflecting "not merely differences about trade issues per se, but it also symbolized a fundamental difference over the direction of the Democratic Party.'

"He was angered by the growing influence of corporate campaign contributions in his party --- and those condtributions, he believed, were a big factorbehind the Clinton administration's support of NAFTA. For him and other progressives and liberal Democrats, the influence of big money was a dispiriting trend that had started in the aftermath of Demcoratic election defeats in the early 1980s, when moderate and conservative Democrats
launched the pro-business DLC. The corporate-backed DLC's motto might have been, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'"

"By 1993, the DLC, in collaboration with the Clinton Administration, was a leadhing player in a massive public relations campaign to sell NAFTA in Congress. Feingold said: 'I see the DLC as, to some extent, taking the soul away from the Democratic Party. And, I see the DLC as having sold American workers down the river.' Feingold believed NAFTA was not good for the country, and especially not good for small businesses and millions of blue-and-white collar-workers that progressive Democrats should be fighting for. The loss of manufacturing jobs in particular has devastated a number of cities and states."

This is from "Feingold-A New Democratic Party" by Sanford D. Horwitt
Simon & Schuster - 2007

***************************************



D&P:

Of course, NAFTA is not a success except for those who want a "third world America."

These agreements, without protections for workers, simply exist to harvest slave labor.

[DCKit]

72. If Nancy is neither DLC or Blue Dog, WTF is she, an orgainzation unto herself?

A stealth Republicon?

Seriously, what's the excuse if she's not taking her marching orders from CorpAmerica? Harry "Trying to Build Bridges/Can't We All Just Get Along?" Reid I almost understand, but Nancy?

That aside, both of them have allowed legislation further damaging to the Constitution, treasury, economy, national security and the people to not only come to a vote but pass both houses and land on the pResidents desk. Do they believe they're going to fix it all later???? If anything, Nancy and Harry should be obstructing the agendas of both the Republicks and the WH, but they're not.

We all understand that the a slim majority exists in both houses and the obstructionist Republics have made it clear they are more interested in blocking any Democrat proposed legislation than working for their own constituents, but they're Republicks. That's not OUR agenda.

I would suggest the one thing they could do is to present stripped out bills: no pork, no earmarks, no bundling, no bullshit. Let the Republicons continue to obstruct the nations business and the pResident to veto vital legislation. Spending would be cut dramatically and, unless they wanted even the most stupid of our brethren to catch on, both houses and the WH would snap into line and begin to compromise.

Just a thought.

[arendt]

79. With her pre-emptive "impeachment is off the table", she has been a roadblock from day one.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of "a slim majority exists".

The truth on the ground is that the Blue Dogs vote with the GOP consistently. There is a 75% pro-GOP majority as is evidenced by votes like Move-on. She is quite aware of that fact and trims her sails to accommodate it. I think she is just another time-serving hack who is enjoying her moment in the chair of power. (She fought hard for Steny Hoyer to be her right hand man. That says a lot.) She does not give a fig about letting the Constitution go down the drain on her watch.

Then there is the widely publicized fact of her visit to Bush and her return "visibly shaken". What was that?

arendt

[earth mom]

73. Thanks for your gutsy post.

The DLC lovers are obviously swarming this thread because I can't read half of it due to my ignore list. I don't care though because I'm SICK TO DEATH of the b.s. and lies they spew. Who needs to hear it for the millionth time?

Keep up the good fight! NGU! :thumbsup:

[Enrique]

82. gutsy?

this gets a million recommendations every time it's posted. Hardly gutsy to criticize the DLC on DU. :rofl:

[earth mom]

109. I criticize the DLC all the time myself. But when I do, I know that I'll have a few angry people

replying to my posts. Which is just a total pain in the butt to deal with.

When you post a thread about the DLC, the DLCers make it their mission to FUBAR the thread so that no one wants to read it or is able to read it for all the bullshit they post.

Guess that part just flew right over your head. :eyes:

[Enrique]

117. if you criticize the DLC on DU

you will almost always get unanimous and enthusiastic support, and likely your post will make the greatest page, depending on if it's virulent enough.

Once in a great while you will get mild dissent. If you consider a few mild disagreements among the overwhelming agreement "FUBAR'ing" your discussion, then I guess you're right. Keep fighting the good fight against mild disagreement.

[Yuugal]

74. Spot on!

I'm dragging Nader back in because even though I'm not a fan, I'll be voting for him over Clinton if it comes to that in November.

[Perry Logan]

75. But the Democrats showed the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years. So you're wrong.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

[arendt]

78. WTF is a "unity score"?? Some bit of soulless, statistical BS produced by some PR flack.

The GOP loves to bash the Dems for being "policy wonks" and intellectuals.

They are laughing their asses off at this kind of meaningless cherry-picked nonsense. If there is such unity, then why is there such tension in the party?

Buncombe.

arendt

[D23MIURG23]

99. What policy differences can you point to?

I don't vote for Dems so that they can aquit themselves of wrongdoing - If that is the best they can do then they are exactly worthless. The very minimum anyone should settle for is blocking fascist legislation and nominees, but the dems can't even do that. They are passing and confirming the same shit the Repigs did. A slim majority amounts to a LOT of power these guys aren't using, and that includes minority powers like the fillibuster.

So what policy differences can you point to? How has our country become less like a police state, and why should we be satisfied?

[gene430]

77. I agree....Is Hillary any different than George W.?

Is she really a change?

http://www.politibyte.com/modules.php?name=Video_Stream&page=watch&id=42&d=1

[cali]

81. Yes. She's very different from bushco.

She's pro-environment, believes that climate change is the threat that it is, is pro-choice, wants to talk to Iran, would appoint Justices and federal judges who aren't right wingnuts, wants to withdraw troops from Iraq- even though I don't find her plan satisfactory, wants to raise the minimum raise and wants raise taxes on the wealthies Americans and retain the estate tax. If you don't think those are substantive differences, well....

[Usrename]

94. She just believes she could implement the Bush Doctrine better.

Not that she is against it, just that she thinks he is going about it in an incompetent way.

Her head doesn't explode when the Whitehouse orders the CIA torture tapes to be destroyed.

It's EXACTLY what she would do as president. No substantive difference. Just a distictly different personality is all.

[cali]

102. boogeywoman building.

And a shitload of hyperbole. Nothing in her platform mirrors bushco's last 7 years. And of course, you can't give anything but vague generalities. How unsurprising. The substantive differences have been given ad nauseum, including the post you're responding to. I'm done with this little exchange. I find willful obtuseness a bore.

[Usrename]

110. I just don't understand it.

Where is that person who used to talk about a "vast right-wing conspiracy?"

And why does she always tailor her rhetoric to omit words like war crimes or fascism or impeachment?

How did that impeachment question get stricken from the YouTube debate in the first place? Was she in on it? Was she oblivious?

Don't you even wonder a little bit about this stuff?

[Enrique]

83. do you think the DLC's influence is increasing or decreasing?

I think it's decreasing. For example, at one time Joe Lieberman was a respected democrat, now he's widely reviled within the party. Many dems who once associated themselves with the DLC have now distanced themselves.

[rAVES]

84. DLC is just a GOP way of tapping into the less informed Democratic Majority.

Watch out though.. they got operatives all over this place.. talking shit about them is unwise.. unless like me.. you couldnt give two craps what anyone thinks of you.

[arendt]

88. Agree w your title. Don't care what they think. n/t

[bread_and_roses]

85. On target, arendt

the Democrats "unity score" be damned. It's like giving a high environmental score because the Rep voted for bike trails and ignoring the millions s/he voted to funnel to the oil companies.

I don't give a damn what their unity score is when they are making secret trade deals. If that doesn't open people's eyes, nothing will.

[wyldwolf]

86. genius, before I explain to you the difference, let me ask you a few questions

1. Why do you have a Howard Dean avatar?
2. Why does Dr. Dean allow the DBC, a branch of the DNC put in place to gain corporate favor a half decade BEFORE the DLC was formed, thrive to this day?

Now, the difference between the GOP and the DLC?

1) Anti-science agendas. When did the DLC ever nominate a virulent anti-contraception wacko as head of the FDA, or prevent the Surgeon General from supporting a sensible helath initiative because it offended the fundies? Let alone censor websites that talk about earth sciences?

2) Fiscal restraint. What DLCer supports budget deficits of 300B+, not including an off-budget war - to finance tax cuts for millionaires. Last DLC prez we had raised top bracket income taxes and got us a surplus. Bad DLC! Bad!

3) Politicization of DoJ. Only two USAG's of that same DLC prez's choice were removed for reasons other than promotion or term completion - both committed acts of moral turpitude.

4) Unemployment reduction. DLC prez - went from 7.1% to 3.6%. GOP prez? Back up to 4.6%. Bill Richardson has created tens of thousands of new jobs in a high-poverty state however, against the national trend. Bad DLC again! No!

5) Pro-choice. Name the DLCer who wants to overturn Roe or nominate "strict constructionist" judges at all levles. Now name the GOPer who hasn't used at least one of those code words.

6) Starting wars of choice. Combat deaths of troops sent into harm's way by DLC prez = 0 (accidental deaths in Bosnia and Somalia was Bush's baby before you try either). GOP prez? Gosh who knows but 4000 or so at least. Hillary (and Bill Richardson - who is DLC. too) says she'll bring the troops back in a sensible manner. DUers say she won't (will he?). Forgive me if I go with the one who will actually get to make that call.

7) DLC prez - plummetting violent crime. GOP prez - back up again! No difference there (OK OK that's probably a corollary of decent economic stewardship, but it's also got to be affected by hopelessness and lack of optimism in society too)

8) Health care - DLC candidates at least want to get it for more people. Sorry if they don;t want to do it your way, but GOPers don't give a damn and 46 million uninsured is fine by them. You asked for differences I believe. Not perfection right? Ask someone whose sick kid gets covered - even via a for-profit HMO if need be - if they like the difference or not.

9) Cronyism and corruption. No a DLC prez won't pick people they don't know and trust for key cabinet or senior positions (would Kucinich? Would anyone?) but they are generally not too keen on unqualified buddies, no bid contracts (one of Hillary's key issues I believe) and the rest. In fact Hillary actually has the best plan in this area I've seen so far. Here it is:

Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration.
Strengthening whistleblower protections.
Creating a public service academy.
Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online.
Cutting 500,000 government contractors.
Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment.
Publishing budgets for every government agency.
Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.
Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare.
Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines.

Now does that sound like GOP to you? Why?

10) Oil industry ties vs. Energy reform. Which GOP candidate wants to put billions into alternative energy research? Bill Richardson and Hillary both do.

(from dmallind)

Want more???

[arendt]

87. Youve had a while to compile this long list. I will respond this evening. Have to work n/t

[wyldwolf]

89. Why does it matter how long the list took to compile? Why did you skip the Dean questions??

[wyldwolf]

91. *** crickets ****

[arendt]

95. I'm at work. I said I would be. The crickets are an unjustified cheap shot. n/t

[arendt]

96. I didn't skip anything. You sent a long list. I have no time to respond now. Will later. n/t

[wyldwolf]

97. there were two really simple question on Howard Dean.

[D23MIURG23]

101. Your list basically boils down to three points:

1)DLC Dems are better stewards of government as leaders.
2)DLC Dems don't pander to the religious right.
3)DLC Dems are on better ethical footing.

Your points have some validity, however most of them are veiled references to the Clinton presidency. Clinton had a generally good economic policy and was a good leader.

The DLC in congress on the other hand, have not done nearly enough to combat the damage being done by republicans. The have appeased the great decider throughout the entire duration of our merry march toward fascism. They (along with other Dems) have enabled "strict constructionist" judicial appointments, voluntary (read illegal) wars, police state policies that undermine our constitution, and blatant criminal activities.

They are like the GOP, in short, because thier "centrism" makes them complicit in mayhem.

In a legal sense someone complicit with criminal activity is usualy held responsible. Is there a meaningful difference between a murderer and an accomplice? Maybe.

Are they both criminals? Of course.

[wyldwolf]

105. my post directly contradicts the OP statement of "no difference."

1)DLC Dems are better stewards of government as leaders.

Which is a big difference.

2)DLC Dems don't pander to the religious right.

Which is a big difference.

3)DLC Dems are on better ethical footing.

Which is a big difference.

:shrug:

Your points have some validity, however most of them are veiled references to the Clinton presidency.

No, they're not veiled. And yes, since the Clinton administration is the only example we have of DLC leadership at the executive level, of course President Clinton is the reference point. But Clinton ran on and governed as a DLC centrist using DLC policies. He says so in his book, and you can go to the DLC's website and cross reference DLC ideas to Clinton policies.

:shrug:

The DLC in congress on the other hand, have not done nearly enough to combat the damage being done by republicans.

In your opinion, I would add. But you also have to understand that Senators are elected to represent the constituencies of their state. They vote on their principles, not on yours or some lofty set dictated by Moveon or The Nation.

The have appeased the great decider throughout the entire duration of our merry march toward fascism. They (along with other Dems) have enabled "strict constructionist" judicial appointments, voluntary (read illegal) wars, police state policies that undermine our constitution, and blatant criminal activities.

Other Dems? Sounds like a problem with the party, not specific to the DLC.

At the end of the day, or rather your spin, there is a BIG difference between the DLC and the GOP, contrary to what the OP states.

[D23MIURG23]

128. Your distinctions are irrelevant.

In your opinion, I would add. But you also have to understand that Senators are elected to represent the constituencies of their state. They vote on their principles, not on yours or some lofty set dictated by Moveon or The Nation.

So then answer me this: did they or did they not swear oaths to protect the constitution? Bush and his backers in congress have blatantly attempted to rewrite and generally destroy that document and DLCers like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman have been complicit with that. Even if the people being represented approved of this behavior (they don't; congressional approval is in cheney land) there are still other requirements congress people are required to meet.

Your red herring about Moveon is a Republican talking point that I won't dignify with a response. :eyes:

Other Dems? Sounds like a problem with the party, not specific to the DLC.
At the end of the day, or rather your spin, there is a BIG difference between the DLC and the GOP, contrary to what the OP states.

The problem isn't isolated to the DLC, and it doesn't have to be for the DLC to be identified with the problem. The similarity between the DLC and the Republican party is that they value political expediency above sense, principle and legality. Both bear responsibility for the blatant assault on our system of government of the last few years, and that responsibility transcends your purported differences. I don't support fascists even if one group is better at making the trains run.

The spin is all yours my friend. I'm simply putting the forest in focus for you so that you don't get lost in the trees.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

98. rAmen , brother!

The DLC is corporate rot destroying the party. I hope Rahm Emmanuel likes the taste of that corporate tit he sucks off. :puke:

[Recursion]

103. But founding DLC member Gore refuses to run for President...

Just sayin...

[JTFrog]

104. FTDLC.

[Kurovski]

106. K&R. (nt)

[FlyingSquirrel]

111. Ok I've kinda looked through this all and I have to ask:

Your point?

I mean, action-wise. Since you're the one who brought up Nader in your OP, is your point that we should not vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination? Or is it something else? Or did you not have a suggested course of action, individually speaking for the 2008 election?

I didn't read each post in-depth, just skimmed through them so if you already responded to this question please just link me to your answer. Thanks!

FS

[wyldwolf]

112. post 86

[arendt]

114. Sorry. Its Christmas chores at home tonight, and tomorrow. etc.

I thought I could find time to respond in detail; but family and holidays intervene.

Only if you do not object, I will take your post #86 (and, if you want, the item list from the beginning of the OP - for context) and start a new thread with it, referencing this one. That will probably not happen for a few days.

If you don't want me to do that, just say so.

Once again, sorry about leaving your post unanswered.

arendt

[arendt]

115. My (the OP) point is best made in my post 80.

As far I am concerned, the DLC tactic of predicted disaster if anyone "splits" the party is pure humbug. This attitude is, just like with the GOP, pure projection of exactly what they themselves have been doing, with their hardball intra-party tactics, for years. Rahm Emmanuel is a perfect case in point. A hit man.

Ask me if I will support the nominee AFTER the nominee is named. We get enough "loyalty oath" crap from the GOP. I sure as hell don't need to hear it from the DLC. Would they answer the question "Will you support Kucinich if he is the nominee?" or would they say, "ask me when that happens."?

As for the Nader (who I never supported) reference, he has been turned into a dirty word applied to anyone who the DLC feels is resisting their attempt to purge the party of any progressive influence. My reference was an "innoculation", saying that I refuse to bite on that bait.

arendt

[Zorra]

113. The DLC sucks. Nothing but Lieberman republicans. n/t