Can we dispense with this mythology built up around the DLC, please?

[TheWraith]

To listen to people here, you'd think that the DLC was all-seeing, all-knowing, and capable of bodysnatching Democrats and replacing them with Republicans. I'd bet you quite a lot of money that the DLC wishes they had a tenth of the influence that people here credit them with. Not to mention many of their biggest supporters got spanked and sent home packing in the presidential primary--if that doesn't prove that they don't have the pull some people think they do, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't a hypnosis cult, it isn't a Republican plot, it isn't the end of all life as we know it. It's a pro-business Democratic think tank. Nothing more, nothing less. We may not like a lot of their ideas, but that doesn't make them the bogey-man, or for that matter universally repellent. You know who's on the DLC member rolls? Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. Janet Napolitano. Loretta Sanchez. Debbie Stabenow. And there's plenty of useless Dems who aren't DLC members. Harry Reid, for instance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. The DLC was created to move the party away from the populist message

which is about as non-progressive as most things Republican.

DU is made up largely of progressives. Hence, we are not fond of the DLC here.

[wyldwolf]

4. the OP could amend to his post to include...

... all the purposes mentioned on DU the DLC was supposedly created for.

[HeraldSquare212]

17. To keep Jesse Jackson from taking over the party.

[wyldwolf]

22. yeah, I remember that one, just haven't heard it in a while

My personal favorite was they were on deep cover assignments to fold the Democratic party into the Republican party.

[HeraldSquare212]

27. No, I was serious - they thought a black running for president would be the end of the party.

[wyldwolf]

29. umm... no. No proof. No links. No quotes.

The formation was in response to Walter Mondale's loss.

[jonnyblitz]

84. Wyldwolf, I read the jesse jackson thing on a site called

"the black commentator" awhile back and googled it again when i saw this thread. here is what i found:

(this paragraph is about halfway down)

<snip>
Most alarming of all, in their eyes, was the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson, in which the black candidate received a percentage of the vote considerably higher than the proportion of black votes in several states, and sparked a significant expansion of the party's base constituencies among minorities, labor, and even some white rural voters. The Democratic Party was actually growing - but in the wrong direction to suit the "rump faction" centered in the white South.
<snip>

http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/46_cover_pr.html

like I said, I read this a few years back. I am just showing you where the person you are responding to might have read this. I have no editorial comment on this one way or the other. :hi:

[wyldwolf]

86. editorial

Simple (paranoid) hypothesis from the writer.

[Truth2Tell]

102. Regardless of who they have opposed or endorsed...

Jackson, Lieberman or the Abominable Snowman - the DLC does exist and they are quite open about what they stand for. All you need to do is go to their Web site and read their press releases and their policy papers. That stuff speaks for itself, and it doesn't speak for me. Nor does it speak for working people. Nor the environment. Nor those in poverty or in need. Nor for victims of American wars of aggression. Nor for any kind of sustainable American future.

The DLC is not a "pro-business think tank." Nice try. The DLC is a pro-large corporate influence organization. They are no more "pro-business" than Republicans. They simply support that very narrow strata of American business which has looted and pillaged our Treasury for the last 28 years without accountability. Not very different than what monkey-boy has stood for these last eight years.

When a Democratic politician lends his or her name to the DLC they implicitly endorse all that organization stands for. It tells us what they are about. And yes, they do have real influence.

No, they are not an all powerful body-snatching cult, but neither are they dying off. They are the primary voice of one of several competing factions within our Party. It is yet to be seen what their influence will be going forward.

As much as you may wish progressives would turn the other way and "chill out", I'm here to tell you it ain't gonna happen. The DLC is justifiably demonized on DU because most DUers recognize that their agenda - and the agenda of the Democrats who align with them - is grossly anti-progressive, nakedly pro-war, and runs counter to greatest traditions of our Party. They may not be the Boogey Man, but they are an enemy of progress.

So sorry dude, we won't stop watching and we will continue to fight.

[dflprincess]

108. Well said!

I used to say the DLC Democrats used to be called Rockefller Republicans until someone on the board pointed out that Nelson Rockefeller was probably more liberal than most DLCers.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. "It's a pro-business Democratic think tank."

That has done a bang-up job of imitating many of the worst traits of the Republican Party.

[noamnety]

94. "Pro-corporate" just doesn't have the same ring, does it? (n/t)

[wyldwolf]

3. they're alternately all-seeing, all-knowing, and capable of bodysnatching yet irrelevant...

:shrug:

It's kinda funny watching people around here embrace DLC Dems when they don't know they are, then denying they're DLC.

[fascisthunter]

5. Those who are against Populism are Against most of America

yet are for big business. I have seen enough these last four Presidential terms to know what they are. They definitely don't represent the majority of Americans who have very little compared to their wealthy campaign contributors. We have seen the injury from that...

[autorank]

6. The Slow Death of the DLC

By Taegan Goddard | June 30, 2008 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
The centrist Democratic Leadership Council holds its national meeting in Chicago -- just a block away from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign headquarters. However, Obama will not attend.

Even though the Illinois senator has moved to the center on so many issues in recent weeks, he's not willing to incur the wrath of liberal Democrats by speaking at the convention of the group described by many as "Republican-lite."

With none of the Democratic presidential candidates in attendance at last year's meeting either, it's fair to say the DLC has officially lost its mojo.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/06/the-slow-death-of-the-dlc.html

[wyldwolf]

7. five new DLC senate seats...

... it's largest presence there... ever.

Deep DLC presence in the White House - both policy wise and personel...

over 15 new house seats in 2006, giving them their biggest presence there... ever.

yep, slow death.

[Touchdown]

58. umm... no. No proof. No links. No quotes.

Got names?

[Dragonfli]

99. LOL! - you sound like someone I know

Only the master is allowed to post that title!

Mr. Irrelevant my mentor and God won't like that!

[DarthDem]

8. Thank You

For many DUers, the DLC is the new/old ZOMG ROHVIUHN TRAP!!!!!!111 (hopefully waning as a perceived political factor). It gets old.

[Dragonfli]

9. They are not all-powerful, just anti-progressive corporate hawks

If you are a far right Democrat or a very pro war Democrat - they are your guys! With a bonus non-(R) status.

Just a predictable anomaly to be expected within a large tent party.

They are good as stop gaps against more extreme versions of right wing politics. Almost the same as moderate Republicans - slightly better than full blown Right wing fanatics.

Not good for guys like myself who are working class, but occasionally better than the republican on a ballot.

I'd rather keep the big tent for now - even if they tend to vote against my best interests.

[dorkulon]

10. DLC supported Lieberman in '04.

'nuff said.

[Dragonfli]

12. Isn't he their poster-boy? Or is it not official yet.

[wyldwolf]

13. no they didn't

'nuff said.

[Dragonfli]

15. No they didn't what?

[wyldwolf]

16. what did your post #10 claim?

[Dragonfli]

18. It wasn't my post but is well known.

I am sorry, I thought you were responding to my post #12.
A stupid mistake on my part.

Perhaps you know if the DLC has decided to make JoeMentuMucial a poster boy to gain recruits.
Or is he merely inspirational to them?

I have seldom seen your posts, but when I have, they have always seemed to involve some form of verbal "oral gratification" on the large awesomeness of their throbbing wisdom.

I thought therefore that you may be in the know about the "poster boy" thing.

[wyldwolf]

20. no it isn't. There's no proof, no links, no quotes

[Dragonfli]

23. Lots of memories of it plus at least one link in this very thread.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=254149

Revisionist much?

[wyldwolf]

25. "Lots of memories of it." LOL! Oh, and you'd better look at that link again

The poster said they supported Lieberman in 2004. That article was written in 2007. It was about Lieberman's Senate campaign, not his '04 presidential one, and it wasn't written by Al From. It was Dan Gerstein.

[Dragonfli]

34. The DLC supported the Democrat over lieberman the (I)?

Sorry, not the way I remembered it. The poster was, I assumed, talking about the senate race.
as was I.

I guess it's ok then. I suck at dates, I only remember the issues and how they all loved him when he ignored his party over not getting the nomination.

You are correct then? The DLC was not a supporter of Blowy Joe?
He must be too far left for them! Do you have any links of their non-support to correct my memory so that I may be enlightened and stop assuming they lurve him simply because they only seem to support him?

I'd rather have the facts than my many memories, I could be getting senile.


spelling

[wyldwolf]

37. the poster said '04. The senate race was in '06.

The DLC didn't endorse Lieberman either time. Individual members may have. Others did not.

[brentspeak]

39. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about

http://ndol.com/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253901

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | June 2, 2006
The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism

(snip)

This phenomenon is best illustrated by the nationally driven campaign to deny re-nomination to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), with MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (an organization founded by DNC chairman Howard Dean and now run by his brother, Jim) playing an especially active role in recruiting money and volunteers for the challenger, Ned Lamont.

We deplore this purge effort because Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator. He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide -- as he did when he went to Mississippi to fight for civil rights in 1964. He is a man who always puts his country above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today's far too polarized politics. We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party.

(snip)

A party with no room for Joe Lieberman -- or for that matter, such occasionally lonely dissenters on the left as Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders -- is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice.

[wyldwolf]

42. that isn't an endorsement of Lieberman, it a commentary on liberal fundamentalism..

... with the targeting of Lieberman being a an example. Notice it defends Feingold and Sanders as well.

:shrug:

Once again, YOU don't know what you're talking about.

[brentspeak]

44. Uh, so now it's NOT an endorsement of Lieberman???

"We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party."

"Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator. He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles"

"A party with no room for Joe Lieberman...is a party with no prospects for a majority."

[wyldwolf]

46. it isn't an endorsement of his campaign, no

it's a defense of Lieberman against those who sought to purge him. I (at the time) defended him for that exact same reason, just as I defended Hillary, Biden, Bayh, etc. against the hoots to purge them, too. It also implies those like Feingold and Sanders should be welcome in the party, too.

[Dragonfli]

40. He thought Joe would help elect a dem in '08 because

It was one of Joe's reasons for us to support him over the Dem.
Obama was guilty of believing a lier and was repaid by betrayal.
Typo aside. Are your only arguments typos?

Where is the link that shows the DLC is not supportive of this liar? The one I asked for?

If the poster had not typed 2004 and typed 2006 what would the substance of your apologetics been?
Are you nothing more than a DLC water-carrier that needs to pounce on typos to divert attention away from a valid point? Just wondering if you are paid or merely a simpleton. No Bigee, you have certainly not convinced me of anything using any facts whatsoever.

You appear to lack substance and are therefore irrelevant.

On edit - sweet how you edited out your little comment on how Obama was the REAL supporter of Lieberman in '06 Priceless! You are getting paid then I take it?

[wyldwolf]

43. right, so you just know the poster made a typo? lol

And you also content you know Obama's thoughts and motives.

No, dude, I edited my comment out so it would not be misunderstood as a contention Obama supported Lieberman in the general and not the primary. Paid? Such a tired "progressive" paranoid cliche!

[Dragonfli]

50. It was obvious - I guess I should have used the word "appeared"

Just as you "appear to be a water-carrier".
Since everyone but you seemed to get that the poster meant the senate race, but could not claim personal knowledge of "the typo" - He, "appeared to be obviously talking about the senate race and mis-typed."

You "appear to like to pounce on small mistakes" rather than take on issues honestly.
As you are doing again.

You don't really "appear to be getting paid" - you are far to incapable of supporting your arguments well enough to earn the money. my original assessment was far too generous.

You most certainly are irrelevant as you still have not supported a single thing you have argued nor have you supplied a link to argue that the DLC did not support his Joelyness.

And we both know the Obama comment was deliberate. Lie to yourself, it's OK but no one else will believe you.

If you bothered to read my response to the OP, it would be "apparent" to even you that I am not a paranoid progressive, merely progressive. (I do not think they are all powerful, merely far right of center and quite hawkish.) I even mentioned that to Right leaning, or war loving Dems they serve a purpose under a big tent. They are an expected anomaly of a big tent party. They also vote against my best interests as a working class Democrat. It's all there if you know how to read.

Until you get good enough to get paid for your "oral gratification" of the DLC I suggest you don't swallow - that koolaid rots brain cells. Also I suggest you don't bother trying to convince me without a good logical argument or some facts of some sort. Until then

I said you are irrelevant sir!
So you can understand - just replace "you are irrelevant" with "GOOD DAY"

[wyldwolf]

51. only to you

lol.

[Dragonfli]

61. LOL! Yeah your convincing everyone around here Mr Irrelevant.

Is it OK if I call you irrelevant? it's my nickname for you because I find you so charming.

What exactly is your point again?

Oh yeah! You are contrary to any and all criticism of the DLC.

Your method is very effective, you have converted so many in this thread with all those facts and answers to our questions, just because you have offered nothing in the way of answers or facts does in no way take away from your sweeping victories and charming ability to win over DLC converts.

You sir are the God you think you are!
The most awesome guy you know!
Relevant to every single person in the world except for poor me just as you stated!

:sarcasm:

Will you be my hero and mentor irrelevant? Please oh please?
Mr irrelevant Sir?

[wyldwolf]

62. typical. Twist, spin, personal attack, LOL!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

65. ha ha! Moocher! if it's revisionism, provide the links?

[Moochy]

74. Oh Wolfie

You Old Huckster!

Still busily defending the DLC from Al From's basement are we? Have they filled Mr Benchley's seat in the DLC boiler room yet?

[wyldwolf]

76. oh Moocher

you old spinner! Still busy spouting non-sense. So, how's the "DLC is dead even though they just won 5 senate seats and are all over the new Obama administration" going?

[Moochy]

81. I dont think they are dead... far from it.

It's like the bad guy at the end of the horror film.

he's only been shot once, stabbed and run over by the garbage truck.

Only the heroes have turned their backs on the villain.

My advice to the heroes of the piece is .... "LOOK OUT!!"

[Dragonfli]

69. Is this guy for real? He's pulling my leg right?

I mean he says nothing while arguing everything and not really ever answering anything.
He has a huge post count - he can't possibly be serious.

I am falling for a prank right?

[wyldwolf]

71. where's you links and proof of the truthiness you're spouting?

[Dragonfli]

96. I tried to ask you why you thought my memory was mistaken.

Because I clearly remembered that it was common knowledge that many in the DLC supported Joe(I) against the (D)in the senate race. You could not answer with any facts when I asked you to disprove my memory and set me straight. I stated clearly that it was based on memory (overwhelming I didn't add, but truly felt).
I am still waiting for your answer. The link is on you.

Meanwhile my memories were only confirmed to me by others in this thread that could, and did, post links in support of my memory (so far - none to disprove my memory). It is not my fault that they are factually far more convincing than you have been. Nor will I take your "word" over my memory.

Do you want me to try to post a link to "prove" why you never answered my questions?


I did offer an opinion separate from that tedious sub-thread where you failed to set my memory straight by attacking everyone in sight. (That sort of thing just never convinces me, sorry to disappoint.)

It was an opinion that the DLC was not all-powerful, merely right of center and hawkish. They have convinced me of this - perhaps they have simply sold themselves poorly to me, but it is what I believe based on my impression of what they usually appear to support and the website they have posted. You may not like it, but if you feel "I don't get them" I am sorry, you have not convinced me otherwise and simply must understand that that is my opinion. I am not trying to convince you of my opinion, else I would have put together a link package. If you wish to change my opinion by selling them better than they have sold themselves, you are not likely to do that by not answering questions and being argumentative on every small point. It is not a good way to convince anybody how wonderful you think they are. Until you find a way to prove to me that I got them all wrong, your silly little fight-picking only makes me laugh and convinces me of nothing. Making you irrelevant Mr. Irrelevant

[Moochy]

91. Pranked?

More like Cranked.. by DU's original DLC booster-boy.

[Dragonfli]

98. Gotcha - He Thinks he's for real but he's just an apologist.

Irrelevant then. Not worth the time trying to learn anything from, he only wants to fight and misrepresent. I don't have time for that Sh*%t

[Luminous Animal]

21. Huh?

Al From worked and Lieberman's campaign and the DLC promotes his win on their website.
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=254149

[wyldwolf]

24. huh?

The poster said they supported Lieberman in 2004. That article was written in 2007. It was about Lieberman's Senate campaign, not his '04 presidential one, and it wasn't written by Al From. It was Dan Gerstein.

[Luminous Animal]

32. Got it.

I didn't notice the date. FYI, I did not say that From wrote the article, I said that he supported Lieberman for Senate.

From the horses mouth following Lieberman's primary loss:

In my personal capacity, From concluded, I will support Joe Lieberman, running as an independent Democrat. I believe our country needs more senators like Joe Lieberman, not less.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/08/09/democrats-in-the-middle-agonizing/

[wyldwolf]

35. you presented the article as proof the DLC supported Lieberman in 2004...

.. the article clearly didn't support that.

You did not say From supported Lieberman for the Senate. And it really doesn't matter if he did or not.

The point of this subthread was Lieberman's '04 run. Regardless of From support in '06, that does not constitute the DLC supporting him or he being their "posterboy." The DLC is more than Al From.

In 2004 there was no less than 5 DLC or DLC affiliated candidates. They endorsed no one.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Like I said... I did not notice the date...

You can keep chiding me my error, and I can keep saying over and over again...

I DID NOT NOTICE THE DATE. I THOUGHT HE/SHE WAS REFERRING TO 'O6 Senate race.

I am aware that the DLC is more than From but let's be clear, the DLC did not support the Democratic candidate in order to allow individual members to support Lieberman.

Not very good for the party, in my opinion.

[wyldwolf]

45. you've changed your argument from 'the DLC supported Lieberman' to 'they did not support the dem'

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

49. Liar?? Let's follow the thread!

Dorkulon: DLC supported Lieberman in '04.
wyldwolf: no they didn't
Luminous Animal: Huh? Al From worked and Lieberman's campaign and the DLC promotes his win on their website.

(so you're telling me this wasn't an agreement with dorkulon???)

[Luminous Animal]

64. No it was not an agreement.

It was a response to your coyness around DLC support for Lieberman (that I misinterpreted as 2006). I didn't even read Dorkulon's thread only the title. My response to you was quite clear. You need not read anything else into it. I'll be responsible for thread drift but I will not stand being accused of saying something I clearly did not say.

Al From supported Lieberman. So did other DLCers. The DLC currently hosts articles in support of Lieberman's victory.

Furthermore, the DLC did not champion a Democrat and the DLC was supportive of the fact that non-Democrat beat the Democrat.

I thought support of candidates from opposing parties was not allowed on this site.

[wyldwolf]

67. right, you tried to prove the poster's point, but didn't agree with the poster

[Luminous Animal]

70. I was not trying to prove the poster's point.

I was making my own point. Argue with that.

[wyldwolf]

72. so, you decided to enter in a piece of information irrelevant to the conversation?

[Luminous Animal]

77. Why yes, why yes I did indeed!

If one wants to conclude that pointing out that a purported Democratic organization did, indeed, refuse to endorse a Democrat and applauded the opposing party's victory. Then yes, totally irrelavent.

[wyldwolf]

80. glad you admit it.

[Luminous Animal]

85. You remind me of my 3 year old.

She doesn't grasp sarcasm, either.

Never fear, you'll grow into it. Experts say that mental maturity to grasp it comes around at about age 10.

[wyldwolf]

88. typical. Twist, spin, personal attack, LOL! You get the last word. :)

[Luminous Animal]

115. Maybe the last word, time will tell...

but I did invite you to argue my point (even though I did the most egregious thing and introduce it out of line). You've yet to address it and instead have engaged in a diversion by pointing out that I did a most egregious thing and introduce it out of line.

Did or did not the Democratic Leadership Council decline to support a popularly elected Democratic candidate? Did or did not the Democratic Leadership Council tout, as a victory, the defeat of a Democratic candidate?

[Dragonfli]

101. I think you over-estimate Mr. Irrelevant.

He appears to be hard wired at 3

[dorkulon]

113. yes they did.

Lieberman is the DLC candidate this time; he has offered solid policy proposals but nothing really compelling, which may reflect the emptiness of the New Democratic cupboard.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,536238,00.html

No candidate embodied the New Democrat ethos better than Lieberman, whose moral purity, hawkish views and name recognition earned him early Beltway supporters. Thus, when Howard Dean came into view, the DLC was quick to underestimate Dean's potential resonance with Democratic voters, misjudge the transformative nature of his campaign and mischaracterize the ideological bent of many of his supporters. After supporting a losing candidate in Lieberman, the unpopular war in Iraq and an outdated platform, attacking Dean was the only way the DLC could shift the Democratic debate.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm

The DLC was clearly in support of Lieberman early in the primaries, until the Joe-mentum sputtered out and they turned to Kerry. Sorry, but it's just true. And at any rate, the fact that they supported him against Lamont, which I hadn't realized, is even worse.

Now go ahead and impugn my sources.

[Dragonfli]

116. Thank you for answering some questions I had

It is one thing to notice things as they happen, and remember them. It is another thing to provide a compelling argument based on facts to explain to others what you have learned.

I notice many things and always remember the lessons, but not always the details. My new found "hero" did an excellent job of proving how correct my original conclusions were, largely due to his inability to really answer anything, choosing instead to substitute answers with redirected discussions based on typos or by simply using revisionist history on the bet that you can't "prove" it happened. You and others provided me with links for your arguments, while he provided, well, I'm not quite sure what he provided. The most ironic thing about this whole discussion is that he did more to convince me via your responses and others to him along with his childish argumentative methods that I was not only remembering correctly but perhaps not being as wary of the DLC as I should be.

Thanks to you and others, but mostly To Mr. Irrelevant my new found hero, I have learned that they are more than a big tent anomaly that usually votes against my best interests in favor of corporate and defense interests. They are far worse. They are also actively attempting a coup of the closest thing we have to a viable progressive party that supports working class americans that believe in the constitution. They take their name seriously - from all accounts they want to permanently control or "lead" the Democratic party at the expense even of other democrats in the large tent. They want the large tent to fold leaving only a ridgepole of right wing corporatism to provide a right wing alternative to a right wing party. Had he been less fervent in his attempt at evasion, insults and redirection, I would not have pondered as deeply what I knew to be apparent while awaiting arguments based on facts to help guide my conclusions. Since he provided nothing to back up his assumptions, while so many others provided sound arguments and documented facts to the contrary I started to see some deeper patterns in the facts and histories themselves. I also noted the similarity between his "debate" style and that used by right wing radio hosts. This helped me to understand the mind of a DLC supporter and it is a mind type I have seen all to frequently on the extreme right of the republican party. He has done more to sour me on the DLC than any of you have. I still think that one who argues yet does not provide information lacks substance and is therefore irrelevant. So I will not thank him.

I hope he continues along the path he is on, as he does more to expose the DLC than he seems to even comprehend.

It has been a long night, but a productive one after all.

:think:

[struggle4progress]

110. "... The DLC had come to Lieberman's defense in 2006, when the senator faced a successful primary

challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. In an op-ed, policy director Ed Kilgore described Lieberman’s opponents as 'fundamentalist' liberals bent on a 'purge' of the former Democratic vice presidential candidate because of his bi-partisan views ..."

December 17, 2007
DLC 'very saddened' with Lieberman
Posted: 10:45 AM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/dlc-very-saddened-with-lieberman/


One of the things the DLC does is shout Eeek! Liberals! That's one reason why Lieberman, who originally won his Senate seat by shrieking his opponent was too liberal, sat so comfortably as DLC chair for six years. When the DLC supports 'bipartisanship,' they mean something like Lieberman's cooperation with the rightwing, that prevents any progressive program from passing, or something like Clinton's 'triangulation' that attempted to construct a Democratic agenda by appropriating Republican issues (like DOMA, NAFTA, or tele-com deregulation): we saw how well the latter strategy worked when we steadily lost control of Congress, beginning in 1994, finally leading to the horror of the Bush years

<edit subj line html>

[scarletwoman]

11. No.

[ixion]

14. Despite their lack of omniscience, the DLC is still no friend to the democratic party

They've done nothing more than turn it into GOP lite, and as such has helped destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So, no, I will not stop speaking the Truth about the DLC.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Ain't no myth: it is the corporatist neoliberal wing of the party.

Don't like 'em, not now, not then, not in the foreseeable future.

[Pastiche423]

26. Nope. No way. No how

There is no myth, btw. The DLC is anti-We, the People and pro-corporate hawks. They've done nothing positive, nor progressive for the Democratic Party since their inception.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. Can we dispense with the DLC, please?

They are useless, they are failures, and the reason we finally had a decisive victory in an election is because our candidate is NOT a DLC'er.

[brentspeak]

30. The DLC isn't "pro-business"; it's pro-multi-national-corporation

And yes, the DLC is repellent.

[Individualist]

31. Damn the DLC!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[brentspeak]

36. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: "The DLC are the lowest kind of scum"

Great article from 2006:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed/1

Taibbi interviewing DLC stooge Will Marshall:

So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists," I said, "and. . . how many people are there in your office? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?"

"Well, it'd probably be in the thirty zone," sighed Marshall.

...

"So let me get this straight," I said. "We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen (the DLC) telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they're narrow dogmatists?"

[Cleita]

41. Have you ever gone through their website?

They are very conservative IMHO.

[wyldwolf]

48. examples?

[Cleita]

52. Here knock yourself out.

http://www.dlcppi.org/

If you can't see how conservative their position is, then I can't help you.

[wyldwolf]

53. that's a website. I asked for examples.

Let's see... they're... Pro-choice. Pro-universal healthcare. Pro-gun control.

The first story that jumps out on the page is a call for a return to FDR-style governance. There's election reform there, too.

[Cleita]

54. That is the example!

I see nothing that pertains to the real problems real people have like poverty, lack of access to health care and environmental concerns. You could find the same sentiments there also expressed in the Heritage Foundation. As long as it's favorable to business they are for it. Their health care is including the insurers and HMOs who created the problem. Yes, they aren't wing nut religious types like the RNC but I didn't call them like Republicans. I said they were conservative and they are.

[wyldwolf]

55. front page: Universal healthcare, global environmental organization...

... conquering childhood cancer...there's a report on The Bush Administration's Assault on Natural Resources.

[Cleita]

56. As I said they aren't religious Republican wing nuts but they are

conservatives. You won't find any place for socialist style solutions to those problems. They are only concerned about the business side of it. That means not removing privatized insurance schemes from health care, corporate PHRMA or telling invasive extraction industries to thoroughly clean up after themselves. It's bad for business you see.

[wyldwolf]

57. so if it isn't socialist (your word) it's conservative??

You'd better tell Barack Obama he's a conservative! lol. His healthcare plan is profit-driven.

[Cleita]

59. Yes.

And socialism isn't a dirty word. It's time to start not being afraid of it or this country is going to crash big time, while all the corporate interests who have been bleeding our economy dry put all their ill -gotten gains in all those new banks springing up in Dubai.

[wyldwolf]

60. so Obama is a conservative??

[Cleita]

66. Yes, he is and so are the Clintons.

They aren't much different than Republicans were during the Eisenhower administration. This is why we never have conquered our problems of poverty, like many European countries have who turned to a mixture of socialism and capitalism. We still worship the capitalistic gods, free market, competition in everything. It's not good for the whole of society. Democrats always were the Party of the little guy, the union guy, the ordinary worker. If Obama truly wants to include everyone in the dialogue why are there no Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinichs being vetted for cabinet positions?

[wyldwolf]

68. Obama isn't much different than Republicans? Well, now I know where you stand at least.

[Cleita]

79. He will change though. He will have to.

You know FDR started out as a centrist and eventually realized he had to do things radically differently than they had been done before to save this country from the Depression. I think Obama, because he is a brilliant guy, will do so in time too.

[wyldwolf]

82. do you have those winning lotto numbers for me?

[Cleita]

87. Wait and see.

You will then owe me an apology.

[dflprincess]

111. Obama doesn't have a health care plan

he has a health insurance plan. His idea will not give move access to care, but it will funnel more money to crooks like William McGuire.

And yes, Obama is conservative. He may not belong to the DLC but he fits in with that crowd very well and he seems to want to surround himself with members of that group.

[Luminous Animal]

73. Really? Universal health care?

Where? The best I can find is universal access to health insurance.

[wyldwolf]

75. yep, very much like Obama's plan.

Universal health care, or universal healthcare, is affordable health care coverage which is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region. These programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

[Luminous Animal]

78. Which I do not support.

I never claimed that Obama is the antithesis of Lieberman.

[wyldwolf]

83. well, we agree on that point

[Cleita]

89. Yes, and I hear that the plan they have in Massachusetts is failing. n/t

[wyldwolf]

90. The Mass. plan is more like Hillary's, not Obama's

Hillary's was closest to the true single-payer plan you prefer,

[Cleita]

92. This is why Hillary's plan failed the first time.

No plan that includes private insurance will work. The insurance companies are the problem. Now some countries do allow private insurers to sell their product but only after the single payer system is paid for. There's none of this signing away your Medicare to private insurers like we have here and which is undermining our Medicare system.

[dflprincess]

112. Define "afforadable"

I keep hearing politicians babble about "affordable healthcare" (when they mean insurance) but they never define what they think "affordable" means. I imagine if it's set up like other programs and some assistance is available, the income limits for help will have no connection to reality.

Access to health insurance they way Obama wants it will do nothing to keep people from going bankrupt because of medical bills.

[gravity]

93. The DLC plays an important role in the party

There needs to be checks on the Democratic party policies to make sure that they are compatible with business.

I rather this check come within the party rather than giving that power to the republicans.

[Cleita]

95. BS. We have a two party system that is supposed to do that.

We don't need the other party's ideology in the Democratic Party undermining it. We really need to start rethinking this big awe we have of capitalism and business. We need to control it, not worship it as a god.

[gravity]

100. The Democratic ideology isn't anti-business

It is about making sure that everyone in society will have a descent life and the opportunity to be successful. This involves making sure we have policies that help workers and businesses succeed. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Cleita]

103. Yes, but if you haven't noticed, all our resources have been going

to prop up big business and none to individual needs of the populace. We have become worshippers of mammon.

[gravity]

105. That's where Obama comes in

But he still needs to make sure that his agenda doesn't put too much burden with businesses.

[Cleita]

106. What do you consider a burden to business?

Maybe bringing back the Sherman anti-trust laws and protecting our domestic manufacturing base by forcing corporations to pay excise taxes on imports that they bring back into this country after firing everyone and outsourcing those jobs is too much of a burden?

[gravity]

109. Yes I would consider that crossing the line

I am about protecting the domestic manufacturing, but also think trade is a good thing. There needs to a balance, instead of both sides getting into ideological wars.

[iamthebandfanman]

97. 'pro-business'

thats the understatement of the century ;)

[Doremus]

104. QUIZ TIME!! Who wrote this?

"Toward that end, here are a few ideas that will help more people share in the rewards of the modern economy:

Middle Class Flat Tax

The Middle –Class Flat Tax is simple and fair: no middle class family with an income of under $150,000 should ever pay an effective tax rate of more than 10%. If the amount they owe after calculating their taxes is more than 10% of their income, they won’t have to pay a dime above 10%. If what they owe is less than 10%, they will pay the lesser amount.

Make Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent

Long-term capital gains tax rates are now between 5 and 15 percent. The rates are progressive: People in or below the 15 percent personal income tax bracket (which applies to married couples making $60,000) get the lower capital gains rate. We should lower the capital gains tax even lower for people making up to $100,000 a year, provided they hold the asset for up to five years. Thus, if you hold the asset for three years, you will be taxed at 4% and if you hold it for five years, you will be taxed at 3%. This sliding scale to tax capital gains will encourage investment and increase savings for a majority of Americans.

Cut Corporate Tax Rates to 30%

America has one of the highest corporate tax rate s in the developed world. Let’s change that by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 30% -- with an even lower rate for new knowledge-based industries in energy technology, biotechnology, and other science rich sectors. We should follow House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel’s lead and cut the corporate tax rates from 35% to 30.5%."




If you said the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford, you are correct!

If you said Dumbya, Cheney, another PNACer, or basically any repuke ----- you were close -- very, very close!

[Cleita]

107. Ding! Ding! Ding!

You are so right.

[bertman]

114. Calling MadFloridian. Calling MadFloridian. Where are you MadFlo? Your input is needed.

[leftofthedial]

117. they ARE bodysnatching ghouls.

you, being a Wraith, should know this.