If it's Dean vs. Bush, the DLC will hope Bush wins, won't it?

Stipulation: If Dean wins the nomination, the DLC will wound him through Lieberman and other mouthpieces as much as possible and actively hope that Bush crushes him in the general election, for two reasons.

1: They'll genuinely believe that Bush can run and protect the country better than Dean. After all, Bush was willing to fight a Just War; Dean was not.

2: They'll see a Dean victory as the end of the DLC's aspirations to win power on its own terms and run their kind of administration, as well as seeing themselves personally out of favor with the new President, locked out of power just as surely as if Bush himself had won. Perhaps moreso.

The DLC needs to unite around a candidate soon. Kerry's waffling while Lieberman's defending the war as, well, almost holy, because he views it "through the prism of 9/11," just as Wolfowitz of Arabia does. If Dean - appearing on Time, Newsweek, and Page One Washington Post - becomes the unabashed front-runner, I believe that the DLC will unite around Lieberman as a political assassin, aiming to take Dean out whatever it takes, and ensuring that if he does win the nomination, that he will absolutely not win the general election, for the greater good of the DLC, the Democratic Party, and the nation.

Prove me wrong.

That's my take on their bullshit anyway. They like Bush and want to keep him there because Bush pushes their agenda for them.

Woodruff was really trying to get him to say something negative about Dean and defense, and TMac didn't bite.

The Republican Party doesn't want the DLC; they'll have nowhere to go. Plus Dean doing bad hurts the DLC in the congressional elections.

I will say that Lieberman would be better than Chimp. I don't support him and wouldn't work for him, but if elected I'd feel better about who is running the country than I do today.

What I can't understand about the DLC is why they think the public would support a candidate that says the same thing as the Republican. If there isn't a difference in the way the candidates sound then Bush will be reelected.

Of course I can't "prove" you wrong, but isn't the DLC's power at least somewhat connected to public opinion? The DLC/Clinton relationship was a two-way street. They fed off each other's influence, etc. A weak-ass candidate like Dukakis or Lieberman directly diminishes the DLC's power, doesn't it?

will be just fine with the pro-corporate Dean, or Kerry. I guess they prefer Lieberman, but whatever.

Repealing the Bush tax cuts? Putting labor standards in WTO? I know Dean isn't Kucinich, but the accusation is bizarre.

You make absolutely *zero* sense.

Do Dean supporters even KNOW ANYTHING about your candidate? Do you think Dean sprang from dust during his first anti-war speech?

Dean has been a foot soldier in the New Democrat, pro-corporate wing of the party since his days as governor pimping for NAFTA. What are you surprised? That's why we call him GOP-Lite. Better than Bush, sure, but not by much.

Does Dean support the Bush tax cuts? No.
Does Dean support leaving the WTO and the NAFTA the way they are? No.
Does Dean disagree with the GOP on overtime pay? Yes.
Does Dean support Clinton's ergonomic standards? Yes.

Again, while Dean is no Kucinich, making him out to be a corporate thug is downright stupid.

On economic issues, there is hardly a difference between them. Of course, Dean did make some anti-war speeches.

Dean is no Kucinich, that's for sure, and he's no Gephardt either.

Lieberman is very pro-corporate. Owned by the superbanks, Lieberman voted for bankruptcy deform. Lieberman also takes a lot of money from pharmaceuticals and defense contractors and is loyal to their concerns. Holy Joe also has supported privatizing social security, pouring more money into star wars, and voted for legislation limiting damages in civil lawsuits for his insurance company buddies.

There is a substantial difference between the moderate Dean and the conservative Lieberman on economic issues.

I have no idea why you don't like Dean.

Before Dean reinvented himself for this run at the WH he did have a record as Vermont governor you know. Before loudly proclaiming him your great hero, with hands firmly over ears and eyes shut tightly, you should note his cuts in services to seniors, his education cuts, his weakening of environmental legislation to win corporate relocations to Vermont and th elike. Dean is a centrist in moderate clothing and I for one do not trust him one iota.

I am willing to listen but just throwing out accusations doesn't cut it for me.

I think if he doesnt get the nod, Kerry or Gephardt would be ok, Those two get good ratings from the AFL-CIO, Dean has admitted(havent a link because I forgot too) but he did say he agreed with some of the things the DLC believes in, he believed when the DLC formed it was the right idea and the party was too liberal(1985), and now believes it is too conservative(2003) so hes better than Lieberman imo but if you dont like the DLC with a passion like I do, then I dont think Dean would be that good, would he be worth supporting in the end yes, would I prefer Kerry or Dean, I ought to say Kerry. Yes I know he voted for the war, but without that war vote he surpasses Dean on many levels.

serious question.

Why is it that Dean's supporters are allowed to call all of the other candidates every name in the book, and accuse them of all manner of deceit and evil, but when supporters of one of those other candidates express that opinion, and explain why they think the other candidates may not be the best choice, the Dean people turn on them like rabid dogs?

When did this board go from being Democratic Underground to "Dean Undrground" When did the rules change to include "Sing Dean's praises or shut up"?

Many of us have different reasons for supporting one candidate or the other, and those reasons will, narurally, include reasons why our candidte is best, and reasons why we think another is not as good.Those of us who are not supporting Dean in the primary season are not Bush supporters, and I, frankly, resent the implication....no.... the accusation that we are.

We are Democrats...or Greens...Not supporting Dean is not tantamount to actively working for Bush! The accusation is insulting!

I know, I know...I'm babbling....Rant over!

It isn't a stretch to say that the DLC appears to want anyone but Dean. I consider myself a moderate Democrat. I think Dean is too. The DLC, almost alone among Dems, has tried to paint him as to the left of George McGovern. At this point in the campain process, what possible gain can the DLC get from trashing a fellow Dem. One thing about ole Raygun that anyone can admire: the eleventh commandment, don't speak ill of follow Republicans. It would behove the DLC to modify those words to fit the current situation.

I'm tired of in-your-face Dean supporters. Dean is an arrogant Doctor, every US citizen knows one. He'll never win.
I'm starting to think anyone but Dean.

:evilgrin:

He stands strong on issues but this is a man who is the kind you would want living next door.

He drove his next door neighbors child to school in the morning while he was govenor. He continued to work in his practice several mornings a week.

He looks you right in the eye when he is listening to you and he does listen.

His mind is not made up on every issue and he is willing to admit that.

He also has a fine sense of humor.

I have reserved my support for anyone yet because I feel we have several good candidates but I fail to see the value of trashing Dean or anyone else that may end up being our nominee.

that Dr. Dean is the only true and loyal Democrat in the race, and anyone not supporting him is a closet Republican, if not a downright freeper.

I am actually becoming more and more put off by this candidate every day.

I won't allow the rhetoric of supporters of one candidate or another to determine whom I will vote for. I will vote according to where the candidate stands on the issues that I hold most dear, what the candidate's character is and that is it.

I think you do yourself a disservice by allowing what other DUers say color your feelings about any one particular candidate.

For me it comes down to issues and beating GWB.

that are off-putting to me. They are just following their candidates lead. It is the candidate himself. He has made several remarks about what "real dempcrats" do and do not do.

I'm sure now I will hear from some one that "Kerry said that too"!, but let me remind you of the context. Kerry was quoting what Dean had said about "real democrats" and taxes.

All of the candidates are "real democrats". There isn't one for whom I would not vote for over the moron we have in the seat now. Including Dean. If he is the party's chioce, I will work for his election. But I do think he, himself, is damaging not only his own chances, but the chances of any Democrat by putting himself out there as the only "real" democrat.

As far as those here at DU, I do come here to discuss the candidates, there chances, and the events of the day. I AM A LOYAL DEMOCRAT!

....Listen...I apologize if I have ranted a little too much on this thread. Some of you will remember that 3 weeks ago, I told you about my niece's fiance being killed in an accident, at age 38. The last 3 weeks have been a nightmare. She is having a terrible time, and my heart is breaking for her.

I guess it really hit a nerve when I read this post implying that anyone not with Dean is not really a democrat. Politics...Democratic politics in particular... have been my passion for a long time, and it has been my outlet during this awful time. Maybe it hurt more than it would have another time.

or else the DLC wouldn't be going out of its way to constantly attack Dean instead of Bush.

I hope when Dean is nominated and Al From comes to "bury the hatchet" that Dean will kick his fat ass out on the street.

As far as I iz concerned, he has a very good op to WIN and win BIG.

Come, we count the ways Bush is gonna lose dispite the PR campaign to paint him lily white by the Pub PysOps. The Over view shows Bush is not good for this Nation. The Pubs are not good for this Nation either. You never ever hear of them planning on whats good for America. Tax cuts?? Put us in more debt, gimme a break.

but you know, I prefer populists to centrists, and thats why Dean is not who I am currently supporting. Now would I support him in 2004? yes I would, but you see if we really wanna get rid of the damage Bush has caused, we need to do 360's not 180's.

Perhaps you meant we need 180s, not 90s.

:D

yes you get the picture, I am somewhat dyslexic in ways. I am not diagonsed but you got the picture. Look I admire Dean for fighting the pro war people, but you know I want a populist and Dean hasnt showed that to me. I think also drastic times call for drastic measures, we need someone to change the country totally, like what FDR did. Dean has a fire to him I know but Kucinich isnt weak or anything, he fights too, and he truly is one of the people.

and paint the DLC as something that it is not.

Come, I take you Sushi Bar, eat toro sashimi

locally we have
rabid right -
moderate/development right --

moderate/quasi development left - (means somewhat friendly to
development but with more restraing than the development right)
progressive left (last election dubbed "Green Democrats")

and

Greens.

Last local county council elections... one moderate/quasi devel left decides not to run again. The primary race for that seat has a moderate left and a green dem; the other race the sitting moderate left is running against a green dem and against a Green.

In the primaries the two green-dems win.

The two former county council moderate dems actively campaign on behalf of... the development right (and thus also support rabid right county commissioner race). They write letters to the editors as office-holding dems. They attend republican fundraisers - and their attendance brings press attention and therefor additional advertising for the republican candidates.

All three republicans win.

Democratic party voter turnout was the lowest in a very long time.

-------
So while on the surface the question at hand seems far fetched... after what I saw here - and sometimes see written on this board by some of our more centrist colleagues - it is not out of the realm of my imagination as a potential scenario.

Indeed the most recent rhetoric of the DLC bashing not only Dean but his constituency.... sounds incredibly familiar.

I am not suggesting there is an active attempt to lost the election (at this point = preprimary).

All I am saying, is that some in the DLC may be so wedded to their more centrist views - that in the end the can not support what they perceive to be a more liberal democratic candidate, and that some might defect at the voting booth, but worse some might defect along with way to assist repub campaigns. Not as a conspiracy - but as individuals who may feel comfortable telling more liberal bretheren to vote dem regardless (or blame all on Nader) but who are not above doing the same exact thing in the other direction.

A year ago I would not have said this. And I hope that I am wrong.

wouldn't you also have to believe that Bush's views are more centrist?

Clearly, they are not. He is farther to the right than any President in our history and I do not think that anyone would mistake his near-fascism for centrism.

These local folks let a rabid repub take a dem seat on a three seat commission - and turn the commission from dem to repub controlled.

Given the rhetoric at least about international relations, and even last summer about how gentle candidates should be in advocating for corporate reforms... they really might feel more threatened by the left - even the perceived left (I don't think Dean, for example, is very left) - than they are by Bush.

Baffles me as well - but I have witnessed stranger things.

Such as - former rabid repub congressman (used to be mine but got redistricted out) John Hostettler - on some big votes this year goes against Bush while centrist DLC Chair Senator Bayh votes (and speaks pretty consistently pretty favorably) with the President. This is something, in a zillion years, I would never have predicted. From both candidates.

I tell you - these are strange times and how individuals seeking power, or seeking to extend power, or desperately grasping at retaining some power all act is very, very hard to predict. (BTW I put the local dems I refered to... and the recent verbal actions of the DLC as behaving like the last of those categories - and thus MOST unpredictable).

are not DLC. The majority of the voters are not even political activists as we all are. They are just people with real lives and real oopinions, and you are right that they do not always vote straingt party lines as stringently as we do.

I think what a lot of us feel is that in the general election, if the general public feels like a candidate will raise their taxes, and will not be stron on the defenses of the country, they will vote for someone else.

The formal organization called the DLC will, I am confident, work to elect whomever is the Democratic candidate. The apolitical voter, the person whose politiacal involvement consists of voting in general elections, once a year, (national, state, municipal, county...etc)is going to go with his or her feelings at the time.

All of us know that Senator McGovern was a MUCH better choice than Nixon in 1972, but the apolitical public perceived him to be too liberal, and he lost overwhelmingly. He carried only Massachusetts and D.C.....

It is not the party faithful....and yes...the DLC are faithful Democrats...and Americans...though some here may accuse them otherwise....are not the ones who will ultimately be the deciding factor.

The rest of us do have a right to our opinions without being called traitors to the party because we do not support Dean in the primary. The vast majority of us will, if he is the party's choice, support him wholeheartedly in the general elections.

were a more liberal candidate to emerge from the Primaries... with all of the prepublicity to the attacks the DLC are currently giving. They are doing a great job of planting the seeds to the perceptions that you describe.

Again - I don't think it is necessarily concerted. But for the past couple of years - I think their strategy has been illconceived. I worked in the dem consultant circles in 1986 - I speak from that eye. These folks have pursued some very weak strategies.

Blasting dem candidates in a way that gives the bushies a headstart if one of these candidates were to win? Not good long term pro-democratic party strategy.

I do not view them as evil. But I do view them currently as an impediment to the democratic party - in part due to their strategies.

for being so critical of the DLC. My critisiem against the DLC is in regards to their actions alone. The follwoign waigh heavly on my thinking.

1) The DLC refuses to be cricial on the carpet, or on the campain trail, of any thing regarding the GOP agenda. They will not reside the GOP's record, or damaging dialog.

2) The DLC always tenders "respect" even go GOP offichals who are activly tring to remove their seats, or even calles the capital police on them. Call a DLC Dem a trator, and he will aways say "I respect your oppinion."

3) The DLC pulled their punches in the suprem court in Gore v Bush. Refusing to make the obveuse argument in their case, while alowing the Bush team to aviserate the Gore team at every turn, without a responce.

4) The DLC's insistance to "just get over it" in regards to losing the 2000 election, even theogh the DLC was directly injured as a result in the theft of the election. Sounds like a sell out.

5) The DLC has declined to speak on, let along call for investigations in a long list of Bush scandels, many of which could contain impeachable offesise.

6) The members of the DLC are grosly out of tuch with the people. Not even taking basic steps such as having persons answer the phone at headqurters. The DLC makes no attempt to contect with the people, nor no attelt to speak directly to the people. The DLC members are more likly to agreet to speak on the O'Rally Facter, than on Radio Left.com.

7) The DLC has openly attacked it's political base.

8) The DLC activly seakes campain contributions from the same persones who give to the GOP.

9) The DLC has been known to resight word for word, the "Carle Rove Talking Points." These are talking pointes that are distributed throught the "echo chamber" to talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh. The most recent example of this lanquage is the idea that "even if WMD are not found, the war would be justified," or "we went to war for wMD programs."

10) The Opposiiton to the GOP agenda tends to be a token oposition only.

11) When having the power, (When Jefforts defection gave the DLC the Senate) the DLC neglects to use it agresivly. Instead, the chose to use that power to make good faith gestuers of "by-partesenship."

12) The DLC has not submited a natonl platform for 7 years. We have no idea WHAT the DLC offichaly stands for.

13) The DLC has openly attacked canadates seaking their endorsment for the Presdenchal nomination.

14) The DLC usues a political model that has not changed sence 1972. They still beleive that the "south will rise again" and restore the DEMS to power throught the Dixicrat.

15) The DLC is obleviuse to such things as AWAL Bush, LIHOP and PNAK.

16) The DLC has openly rejected Ipeachment, saying that "The presdent has not done any thing that would waren't such a drastic action. We contiue to stand united behind the Presdent and the American People."

17) The DLC undercuts the debaiting and argumentive athority of its own members. Conseading this ahtority directly to the GOP. (The Iraq War debate when Dashel and Gepheardt conseadedt to "fast track" the debate. They also did this for the Patriot Act, not even alowing their own members time to read the bill.)

And that is an abreavated list. The GOP are not responcabule for these actions, and nor did they create them from whole cloth. Many of these issues has been brought to the DLC's attention as well. I have yet to see a sastifactory answer to one of them.

from the Dean campaign do? As I said in another post, why id it OK for Edan suppoters to bash everyone else, but treason for any one to criticize Dean? Your theory works both ways.

that claims to stake out "mainstream America" painting not only candidates but base components of the party's base as marginal is a much more serious thing then standard inter-party candidate rivalries.

I have been disappointed at the candidate mud slinging (but it isn't just Dean doing it, btw). But it does not give the same ammunition to the GOP, nor does it get the same media play now that gets the message repeated and repeated and repeated, as do the officials of the DLC.

what the DLC is, you would likely get a blank stare. They see candidates and their supporters making statements.

It is only the political junkie who knows, or cares about the DLC, or the DNC or RNC, for that matter.

The fact of the DNC has no more influence over what the voters hear than any of the established campaigns, IMHO.

In any case, that still does not justify the charge in the original post that the DLC would work for Bush's election rather than Dean's if he wins the nomination.

That is just plain insulting.

but as I described in detail in a post earlier - a local election which had similar undertones makes me wonder if the same dynamics wouldn't play.

So I don't see a conspiracy, but even though I worked in the DC Dem consulting circles and am familiar with the 'pragamitic' vs. 'principal' split, I do see signs that indicate that in these very, very unusual times - it is not beyond the realm of my imagination. Not as an entire organization, mind you - but possibly in the case of a few higher positioned folks within the organization.

I list this as speculative, not predicative, and stress that it is only that conditions are so strange that I could even conceive of this - where in previous years I would have never entertained the thought.

in local races, particularly where development is an issue, that money played far more of a role than politics in the decisions. Just a guess but here in Little Rock, without a shred of evidence, I still suspect that city board members who are pro-development are paid well for their whorishness by the developers.

But that is merely a suspicion but I do not trust them when their own pockets could well be getting lined. Looking at some of the decisions made, I can hardly envision another scenario.

I have been behind Common Cause and their fight on Campaign Finance issues since before 1984. One of the strengths of the DLC is the ability to bring in Corporate dollars. Thus, in my mind, the same dynamic is very possible climing up the chain (I am not talking candidates as much as the key people behind the candidates - the movers and shakers within).

that anyone who calls themself a Democrat would support Bonehead in any form whatsoever. To me, the man is the epitome of rapacious, short-sighted gluttony. Maybe I am naive but the very thought of any Democrat not doing all that is humanly possible to rid us of this scorge is unthinkable and I fear that for me to believe it, I am going to need far more evidence than the originating poster's suspicions.

Far more.


edited for speeeeling ...

in my mind, it is no longer inconceivable. It once was. No longer.

Now I won't put all sorts of evil motivations - or blankets across people (as in ALL of X group will act this way) - but that some might...

I have grown so cynical and some of the political strategies coming from these groups has been at times pretty lousy (think some of the 2002 congressional races) that I am finding it hard to believe that everytime there is broad acquiescence to a bush initiative (which is NOT by a long shot all initiatives) or verbal, public support for some of the egregious behaviors (esp related to the War, the War on Terror and the related atroticious Patriot Act and the potentially dangerous powers of the HLSA) that it is always some well planned - and democratic party supportive strategy. They are either miscalculating in some big areas, or they really do believe the president in some of these areas more than they would support one who did not.

So is it bad strategy? Or buying teambush foreign policy over alternatives?

a local grass roots group had a web page showing the source of the money given to candidates for county council. Unfortunately, the developers gave more money to the candidates than individuals did. The developer-sponsored candidates won.

"Bring him on: How Bush has failed".

It's a real shame that Dean and his folks are trashing the voters and groups that they will need if they are to beat George Bush.

The people who run the DLC don't want to win power "on their own terms". They want to win power. Their conclusion is that the only terms they can do it on are the terms of swing voters.

This election is too damn important to start demanding terms. It seems to me that it's the liberal wing of the party that's demanding terms.

False Dichotomy- Dean/Lieberman

If I don't like Dean therefore I like Lieberman

There are seven other choices.

I'm afraid if Dean gets the nomination the Repugs will make "Dean look like a card carrying member of Al Qaeda."

The Dems don't control the House. The Dems don't control the Senate. There is for the first time in recent history more Republican office holders nationwide than Dems.

The barbarians are at the gate. A loss in 04 especaially a landslide loss in 04 will let them in.

I will support the candidate best able of preventing this.

Hillary has to serve out her full term.

Their plan is a full court press for her in 2008. Then they can say that they are the New Democratic Party and the FIRST to nominate and elect a woman.

If a dem takes it this time, it screws up all their plans.

P.S. I am not against Hillary, I just think the DLC and DNC have it all planned out.

Or is this something that you merely suspect and have internalized it as something more?

I love HRC. I would vote for her in a NY minute but she is the most polarizing figure in American politics.

Not a good choce IMHO.

when the prognostication can go to 2008.

This is just a conspiracy theory and think it is appropro considering the other ideas printed on this page.

I believe that we need to know the good and bad of each candidate but I think we need facts.

I have always worked from the get to know the candidates and let the primaries begin before jumping on a band wagon. Even if one is on a candidate's bandwagon - that person may not win. Getting to know what we can and understand these candidates, one of which (we presume) will be running against W in 2004, is very important.

GORE IN '04

Gore's a good Democrat and a good progressive.

He's not Joe Lieberman.

that folks are now re-recruiting Gore (so not to demean) now that it is suspected that someone like Dean (or Kerry) might win. This is part of the same speculative discussion that adheres to the idea that these same players are those who talked Gore out of running in 04 in the first place.

I read the comment to be more about the percieved reversal in attitude towards Gore, than about Gore. But I could be wrong.

(I am also not certain that either scenario wth the DLC and/or DNC trying to persuade Gore not to run earlier or to run now - is based on anything beyond speculation).

It sure doesn't seem like they did, judging from the way they abandoned him in 12/2000. If that is the case, why would they want him now? And I would think, he would not be well disposed to them.

The DNC (DLC?) will go with either Kerry or Lieberman, or Gephardt in 2004. Hide and watch.

This is a way to bump a stagnant Kerry campaign. Kerry's support has leveled off, and Dean has been taking off. The DLC doesn't want Gore any more than they want Dean. If they did, they would have supported him back in December, when all of the polls had him beating all of the competition handily.

He's probably the only one on the DLC that I'll lend credence to. Hell, he's already showed that he knows how to beat these thugs! The rest of the DLC can go to hell as far as I'm concerned

The DLC will back whoever the nominee of the party is, period.
Can the same be said of those of you who live to slander the DLC?
:nuke:

You say, "Prove me wrong." I say you have offered zero backing for your case.

When you have documentation or solid examples, I'll take you seriously. Until then, it's a pat on the head and sending you back to do your homework.

Burn, baby, BURN!

Somebody really should ask this of the DLC people as they emerge from a meeting, and do it with a video camera in hand.

Better yet, do it with hidden cameras!

It is virtually impossible and is not a testable hypothesis in a scientific sense or even a logical sense. I do disagree with your statement. Though no fan of the DLC, I doubt they would prefer Bush over Dean or any other Democratic nominee. I think you are just stirring up feces.