The DLC will no longer have any influence after 2004.

The DLC will be weakened after the 2004 election. Even if Kerry defeats Bush, the forces on the left and progressive wings of the party are coming back. That is my prediction.

The only person who was affective in bringing the DLC policies into play was Bill Clinton but guess what? He is not president anymore. The DLC is only there to essentially neutralize the Democratic Party to appease the multinationals. It worked in the 1990's but things have changed. The Democratic Party MUST swing back to the left and left of center. People will only follow a party that stands on it's principles and during these uncertain days, there is need for the party to stand up for the people. It must stand for something besides capitulating to the other side (Republicans). The movements of Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich has proven that people want to be a part of the process again and this Lieberman style "play along to get along" just does not wash anymore. Particularly with how polarized the country is right now.

The failure of the 2002 election was the alarm bell for the Democratic Party to start being bold again. The DLC's message during that time was no real message at all. It was a mocking of the Republican line. "Me too" is constantly mentioned. What good is it to have an opposition party if you copy your opponents or support their twisted policies in Congress? This is why you have people who are turned off by politics and those who turn to the Green Party and Ralph Nader.

Oh there are going to be those who will over-rationalize, over-analyze and say that to be progressive is to be either fringe or won't work in mainstream America. That is bunk. The bottom line is people want true leadership. I think that will eventually happen but it won't come from the DLC. They will become a footnote and the progressives will grow and take their party and ultimately their country back. Otherwise, Democracy and the Democratic Party itself will die.

John

If I could pin this to the top of the forum I would :kick:

:)

Kerry, a DLC member, wins in 2004. Yet, the DLC loses power. Right.

Wishful thinking, John.

The mainstream media and the DLC and DNC were instrumental in Dean's failure to win primaries.

Kerry's handling of Iraq will be the real test. Also how he handles the economy will be another.

If he messes up in either one of those, Kerry beating Bush will be the DLC's last hurrah.


John

Since you want the DLC to fail, you must hope that Kerry messes up Iraq and the economy.

And I think Dean (a moderate former DLC candidate less liberal than Kerry) had a little to do with his failures in the primaries.

I will vote for Kerry. But the DLC and it's influence will be on the downturn. The left will get it's party back eventually.


John

You are hoping the DLC fails. You admit that if Kerry messes up with Iraq and the economy, it will be the DLC's "last hurrah,"

Thus, for your wish to come true, Kerry will have to mess up Iraq and the economy.

Nobody knows what will happen in the next year but Kerry is going about Iraq the wrong way. Just my view.

I would not want to come back here next year and say "I told you so." The idea is for Kerry to succeed but he is not impressing me so far.


John

The DLC will be weakened after the 2004 election. Even if Kerry defeats Bush, the forces on the left and progressive wings of the party are coming back. That is my prediction.

and...

Kerry's handling of Iraq will be the real test. Also how he handles the economy will be another.

If he messes up in either one of those, Kerry beating Bush will be the DLC's last hurrah.

So, for your prediction to come true -- and you obviously want it to -- Kerry will have to screw up Iraq and the economy.

I think Kerry can change his tune with Iraq but I do not see this happening. But as more people are out of work in this country and more of our young people die in Iraq, there will be calls for more progressive leadership and the Democratic leadership will not listen to these calls. If that happens then change is going to have to happen regardless of what you or the Democratic leadership think.

The DLC is not going to run things forever. The center must and will give over.


John

sorry. You can give no facts and stats to back up anything you've said.

Just your hunches and opinions.

Am I not entitled to my opinion?


John

Just admit it is such and not based on any measurable statistic or fact.

Appreciate your concern and I appreciate your opinion though I respectfully disagree.


John

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

By next January (Kerry's inauguration) if American troops and/or diplomats are still in Iraq it may be a no win situation. Don't get me wrong, as the new Commander in Chief it WILL be Kerry's job to resolve the situation. The best he may be able to do is not fuck things up more than they will be by then. Keep in mind the Democratic elections in Iraq are supposed to take place in January 2005 and (if the PNAC'ers get their way) there will be a huge US embassy and US military base in place by then, on the authority of whatever "sovereign" Iraqi government the Bush administration is able to cobble together. Shit, meet fan.

My barometer will be if Kerry allows these @#!!%$&!# to get away with all they have done to our country. I want full, open investigations with real consequences (read: jail time).

Its just like the dandelions I spent the day battling. Mowing them or pulling off the leaves won't take care of the problem. They must be pulled up by the roots!

that I will do everything in my power to see that it happens.

Aren't you?

It does not work. You cannot pander to the mulitnationals and the conservatives if people are going to take you seriously. All that talk of being fringe is just a lame excuse.

John

..and not your "prediction."

n.t


John

We're in a frkin illegal war. The economy is in the toilet.
Find the links yourself if you don't believe those two statements.
Start here >> http://news.google.com

What did the Dems do about these issues so far?
NOTHING!!

End of Proof.

Hint: When someone makes a charge, the burden of proof is on them.

The charge was: You cannot pander to the mulitnationals and the conservatives if people are going to take you seriously.

So this requires proof by he who made the charge.

It really is that simple.

He fired them, all of them, last fall.

Then he hired Kennedy's guys.

That's when he started to get his message out and that is when he started to make a decent showing in the polls.

The DLC was alarmed enough that they trotted out Clark. They knew Lieberman had no hope of being anything but an annoying whine against Dean. Clark is a good man, but even the best DLC candidate can't win against someone who is more on message.

Yes, the DLC will see its influence slowly wane. However, those old boys have gotten used to being movers, shakers, and power brokers, even if they've been sure losers when it comes to elections. They won't let go of power easily, and it's going to be a long, hard fight to dislodge them.

I have a great deal of hope that Kerry will pull some pleasant surprises out for those of us who are expecting yet another boring DLC conservative who fattens the rich at the expense of the rest of us. In any case, he does make the DLC very nervous, and that's a good thing.

Do you have some links to refresh my memory?

Links showing he fired all of his DLC handlers?

McCain will be the next president.

I will work hard to get DEMOCRATS elected in 2004, but send my contributions directly to Mark Dayton and Dennis Kucinich (and Bernie Sanders) to use as they sees fit.
I will not sit down and shut up while my Democratic Party abandons those it claims to represent.

The time to bold and decisive is now. Forget trying to rationalize with the neocons and play along to their tune. It's time to take the gloves off and vote for people who will really follow the Democratic Party's core princples. Those who are in the DLC must be swept aside.


John

Kerry just named 2 LIBERAL members of Congress to head the DNC.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has just been named to a top Democratic
National Committee position by Democratic presidential hopeful
John Kerry, a role that casts Durbin as a Kerry surrogate on the
stump and a top defender of his fellow senator on TV.

Durbin, along with Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), are the new
co-chairs of the DNC. DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe will continue to run the
DNC daily operations, but the Kerry team wants Durbin and Jones to take on
major speaking roles. As the Democratic candidate, Kerry controls the DNC
operation and is installing his own people at the newly refurbished DNC
headquarters in Washington. Kerry earlier this month named John Sasso as
general election manager at the DNC to run the party activities leading to the
November vote.

I'll wait and see.

McAuliffe and the DLC/DNC to date have only helped accelerate the Wal-Martization of the World while making frequent trips to the bank.

on the party. We will have to take it back by force or start a real democratic party. They shoved Kerry down our throats and slammed the real Dem's and progressives. The Dem's who want any money from the DNC will have to get past the DLC gatekeeper. I don't know if they just plan for the Dem's to lose every election or if they are that incompetent, either way they are running the party and aren't listening to anything a progressive has to say.

If somebody can pull it off, that would be great. I would suggest that the new party should go along the lines of this party up in Canada.

http://www.ndp.ca


We could even call ourselves the New Democratic Party.


I am still trying to hold out hope that the same people who backed Dean (I supported Dean) and Kucinich will unite to get the Democratic Party back. If they fail then maybe it's time to start another party.


John

:)

reichwing agenda of more war more blood and more money to steal resources for international corps the democratic party will be reduced to third party status anyway so a real third party gathering progressives and thinking people together will finally get a chance. Sometimes the car has to die before buy a new one.

an old movie with a mustachioed villian.

Actually it's tragic comedy.


John

They have plenty of pretty slogans, rising tide blah blah, but ultimatly they are Staus Quo. No, you silly DLC defenders, not the Bush status quo, but the big picture status quo.

I suppose it's nice to get all of the big gala invites but frankly there's harder work to be done.

material conditions bringing that to bear. Progressive economic policy within the Democratic Party post-1930s was largely driven by the political action of labor unions. Unions have been in decline since the 1950s, and in sharp decline since the 1980s-- now under 10% of the private-sector workforce is unionized. Without grassroots economic organization of the working-class, I don't see what counterweight we could possibly have to corporate interests. I do see some of what you're talking about happening in the Democratic Party, but at some point it will hit the corporate interest brick wall, and I think obits for the DLC are very premature.

And some of the policies they have supported (i.e. globalization) have hurt the working class which BTW I am one of that class. You keep promoting these policies that benefit the money class, you will lose support from the working poor. It's time to bring them back into the Democratic fold.


John

It was formed when the US still had a largely agrarian and mercantile economy. It was forced to take working-class friendly positions in the 1930s by the power of labor unions (and the fear that a Communist revolution might otherwise ensue), but it never went very far to the left due to the presence of segregationist Southern Democrats and the continued presence of corporate interests.

My belief is the working class needs economic organization and power first-- get that and the political will follow.

I see zero evidence of forces on the left and progressive wings of the party showing their wares in public. Why wait until after the election to express the virtues of progressive leftism? It is because it might not sell or is it better to sneak in under the wing of the DLC and then hatch into a whole new breed?

in their campaigns. This proves that some people have hope that the Democratic Party still has some spine and if you show that spine, people will respect you and support you. The whole momentum with Kerry winning the primaries was a product of Kerry mocking Dean. He also got help from the mainstream media (Thank you CNN!) and DNC/DLC powers that be.

Dean would have been the front runner had all of this not happened. Now that he is out of the way, Kerry is going back to the same old mushy middle "me too" approach. The only reason Kerry will get the White House is because Bush is messing up in a big way. Even though that is happening, Kerry needs to capitalize on this and take on the same approach he took from Dean. I knew this would happen and in the long run, it will hurt him should he run for reelection in 2008.


John

During the primaries - when many were so sure that Dean (actually less liberal than Kerry) or even Kucinich would be the nominee, the DLC demise was heralded.

Now that Kerry is the man and it appears he'll win, the DLC's demise is still being heralded despite the DLC winning a 4th presidential election.

If we retake senate seats and house seats, I guess the DLC will STILL be on the way down...

Why is Kerry more liberal than Dean? This isn't a set up, I really want to know why you think that.

Before it was used as a tactic to scare the nervous nellies...now's it's being used as a tactic to try to lull the unhappy people reluctant to support Kerry. Typical of DLC pablum, it means nothing.

Why would anyone think Dean was more liberal than Kerry?

But I'll answer your question to the best of my ability.

The standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)...

Kerry's voting record is generally liberal, similar to that of his more senior colleague, Edward Kennedy. Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal political group, gave Kerry an 85 percent rating in 2002 and a 95 percent rating in 2001. Kennedy, by comparison, got 100 percent in both years.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/kerry.ht...

The same group gave Kerry a 93% lifetime rating, Ted Kennedy got 88%.

For more than 30 years, the standard method for gauging ideology has been to use the annual ratings of lawmakers' votes by various interest groups, notably the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)...

The ADA, which describes itself as "the nation's oldest independent liberal organization," was founded in 1947 by a group of distinguished postwar liberals -- including Eleanor Roosevelt, labor leader Walter Reuther and historian Arthur Schlesinger -- to rally support for progressive causes...

Kerry's voting record is a very liberal one, according to both rating systems. The ADA's Web site notes that "those Members of Congress considered to be Moderates generally score between 40% and 60%." By that criterion, Kerry's record falls well outside the "moderate" range....

In recent weeks, a number of commentators have asserted that Kerry's voting history is complicated to classify. The evidence doesn't bear this out. If you were to take the numbers shown here, cover up Kerry's name and then ask a sample of American political scientists, "I have here a senator who in the past 10 years has had an average ADA score of 92 and an average ACU score of 6. Is he a liberal, a moderate or a conservative?" they would have no difficulty in classifying the 2004 Democratic candidate as, for better or worse, a liberal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28761-2004Mar27?language=pri...

True, Dean wasn't in Congress, but his record as governor is telling (He was DLC then, by the way)

A+ NRA rating
Was for Tort reform
Appointed RW judges to state courts
Wanted to make VT a corporate tax haven like Bermuda
Was actually for the Iraq war
Was for the Yukka mountain nuclear waste dump
Was for the sierra blanca nuclear waste dump
Opposes legalizing medical marijuana

Poor environmental record, criminal justice record, and questionable comments on civil liberties post 9/11 pre-patroit act. More...

I'm not a purist. I don't give dems purity tests. But if one were given, Kerry's score would be better than Dean's.

with your analysis:

1. Methodology--

You compared Kerry's ADA rating with Dean's positions on various things. Its apples and oranges. For example, is opposing the Yucca Mtn. nuclear waste dump more "liberal" than supporting it? And if so, why? And could his reasons for supporting it be a mitigating factor in how "liberal" or "conservative" such a position is?

2. Questions--

Could you please back up some of your assertions about Dean's positions with some evidence? I am particularly interested in Iraq War, RW judges, and corporate tax haven. If possible, please try to provide some context as to Dean's reasoning behind these positions.

You compared Kerry's ADA rating with Dean's positions on various things.

No, I didn't. I plainly demonstrated that since Dean had no congressional votes, we'd look at his governors record.

Could you please back up some of your assertions about Dean's positions with some evidence? I am particularly interested in Iraq War, RW judges, and corporate tax haven.

ok

If possible, please try to provide some context as to Dean's reasoning behind these positions.

I get it. You want some wiggle room to say the sources and quotes are "out of context."

Take it as you will
------------------------------

The record shows Dean thought Saddam had WMDs and supported taking him out...

"I don't want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

"Every day that goes by, we destroy more of Saddam's weapons or the inspectors do."

"I think Iraq is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."

http://fordean.org/aa/issues/press_view.asp?ID=594

Here, from another "Meet The Press" appearance:

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if (Saddam) didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country.

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that. And Bob Graham is in a position to know. He's a senior senator on the Intelligence Committee and...

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

So here is the setup. In these quotes, Dean believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one point, and then admits he was midled. Fine.

But then Dean hypocritically attacks John Kerry for claiming people had been misled:

"A bunch of the people who voted for this war are now saying, `Well, we were misled,' " said Dean. "The fact is you can't afford to be misled if you are running for president of the United States."

What's that called?

OK, let's take it further.

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Again, this was on January 31. A month or so later (see Dean quotes above), Dean appears to fully believe Saddam has WMDs. Apparantly, Dean (like a lot of people) believed Bush's false evidence.

Now, let's tie this up. We have Dean, fully believing Bush's false evidence, calling for military action even without U.N. authorization.

Dean, fully believing Saddam has WMDs, amends his view on February 20 by stating the US should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm if the UN chooses not to enforce it's own decisions.

Sorry, Dean may be anti-war now, but he hasn't always been, and the belief that he was is one of the many Dean myths.

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

Howard Dean is fond of criticizing politicians who provide tax breaks to "large corporate interests," and one of his favorite campaign lines is a blast at the Bush administration for doling out tax cuts to top executives of Enron Corp.

But during Dean's 11 years as Vermont governor, he enacted tax breaks that attracted to the state a "Who's Who" of corporate America -- including Enron -- to set up insurance businesses. Indeed, Dean said in 2001 that he wanted Vermont to "overtake Bermuda" as the "world's largest" haven for a segment of the insurance industry known as "captives," which refers to firms that help insure their parent companies.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/12/for_dean_captive_insurance_a_vt_boon/

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

I'm still searching for the link on the rightwing VT judge appointments...

questions and not trying to set you up, you might do me the courtesy of taking me at my word:

"If possible, please try to provide some context as to Dean's reasoning behind these positions.

I get it. You want some wiggle room to say the sources and quotes are "out of context.""

No wyldwolf, if I wanted wiggle room to say the quotes were "out of context", I wouldn't have asked for the context up front, because that would leave me less wiggle room. If you want to assume I'm a Deaniac trying to set you up for an attack or debate, fine. But I really just wanted to know why you thought Dean was less liberal than Kerry, and what evidence you had for the positions you said Dean took.

But I do stand by my criticism of your methodolgy. You could compare ADA ratings to ADA ratings or individual political issue positions to individual political issue positions, but comparing ADA ratings to individual political issue positions is not a good way to qualify which one is more "liberal", or to quantify one's "liberal" voting record.

..traditional and new democratic issues, Dean is less liberal than Kerry.

Gun control
Tort reform
war
patriot act-like beliefs
economics
environment

I think Dean is a liberal but the umbrella I hold over who is liberal and who isn't is bigger than some people's umbrellas here.

Dean got his "big progressive" reputation on two issues - his perceived anti-Iraq war stance (debunked) and his civil unions act (actually forced on him by the VT state legislature.)

You explicitly questioned MY motives. I simply asked questions, and explained I was not trying to set you up. You chose to believe the opposite. I don't think such assumptions will lead to productive conversation, b/c it will make me less likely to ask you questions, thus I will never hear your side of the story. I never once tried to say Dean was more liberal than Kerry, I simply wanted to know why you thought he wasn't

and he would have boldly denounced the war for the farce that it is. If we don't do something about the Faux news media we will never have a stong position in this country. Dean was also in favor of applying labor and enviromental standards to multilateral trade agreements. He is more progressive on economic and foriegn policy. Kerry is just a social liberal. The corporate elite aren't threatened by them.

and you expect him to be able to stop media consolidation.

were opposed to ending media consolidationa and thus in favor of turing the country to the right.. I am more pissed off at the people who opposed him than him. Anyway, Deaniacs are learning and growing.

He would have governed from slightly left of center. Bill Clinton -like.

..it was his more rabid supporters who were disingenuous.

?

:)

so he would have been to the left of Clinton on that Issue. However Clinton has said that is his biggest regret, so Clinton has moved to the left of the DLC. Furthermore the DLC has moved to the right of Clinton on the middle east particularly the Palestinian state. I still don't understand why you think his supporters were dangerous.

As for what you wrote above, no, Clinton said his biggest regret was not intervening in Rhwanda.

However, ONE issue does not make or break you as to where you stand on the political spectrum.

Kucinich was anti-choice (until he realized he wasn't ever going to win a national election with that issue) so he "changed his position."

He was to the right of the DLC on that. But I would never say Kucinich isn't a liberal.

foriegn policy. I agree that moderates are not all corporate. It is corporate dems I am concerned about. I think the trend will eventually kill the prochoice movement as well, since the rich can always send their daughters elsewhere. So we are constantly threatened with loss of abortion rights and can't advance on economics.

The war hawks are begging for help now from the EU and the UN to get out of the Iraq mess. The EU and UN are linking help in Iraq to progress on peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which is the root source of most antiamerican hatred in the middle east.

Number two. The developing countries and American workers are no longer cooperating with Shafta and the race to the bottom economics. Cancun was a disaster for the Investor class, and India just rejected the politicians that are responsible for the for the so-called Indian tiger, as it was not benefiting the very poor at all, and the anti-Outsourcing movement are full of pissed off, white collar men, in the computer promgramming field, that have traditionally been liberatarian or republican.

And the hawks are begging for help. That's why they want 25 billion more dollars. Total blackmail. But I agree the DLC has got to go.

through blackmail.

We can all agree that money is influence in American politics, right? Why not just run a check on donors? All the corporate money theat the DLC has raised is less than the money Labor alone has given, let alone minority groups, pro-choice groups, and other traditional Dem supporters.

The one-percenters of the far, far left have used the DLC as a convenient bogeyman to not only explain their own inability to use the "power" of their agenda to influence voters but to advance their schtick that the Dems are "indistinguishable" from the rehugs, stealing votes for their wackjob candidates like Ralph Nader.

The DLC will always have a moderate amount of influence because a significan number of Dems are moderate, and they always have been.

Sorry, one-percenters. You're not going to be able to use the DLC lie with John Kerry. Nobody except your fellow dim bulbs are going to buy it, Nader's gonna get one percent, Chimp'll be gone, and America will make a great big comeback.

. I think we are the majority of the party. You will have to back up your claims of the corporations not donating as much as unions wih facts. Cite some statistics.

NT!