So its Friday and the far lefties are attacking the DLC & Kerry

I'm wondering what their marching orders from Karl Rove are for this weekend to disrupt the Democratic Party.

go figure. I guess some people are just enjoying the corporate money and influence too much to care about actual people.

maybe they don't need one or want one or something. 99% of us do.

Shipping jobs overseas gets us more jobs?

You wouldn't happen to also think tax cuts help the economy, wouldja?

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

Sure, done correctly, things work. However, seeing as how that's not what's happening NOW, does it really take that much hard thinkin to figure out I was talking about the Bushevik cuts?

:eyes:

Gonna leave those social issues at the station! Next stop...Your-Piece-of-the-Pie-ville!

But only if you don't mind working in a non-union shop, without overtime pay, with no minimum wage, and in India.

The DLC isn't the evil empire or the *complete* death of our party. But it's wholly disingenuous of DLC supporters to claim that DLC policies regarding labor issues aren't very close to those of the repubs.

up and fight those corporate...wait a second, it's the opposite!

do you. Most of the major labor unions are connected to the DLC through their officers. Now go ahead, bash labor now.

Brings new meaning to the phrase, "I like 'em big and stupid."

always have the best interests of the rank and file in mind, I have a bridge to sell you in NYC. That doesn't exactly validate the policies of the DLC.


And I happen to be a labor and employment attorney, so please try to tell me I don't know anything about workplace issues. :-)

And I'll bash labor all I want because our leadership is failing there too. Union leadership could use some more vision. I've been doing union organizing for over 5 years both as staff and as a rank-and-file member, and yeah, we need a big overhaul with the bureaucrats running the show there too. The Democratic Party and organized labor have both been on the decline for several years, and people like you who want to stifle dissent and constructive criticism aren't helping matters.

Unions have been steadily gaining a voice and steadily gaining members and power. Right?


Those of us who have been around this life for a while have witnessed the steady decline of labor unions over the past thirty or so years.

You figure out why. They are virtually now. impotent. And I see no Democrat doing a damn thing to help labor gain a footing back into the point where they have a significant place at the table

Course, we have few factories now, and fewer jobs that the blue collar worker depends upon.

There are *some* Dems trying to push labor issues and help unions, but they are often the ones who are marginalized as far left wackos by the DLC. Think Kucinich et al.

While I think our party is failing the American worker in general, I can't agree that NO Dem is working to help them.

contract with SBC after their 4-day walkout. 100K workers covered. Not bad.

I did labor organizing for 12 years and I'm not sure why labor unions are declining. I think its pretty much a decline in the value of unions in the minds of younger workers due in large part to the bashing of unions by Reagan (after he waived his Screen Actors Guild card during the 1980 campaign then fired the Air Traffic Controllers.) However, its an excellent strategy for unions to be members of and have influence in organizations like the DLC in order to further the labor agenda.

end up like the UFCW strike. Not to mention strikes are pretty rare now because people are afraid they will just get busted.

I think there's a lot of reasons why labor unions have been declining, and I don't think the DLC is the main, or even one of the bigger reasons. Unions tend to gain political power through economic power rather than the reverse. Anyway, I think there are lots of factors contributing to organized labor's decline, some within the control of union leadership, others out of anyone's control, but I do think there is an essential lacking in political vision both on the part of unions and the Democratic Party.

But I better not get too deep in this discussion or I'll never get off this thread.

I think it's a matter of people who are in it for the power that comes with getting your dog elected (DLC), versus people who are willing to stick their necks out and actually lead (Dean).

Do moderates even exist?

:cry:

eom

All I see is people correctly responding to a threat to our party.

:shrug:

Nevermind.

LOL

I'm hurt. Hurt I tells ya.

:eyes:

:eyes:

eom

DLC is just a small fraction of it.

The pledge to ensure we wouldn't have to suffer through this rightwing media lovefest?

Glad the DLC had their priorities straight!

:puke:

After those two years, DLC chairman Michael Steinhardt resigned in 1995. He was disgusted with Clinton's turn to his past "ultra-liberal" ways after campaigning as the DLC's third-way centrist. Clinton. Ultra-liberal. Imagine that. Steinhardt's now a big Bush supporter. Imagine that.

I didn't think I could despise this group more. But I do!

..last fall, and hire some of Kennedy's guys. That's when he stopped the circular firing squad, got on message, and started to see his poll numbers increase.

The DLC are mostly southern, all conservatvie blue dog Democrats. If that's in line with your political philosophy (antilabor, procorporate, antitariff, pro offshoring), then just own it. Don't try to tell the rest of us they're anything but the main force behind alienating the Democratic Party's working class base, and don't ttry to tell us they can win elections.

They're losers, their political philosophy is GOP-lite, and their advice SUCKS.

eom

really helping out your credibility by saying that.

:eyes:

Whether Kerry is or is not a good candidate is not the point. He's trying to squelch criticism of the DLC.

Why this escapes some people is beyond me.

that drives its behavior and members are little more than parasites on the body?

The DLC's members come up with DLC policy.

Funny, it seems the rightwing loons are trying to sell this same shit wrt Kerry. Kerry is a democrat, democrats are liberal, therefore Kerry is a liberal.

Sad... logic has been thrown by the wayside in the desire to manipulate the stupid. :(

wouldn't actually want to bring anything of substance into the debate.

Yesiree, Karl Rove sent me in here to question Kerry's love fest with Likud fundamentalists and question his receptiveness to anti-choice judges. Not to mention Kerry's ongoing support of the illegal invasion.

Seems to me, your knee-jerk heel-clicking is right up Rove's ally.

Spot on!

You are not alone

My marching orders: Prepare 1,000 posts this weekend which directly and (cleverly)indirectly besmirch the fine name of Kerry and his eternally vigilant supporters.

...regardless who he picks for VP. I voted for Gore, despite Lieberman. I'll vote Kerry/whoever, but as for the DLC, in particular the present leadership of the DLC, they can juggle their own nards and a chainsaw, with a pole up their arse...

Hmmm, I didn't know that. Should I be expecting a check in the mail from Karl Rove? Cool! My date last night was really expensive, I could use the cash.

Speaking of Rove, I wonder if the right-wing ideologues like him and Norquist, who have led the Republican Party to dominance, were once denounced by moderates from their party much like you are doing now. It doesn't matter, you and the DLC dinosaurs will soon be swept aside, as people with guts and vision get organized.

Come back in 10 years and I'll still be laughing even more.

always have a position of power in this country as long as we remain a capitalist society, but if the Dems don't get their shit together soon and a learn a little from effective Republican strategies and appealing to ideology, the Democratic Party will meet the fate of the Whigs. And guess what, the DLC is not the organization to lead the party out of this mess.

in an anti-corporation climate? Do you want a depression?

in order for new jobs to be created? Same crap the Republicans have been spouting for years to justify every attack on organized labor, shitty trade deals that result in a net LOSS of jobs, shredding environmental regulations and other corporate oversight. Not to mention allowing autocratic institutions like corporations to control our political process and do what's in thier interests, not the interests of people at large.

There does seem to be a whole lot of similarity between the DLC's talking points and those of the RNC.

Isn't that odd?

"Please explain how the Democratic Party can create jobs in an anti-corporation climate? Do you want a depression?"

I reread my post several times and don't see a word about being in the corporation's pockets, nor do I see anything that implies that. Please answer the questions.

to and I don't see a word about how the Democratic Party should create an anti-corporation climate. So no, I will not respond to your red herring.

which is the direct result of unending corporate scandals.

If corporations want Americans to be pro-corporate, they should stop screwing us over.

I mean, it's not like you do them any favors by selling your labor to them at a cheap price so they can reap billions in profits and funnel a portion of those profits (made with your labor) into the political system so you have no voice. Look at the shiny watch swing back and forth, back and forth...corporations are your friends, do not question the DLC or your party's nominee... do not criticize...this is the best you can possibly hope for...comply and sleep.

Perfect. :)

The implication in your question is that unless one accepts the DLC strategy of expanding freedom for corporations in the marketplace as being essential to creating jobs, you are therefore "anti-corporate" and against the creation of jobs.

Corporations and jobs do not go hand in hand. The failure of the Democratic Party to counter this notion, as spread by the GOP over the past 30+ years, is one of their greatest failings. And here, you are, simply adding to the propaganda surrounding this false sentiment.

Advocating that limits be placed on corporate behavior in favor of the common good is not "anti-corporate". It's pro-public. However, advocating that corporations be given freer reign to maximize profits whether or not they create jobs is certainly anti-public.

I have read nothing from the DLC that implies unbridled freedom for corporations. However, I read implications in the earlier post that corporations should be strongly controlled and regulated.

Yes, corporations and jobs do go hand in hand, no, wait, I'll say they're joined at the hip. Too many people depend on corporations for food on the table and a roof over their heads. What's the alternative? Millions of entrepreneurs? That's another way to say millions of children and people on the street selling trinkets to make enough money to get by.

You put corporations out of business here through heavy regulation and constraints and they will go overseas. The US will soon be a third world country. We'll trade places with the third world.

no matter how much the talking heads at the DLC (and their counterparts in the Republican Party) try to make it so.

which makes the U.S. the most repressive anti-labor government of all industrialized nations. The more power workers have, as compared to capital, the more jobs there will be.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0847620.html

"...The act established control of labor disputes on a new basis by enlarging the National Labor Relations Board and providing that the union or the employer must, before terminating a collective-bargaining agreement, serve notice on the other party and on a government mediation service. The government was empowered to obtain an 80-day injunction against any strike that it deemed a peril to national health or safety. The act also prohibited...secondary boycotts (boycott against an already organized company doing business with another company that a union is trying to organize), declared that it did not extend protection to workers on wildcat strikes, outlawed the closed shop, and permitted the union shop only on a vote of a majority of the employees. Most of the collective-bargaining provisions were retained, with the extra provision that a union before using the facilities of the National Labor Relations Board must file with the U.S. Dept. of Labor financial reports and affidavits that union officers are not Communists. The act also forbade unions to contribute to political campaigns. Although President Truman vetoed the act, it was passed over his veto...."

on charges filed by a right wing nut during the Bush I administration, I couldn't agree more.

That same charge is being made and orchestrated against Kucinich, Nader and anyone who criticizes the DLC. They just can't debate the issues and want to marginalize anyone who disagrees with them.

Why not have a tantrum and hold your breath until your face turns blue?

...instead of Bush*? Gore and Dean are no longer candidates...and they're STILL attacking them. How beneficial is THAT to party unity?

- It's looking more and more like the DLC is afraid that a populist candidate will take the wind out of their sails. Instead of working with progressive candidates...they join the RWingers in attacking them.

- The DLC seems to want it all...no matter who they have to destroy to do it. It's their way or the highway, baby.

- And please...how can the DLC tout ANY kind of success when the GOP has controlled both houses since 94 and allowed Bush* to skate into the WH?

They're not trying to get Democrats elected, or they wouldn't be trashing them.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
ohhh I think I hear Karl Rove on the phone... whats that attack Gman, the DLC and Kerry today on an anonymous messageboard..... YES MY DARK LORD...
:crazy:

LOL!

...and when you get the response you desired, you call it "a swarm of hornets"...

What the hell ever. The DLC and its flunkies can go piss up a rope.

The DLC's mindless "us too just not as much" idiocy has managed to ensure that Democrats are out of power in EVERY BRANCH of government, and it's just a hoot!

Iraq War, drained national treasury, dead troops and civilians, losing our right to vote, the media turned against the people (can't put a check on corporate power, dontchaknow)... what a laugh fest!

We are mad at Kerry, because he seems afraid to get too tough with Bush. He is way too agreeable on the war. Too bad he voted for it. He should have known better. And really, with how bad Bush is doing, shouldn't Kerry be wayyyyyyyy ahead in the polls?

This is concerning me. If Kerry won't go after Bush, then he might give it to him. That would spell disaster for America.

However, you might want to be a little more observant. If you read carefully, you'll see that not too many people in this thread are making an issue out of Kerry but instead the DLC.

Bush has irresponsibly put us in the position that if we pull everything out of Iraq immediately, the massacres in Rwanda will look like a picnic compared to the tribal and religious bloodshed from infighting that will occur in Iraq. Bush has put us in a no-win situation. Kerry is being extremely responsible by not advocating an immediate withdrawal. Thank the good common sense people of the party for nominating Kerry. Curse Bush for putting the country in this position.

Bush has irresponsibly put us in the position that if we pull everything out of Iraq immediately, the massacres in Rwanda will look like a picnic compared to the tribal and religious bloodshed from infighting that will occur in Iraq.

People said the same thing about Vietnam. Didn't happen there when we left.

The only thing in this equation that IS certain is so long as US forces remain on the ground as an occupying force, they will help create instability. Now, if you're perfectly content continuing on with this certainty (even though it is destined for failure), go right ahead. I'd rather take a chance on an uncertainty that just might lead to a better outcome in the long run.

Do you have so little confidence in the Iraqi people? Do you too think they need a long period in which they wear training wheels?

they couldn't be just liberals/Democrats who disagree with the DLC?...they have to be labeled "far-leftes"-in an attempt to remove them from a narrowly defined meaning of liberal/Democrat (which excludes any liberal/ and or Demcorat who disagrees), as a way of proclaiming "I'm the real liberal/Democrat and they are not!!"

So who gets to decide who the "real" liberals/Democrats are?

Calling those we disagree with "far lefties" , in an attempt to suggest something negative(and it is meant as a negative), is more of a Rovian tactic than those who simply state they disagree with the DLC ...disagreement isn't a battle cry.

"you're either with us or against us" is not the creed of a liberal or a democrat...I would hope it's not, anyway.

people don't have to agree on methodology to want them same things...

It could just as easily be said people get their marching orders from the DLC...but neither statement helps the imperative and grave need of this country...which is to get rid of Bush.

We need all liberal and democratic voices...no one candidate is going to be all things to all people..that's why there are "groups" within any party that brings those interests and concerns to the table...that gives a voice to those people... To alienate any one group is to lessen the party as a whole.

my way or the highway thinking does not bring people together.

Bush proves that point daily. He's dogmatically entrenched and the world has suffered for it...

People "fall in love" with a candidate to the point they forget everything else...and as important as it is to get rid of Bush Inc, it's not so important we forget we are all on the same side..that we all want a better America...that lives up to the promsies of liberty and justice for all...No, we don't all agree on the "hows"...but we do all agree on the goal. To make America better...at least, I hope that is the goal. It's my goal, anyway.

:eyes:

Democratic Party and our government, we will all be unemployed and living under a Republican dictatorship. And if you criticize the DLC you are a right-wing agent. If you point out Kerry has a flaw in his positions/policy, you are a far left Commie/hard right Freeper.

SARCASM DISCLAIMER

...If Zell Miller where the candidate, would you vote for him? not.

The Dems were long dead and had no hope. I don't think anyone would be here if that were the case. But the candidate is Kerry. Some on the left are not 100% happy about this (inclusive) but we are going to vote for him. We are not going to shut up. We are going to struggle to drag this party back to its foundation and then fight to show others why they have to vote for it. So deal with it.

If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

Have a nice day... and don't forget to vote Republican.

but will not support verbally an organization such as the DLC (which I joined long ago before the current mess) because they don't understand the crisis our country is in (and evidently the principles it once had of the people first, the constitution, and NO pre-emptive or preventive wars of conquest).

Post flamebait, you get flamebait.

... to want the party to distance itself from the DLC. THEY ARE INEFFECTIVE. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

DLC, not very democratic, no leadership, but I guess they have a council.

One out of three ain't bad!

From the Message Board Rules:

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.

Democratic Underground is a "big tent" message board which welcomes a broad range of progressive opinions. As such, you are likely to disagree strongly with many of the comments you see expressed here. Please do not take these differences of opinion personally. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you does not give you the right to lash out and break the rules of this message board. A thick skin is usually required to participate on this or any message board.

Please note that, strictly speaking, sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not considered personal attacks. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

There is a difference between forceful advocacy for a particular issue (which is allowed), and personally attacking people (which is forbidden). If you can't tell the difference, you are likely to get into trouble here."