Is the DLC recruiting Republicans as to replace the Democratic party?

I was at a party the other night and someone posed this question.

After watching many the recent choices of many of our so called Democratic leaders, it certainly makes one wonder.

Are many of our Democratic leaders truly Democrats, or they individuals being recruited into the Democratic party so that they can push a Republican agenda and citizens will assume they are Democrats?

Seems it's a question worth asking.

i think so.
i thought that up once 2 years ago.
Its a strategy to take over things..

how many other Democrats are keeping quiet about there views like that?

have granted corporate interests unlimited priority over their constituents as well as ideological/religious interests as well, which is essentially a betrayal and antithesis of the Democratic and American foundation at large. Republicans shouldn't be doing this in any realm as well.

All the more reason to have legitimate voter and campaign reform as to insure that Democratic leaders and Republican leaders as well, actually fulfill their job requirements and commitment to all constituents and do the job they have been allowed the opportunity to fulfill.

They had corporate connections and cash. This atrracts pols like flies to crap. The DLC measured success by these item$ and loyalty to their outlook. The advent of the small donor people with their own cash and ideas about how to spend it was just not part of the DLC strategic plan.

The seeds of destruction are inherent in trying to pin ideals based on polling data rather than the courage of conviction!

Er...n/t Sorry, it wouldn't fit. :)

Marshall Wittman, the choice of those who think Bush, William Kristol, the Heritage Foundation, PNAC, the Hudson Institute, and the war are just "swell". 2 time PNAC signatory. Aide to Ralph Reed, Alan Keyes and John McCain. Nothing more than a vile reptile come home to the loving arms of the DLC.


Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and one of the nation's most quoted analysts on political and congressional issues. He specializes in the growing role of the independent voter.

Prior to joining the Institute, Wittmann held notable positions in government and private institutions. In the private sector, he served as the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations both for the U.S. House and Senate. Wittmann also served as the Christian Coalition's director of legislative affairs. In the Bush Administration, he served as the deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services. Wittmann also was the legislative representative with the National Association of Retired Federal Employees and a public affairs specialist with the National Treasury Employees Union. He holds both his bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Michigan.

(snip)

http://pewforum.org/events/0410/wittmanbio.htm


Also a Sr Fellow at the PPI since Sept 22, 2004:

Marshall Wittmann
Senior Fellow

Marshall Wittmann is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Previously, he was Director of Communications for Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Mr. Wittmann has served in various positions with the Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, and in the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=87&subsecID=112&contentID=252919

Dems' control won't put Clinton in power - 06/12/01
... More significantly for Clinton, Sen. ... "Bob Byrd will be her best friend," says Marshall
Wittmann, a Republican analyst at the conservative Hudson Institute.
www.detnews.com/2001/politics/0106/12/a04-235140.htm - 26k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages


Zogby International
... Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow with the Democratic Leadership Council, said
Clinton's reputation as a polarizing figure isn't necessarily a liability. ...
www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10443 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages





September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.


Sincerely,

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

3. The New Republic reported that Karl Rove's staffer Tim Goeglein called Hudson about Marshall Wittmann, who subsequently left Hudson, a government funded think tank, under mysterious circumstances.

(snip)
8. Around March 2001, Goeglein called Hudson to complain about criticisims of the administration which Marshall Wittmann, then a Hudson senior fellow had written on the website of his “conservative reform project,” which listed Bill Kristol on its stationery as co-director. Curt Smith, then Hudson VP, took the call and relayed the complaint to Wittmann, who then told petitioner and Ken Weinstein about it, emphasizing that Goeglein bore him a particular animus because of the 2000 presidential campaign when Wittmann was an outspoken supporter of Senator John McCain.

9. Not long after TNR reported Goeglein’s call, Curt Smith who took the call was fired. Marshall Wittmann, whose leisurly days petitioner personally observed since his office was adjacent to him, subsequently left Hudson to work for Senator McCain. Asked about this by petitioner, Wittmann professed nearly total amnesia regarding the events of 2001 and threatened the petitioner with the Capitol Police when pressed on the matter. Hudson VP Ken Weinstein was equally informative. Evan Gahr: Why did Marshall Wittmann give up his cushy job at Hudson for the hustle and bustle of Capitol Hill? Ken Weinstein:

10. Wittmann, of course, is not the only Jew who embarassed the White House and subsequently left the government-subsidized think tank, with obvious incentive to do what’s necessary to maintain the good graces of Karl Rove, under mysterious circumstances.

(snip)

http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/evan_gahr.htm

Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

The Democratic-Republican party was a United States political party, which evolved early in the history of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic-Republican_Party

That's very interesting!

Amazing what our history can teach us. (Even more so if I would read more of it*)

Makes one wonder if we are comin round the mountain again....

Especially in the light of the past elections, and recent attacks on Michael Moore.

They spent our hard earned money to put a ton of Kerry ads on the game show channel while the republicans bought time on the most popular shows and sporting events?

I live in Michigan, allegedly a "battleground" state. I do not recall seeing many Kerry ads at all. Thankfully, local Democratic efforts seemed to make the difference and Michigan went Blue.

The question is why do these alleged people have any voice in the affairs of the Democratic party at all?

I would imagine it has something to do with Bill Clinton being one of the founders.

Im curious to know, who is Al From? What are his credentials? What is his political history and background?

His biography on the New Democrats On-Line Web site says he is a "member of the Board of Directors for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Foundation."

Trust me on this, folks: Anybody who claims to be a Democrat and is cozy with the Chamber of Commerce is not a Democrat; he's a Republican in drag.

To win in November, it appears, the Democrats will have to defeat not only the Republican candidate but also the saboteurs in their own party, the Democratic Leadership Council.

Monday, January 5, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/01/05/hsorensen.DTL

Before founding the DLC, From was executive director of the House Democratic Caucus from 1981 to 1985. For two years -- 1979 and 1980 -- he was deputy advisor on inflation to President Jimmy Carter and from 1971 to 1979, he directed the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, chaired by Senator Edmund S. Muskie.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131

Currently Co-Chairman/Board of Directors of Charter Schools Development Corporation's (CSDC) http://www.csdc.org/about/board/from.html
http://www.capc.umd.edu/board.asp


Longmeadow, Mass.: How did you first start in politics?

Al From: After earning a master's degree in journalism, I went to work for Sargent Shriver in President Johnson's war on poverty. I decided that rather than writing about issues like poverty, I wanted to do something about them. When President Nixon was elected, I was not convinced of his commitment to the war and poverty and went to work in the U.S. Senate as a staffer from Sen. Joe Tydings of Maryland and a subcommittee staff director for Sen. Edmund S. Muskie of Maine. I spent two year in the Carter White House and four years as director of the House Democratic Caucus, before starting the DLC in 1985. I got in to politics - not through campaigns -- but through my commitment to issues and getting things done.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/01/politics/freemedia012601_from.htm

My favorite 2004 election quotes from From:

"But we can't just talk to the angry people who want to fire Bush. We need to reach some of the people who like Bush, and make a positive case for hiring us. We've got to be practical. We can't let Bush seize the political center. I just hope that people in our party aren't suicidal."

....

"My problem with Dean isn't personal. He did some things as governor that were pretty good," such as balancing 11 state budgets. "My problem with Dean is that he has pursued a strategy that will make it harder for a Democrat to get elected and achieve the progressive goals that we'd all like to achieve, such as building a broader-based middle class.

"Running for president isn't just about getting your supporters revved up (against Bush). Only 10 percent of the electorate is in that overheated group. You've also got to get other people to vote for you."

as quoted in "Centrist Democrats Meet To the Disdain of the Left"
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6398905.htm


"whenever you have major reform taking place in the country it is important to have members of both parties support it so you have the political underpinnings to make sure it actually gets carried out."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/january97/civil_1-22.html

I would better believe his agenda is truly legitimate if he was active and had been vocal about the voter fraud and the electronic voting issues threatening our electoral system and Democracy at large.

As perhaps the only person here who actually knows Al From personally, let me say something...

A guy who worked for Jimmy Carter, Ed Muskie and Sargent Shriver isn't a very convincing Republican.

Look, Al From can be abrasive. He can be provocative. But he is a Democrat to the core. He went out of his way to ensure that the DLC issued numerous scathing critiques of Bush administration policy, particularly on fiscal policy and homeland security. He has worked dilligently to help Democrats such as Jennifer Granholm, Mark Warner, Blanche Lincoln, and a host of state legislators and municipal officials.

He isn't everybody's cup of tea, especially if you don't subscribe to the DLC center-left approach. But trust me, he is not, has never been, and will never be a Republican.

I would never insult good, decent Republicans by calling Al From one of theirs. From is a neo-liberal and those are as bad as the neo-conservatives. The only difference between the two is which party they infiltrated and which tools they emphasize to ram through their agenda of corporate globalization, industry deregulation, militarization and the total marginalization of the American worker.

I'll also note that I read the DLC's numerous "scathing" critiques of Bush administration policy. They weren't at all scathing. It's kind of hard to be scathing when your only problem isn't WHAT Bush is doing, but that he's not doing it well enough.

My only hope is that Republicans are waking up to the same neo-cancer within their midst that's destroying their party.

Together, good decent Republicans and Democrats will take back OUR respective parties so we can take back our country.

I am very grateful to them that they just made it easier for us to expose that vile co-habitation by naming a well-known neo-Con PNAC signatory as Sr. Fellow/Spokesperson of both the DLC and the PPI.

My apologies to any decent Republicans over the quote that Al From is a Republican in drag. Had I written that article, I would have called him a Neoconservative in drag.

I'm taking my party back NewDem. There's nothing center-Left about the PNAC-colluding DLC which has been leading it from one disaster to another; the the DLC is center-Left, I'm Jesus Christ.

The Chamber of Commerce, along with the Federal Reserve System and a few other quasi-private, quasi-public institutions, are exactly where the corporations and our supposedly democratic government merge - they should always remain the focus of our efforts I think.

Look at the Chamber of Commerce groups around the country - there is at least one in every city in America, sometimes several - they are the ones who coordinate the political influence that corporations buy with campaign contributions, the revolving door between them and government never stops revolving. In many places in the US, the Chamber of Commerce has more power than the local government. Forget the fundies - the Chamber of Commerce is the GOP party's base.

You guessed it. The US Chamber of Commerce. Seems they were extremely pissed off with his stance on Free Trade and dropped him like a hot potato. Seriously - check their records. Edwards didn't even exist for them.


Chamber of Commerce Abandons Neutrality to Defeat Kerry-Edwards
07-Jul-04
Kerry-Edwards

"Business organizations are reacting harshly to John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as his running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket. The strong reaction stems from Edwards' background as a trial lawyer and his support of no limits on damages in health care and product-liability lawsuits. U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donohue warned before Edwards' name was disclosed that the chamber would abandon its traditional neutral stance in presidential elections, and work to defeat the Kerry-Edwards ticket. A chamber spokesman late Tuesday reaffirmed Donohue's threat. 'If you look at the records and the rhetoric of these two individuals, they rank 99th and 100th in the U.S. Senate in issues of concern to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business community,' said William Miller, political director at the Washington-based lobby." This is an outrage for a non-partisan group - if you belong to the Chamber of Commerce call the national office and tell them you're quitting!


http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Kerry-Edwards

===
The Politics of Business:
Chamber Groups Supports GOP

By
Edwin Bender
July 15, 2004


When Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry announced U.S. Sen. John Edwards as his vice presidential choice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued notice that it may abandon its usual nonpartisan stance in presidential contests to oppose the Kerry-Edwards ticket.
Tom Donohue, head of U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has said he would recruit the “best people and greatest assets” to oppose the Democratic ticket.1 The reason for the ire: the Chamber has been pushing for so-called tort reform and caps on lawsuit settlements for years. As a former trial lawyer who made his fortune suing corporations, Edwards is seen as an arch-nemesis of business.

(snip)

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/200407151.pdf

===

From the National Manufacturers Association to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, business interests are preparing to wage a major battle against the Kerry-Edwards ticket on grounds that it would be detrimental to their bottom lines.
"As a trial lawyer, Edwards is associated with a controversial fringe of the legal profession that conducts raids on companies that not infrequently lead to larger financial gains for themselves than their individual clients," association President Jerry Jasinowski said in a statement after Edwards' selection by Kerry. "This fringe group of trial lawyers frequently drives viable companies into bankruptcy and puts thousands of Americans out of work," he said. A spokesman for the association, Darren McKinney, said the organization plans the "most robust educational effort" it has ever undertaken to tell its companies and their employees about the impact of large jury awards on profits and jobs.
While the National Manufacturers Association, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, doesn't specifically endorse candidates, McKinney said the association would make clear to companies and their employees what the group sees as a costly economic threat if Kerry and Edwards win.

(snip)

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595076484,00.html

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

Instead of spouting and foaming at the mouth again, why don't you bring show one shred of proof that Edwards was at a DLC event during the Primaries? Surely that would be very easy for a friend of good ole Al's. Maybe we missed it in our feverish search over 9 months. Maybe the DLC just FORGOT to print his name in the announement, line-up and program of the Annual Meeting they held on May 21. Maybe Al's Chamber of Commerce REALLY LIKED Edwards and forgot to tell us!

Do you think we're stupid? Do you think that even non-Edwards supporters did not notice how pointedly he was ignored by the DLC? How conspicuously absent he was at their events? YOU may not have been paying attention but we were- even the non-Edwards supporters among us.

A good place for you to start would be their May 20 annual meeting where Lieberman was feted all over the place, Kerry was present, Graham and Kerry were present and even Dean sent a videotaped greeting, but neither sign nor mention of Edwards with whom they were having a major ROW over Free Trade.

Don't let facts get in the way of your knee-jerk defense which are getting more amusing by the post.

If I thought you were interested in any serious discussion, I'd dig up the threads and links referencing this at the time but revisiting these old grounds with a DLC fanatic is simply not worth the time.


The DLC - Centrism assuming that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still.

By "their May 20 annual meeting", I presume you mean the National Conversation in Phoenix.

Guess what. I was there. Heck, I was there early, so I was able to attend the reception for Ken Salazar that Al From hosted at the hotel. But I digress.

Bob Graham was not there.

As far as I can remember, Howard Dean did not send a videotaped message.

Kerry swooped in, spoke, shook a few hands and ditty-mowed to a fundraiser in downtown Phoenix.

Lieberman was not "feted all over the place", save for a few passing references by From and perhaps Mark Penn, who worked for Lieberman's campaign.

There were very few members of Congress present at the last two Conversations because the events are trying to focus on emerging non-federal elected officials. That's why the high-profile speaking slots went to people like Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack.

At the 2002 event in NYC, Edwards was a speaker, as was Kerry.

And is this what you mean by "ignoring" Edwards?

"Edwards also has championed a variety of DLC/PPI ideas, such as creating a new domestic intelligence agency, ending corporate welfare, matching better teacher pay with accountability for educational results, requiring community service for high school graduation, helping new parents balance work and family, requiring responsibility from fathers who owe child support, and overhauling the nation's broken parole system. He has also pushed for an across-the-board cut in the federal civilian workforce, and has proposed a variety of targeted tax cuts to help middle-class families save, invest, and buy a first home. His brand of positive populism makes a powerful values argument against Bush's "war on work," and echoes Clinton's case in 1992 that the middle class is working harder but falling behind".

...and it had Dean's presentation listed, along with just about every other candidate who was still in the running at that point. And then during the convention, links to the press coverage was posted here too.

There was another DLC meeting after this one and Edwards wasn't at that one either, while Kerry (and I believe Dean) were. (So, I believe these were the 2003 and 2004 summer DLC conventions).

If Edwards presented to the DLC in 2002, perhaps that marks when the DLC put Edwards on their pay no mind list (or Edwards put them on his). On NPR the old guy political commentator said the DLC does not like Edwards because of his votes against a couple free trade bills.

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

NO, I did not mean some Conversation in Phoenix. If I had meant that, trust me, I would have said that.

Are you interested in a serious conversation? Because if you are, you need to pay closer attention.

Re-read my previous post, the one that started your retorts, and pay particular attention to the fact that I said "DLC event during the Primaries". Hence, bringing up a 2002 event when we're talking about 2004 or a conversation in Phoenix when the one and only ANNUAL MEETING was in Washington D.C. is not useful.

==
May 20, 2004: New Democrat Network's annual meeting, D.C.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Apr904.html

REMARKS BY NEW DEMOCRAT NETWORK (NDN) PRESIDENT SIMON ROSENBERG
NDN ANNUAL MEETING
May 20, 2004
MAYFLOWER HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
(As prepared for delivery)

http://www.newdem.org/press/newsreleases/news052504.html
===

We have all of this archived with pictures & blow by blow comments of those who were paying attention. Edwards was not there and pointedly disinvited- as if he didn't even exist.

I provided you with the information about the US Chamber of Commerce, on which good ole Al From is on the Board of Directors

U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donohue warned before Edwards' name was disclosed that the chamber would abandon its traditional neutral stance in presidential elections, and work to defeat the Kerry-Edwards ticket

What a surprise.

But since you say you were in Phoenix for that "conversation", surely you remember this?

Unofficial VP audition at Democrats' meeting

Billy House
Republic Washington Bureau
May. 6, 2004 12:00 AM


WASHINGTON - Could John Kerry's eventual vice presidential running mate be attending this week's Democratic Leadership Council convention in Phoenix?

The two most talked-about possibilities, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, are not scheduled to be there.

But three other widely mentioned possibilities have prominent roles in the Friday and Saturday event. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is the council chairman and Iowa Gov. Thomas Vilsack and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson are scheduled to be featured speakers.

"This is not an audition for vice president," said Al From, the council's founder and chief executive officer.

((That Al sounds a little cranky!))

archive.wn.com/2004/05/06/1400/arizonafm/ (inactive)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=132&topic_id=518659

Ever thought of a job in politics?

:)

Interesting information to say the least.

almost photographic, or rather easily so. But trust me it's a curse. I can't for the life of me remember what day of the week or month it is but ask me what so and so said re such and such and I'm there for you!

If I ever had a job in politics, I'd love it to be digging up the dirt on neocons/neolibs for a Progressive organization.

Thanks :)
(blushing

To attempt to exclude John Edwards from the inner business circles is so ludicrous, counter productive and high school when you think about it, (maybe even middle school).

Looks like those of us here at DU need to be joining the Chamber of Commerce's around the nation.

You know, the individuals who want to label some of us as being "hard left" for asking important questions and desiring correct information reveals to me there are those who don't value truth and honesty as much as they value holding on to a desire or an illusion of what they want something to be versus what it really is.

On another note, when did the truth become liberal?

It probably is in most cases because it calls for more creativity, exploration and curiosity, but right wingers are painting almost anything logical and honest as being extreme. That's called pathological.

Im proud to be liberal, nothing but the highest of a compliment, but when extremists try and categorize the truth as being hard left or extreme in any form, you know there is a clear disconnect for those "right" winged individuals to any semblance of truth or legitimacy in what they are saying.

Probably because "these alleged people" have been working for Democrats, donating money to Democrats, voting for Democrats, advocating for Democratic legislation, and dedicating their personal time to Democratic organizations for a hell of a lot longer than you.

These "alleged people" are corporate fronts. The DLC has very few real people supporting it. That's why it's in such a panic now that real people are finding out about them and vowing to run them out of town.

===

(snip)

Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics. Yet the affiliation of scores of members of Congress has enabled the DLC to establish alliances with Fortune 500 corporate supporters, particularly along the so-called K Street corridor of Washington-based lobbyists and in high-tech enclaves such as California's Silicon Valley.

Once, the Reverend Jesse Jackson disparaged the DLC as "Democrats for the Leisure Class." But no one should underestimate the DLC's role in remaking the Democratic Party. Disciplined and single-minded, working tirelessly to forge alliances between individual Democratic elected officials and business groups, zealously promoting the political fortunes of their stars, and publishing a dizzying array of white papers and policy proposals, the DLC has given strategic coherence to what otherwise would have remained an inchoate tendency within the party. It has become a forum within which like-minded pro-business Democrats can share ideas, endorse one another, and commiserate about the persistence of the Old Guard.

(snip)

Of course, it is easier to be contentious when you are well financed. And the DLC message of pro-market moderation is just what organized business wants to hear. From its modest beginnings--with a start-up budget of just $400,000 in its first year, cobbled together at fundraisers starring Robb, former President Jimmy Carter, and K Street Democratic eminence Bob Strauss--the DLC patiently cultivated wealthy individuals and corporate backers. By 1990 the combined DLC-PPI operation boasted revenues of $2.2 million, a big chunk of which came from a single source, New York hedge fund operator Michael Steinhardt, who pledged $500,000 a year for three years. (Steinhardt, whose actual donations came to half that in the end, was named chairman of the newly formed PPI's board of trustees, before falling out with the DLC in the mid-1990s.)


One by one, Fortune 500 corporate backers saw the DLC as a good investment. By 1990 major firms like AT&T and Philip Morris were important donors. Indeed, according to Reinventing Democrats, Kenneth S. Baer's history of the DLC, Al From used the organization's fundraising prowess as blandishment to attract an ambitious young Arkansas governor to replace Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia as DLC chairman. Drawing heavily on internal memos written by From, Bruce Reed, and other DLCers, Baer says that the DLC offered Clinton not only a national platform for his presidential aspirations but "entree into the Washington and New York fundraising communities." Early in the 1992 primaries, writes Baer, "financially, Clinton's key Wall Street support was almost exclusively DLC-based," especially at firms like New York's Goldman, Sachs.

The DLC's investment in Clinton paid off, of course, after the 1992 election. Not only did the DLC bask in its status as idea factory and influence broker for the White House, but it also reaped immediate financial rewards. One month after the election, Clinton headlined a fundraising dinner for the DLC that drew 2,200 to Washington's Union Station, where tables went for $15,000 apiece. Corporate officials and lobbyists were lined up to meet the new White House occupant, including 139 trade associations, law firms, and companies who kicked in more than $2 million, for a total of $3.3 million raised in a single evening. The DLC-PPI's revenues climbed steadily upward, reaching $5 million in 1996 and, according to its most recent available tax returns, $6.3 million for 1999. "Our revenues for 2000 will probably end up around $7.2 million," says Chuck Alston, the DLC's executive director.

While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included. Some donate enormous amounts of money, such as Bernard Schwartz, the chairman and CEO of Loral Space and Communications, who single-handedly finances the entire publication of Blueprint, the DLC's retooled monthly that replaced The New Democrat. "I sought them out, after talking to Michael Steinhardt," says Schwartz. "I like them because the DLC gives resonance to positions on issues that perhaps candidates cannot commit to."

(snip)

This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author. Direct questions about permissions to permissions@prospect.org.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

And that was written in 2001

...they will never be able to out-puke the 'pukes...anyone stupid enough to vote for * won't switch to a *-lite party.

Time to join the Greens???

I would say its more like a shift to becoming more Republican.

If you take a look at our Democratic leadership and take a look at our Republican leadership, there has been an obvious shift to the right by both parties spurred on by corporate interests and some would argue also brought on by a more neo-con/war friendly agenda. That to me, is not a Democratic agenda. It is much closer to a Republican agenda dressed up to appeal to Democrats in order to promote an ideology and agenda that is very much Republican, no matter how it is dressed up, absent of the populist Democratic message.

interesting quote from Lyndon Larouche:

"The only reason Dick Cheney has not been forced to resign," LaRouche said in a statement issued June 25 by his LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign organization, "is because those Democrats who are under control of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) gang, are more enthusiastic supporters of the neo-conservatives than the Republicans.

As long as leading Democratic candidates are not willing to buck the Democratic National Committee group that's under DLC manipulation, they are not morally qualified to run for the office of the Presidency. If they can't recognize a swindle as obvious as that being pulled off by the group of which Cheney is the head, they don't have the qualifications to be President."

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

and only the most feeble-minded would dispute that.

Some of his personal beliefs are, imo, a bit off but to totally disparage the man is ridiculous. He's been spot on about the neoconservatives for years and is very astute about today's politics. Larouche was one of the first to warn about the infiltration of the Democratic party and of the Republican party. He warned about the wars they were planning on fromenting. Is it any wonder he was marginalized as a kook? Mind you, I am not defending everything Larouche says because his opinion-based pieces are frankly kooky but when Larouche starts talking about the neo-cons it's all backed up in facts and people need merely research.

=========================================

Former Reagan advisor and National Security Council senior analyst, Dr. Norman Bailey, told NBC reporter Pat Lynch the LaRouche network was "one of the best private intelligence services in the world."

(snip)

Dennis King, co-author of the New Republic article which examined LaRouche's influence in scientific and intelligence circles, says during the first Reagan term LaRouche aides managed to gain "access to an alarming array of influential persons in government, law enforcement, scientific research and private industry.

(snip)
There is also evidence to suggest that the LaRouche organization maintained a cozy relationship with certain elements in U.S. and foreign intelligence, military and police agencies.

(snip)

http://www.ex-iwp.org/docs/1989/larcouche_berlet.htm (and this from a not very flattering article on Larouche)

If you want to place your faith in that band of tire-slashing, fight-provoking, disruptive assholes, by all means, go right ahead.

But when you do, don't try and call yourself a real Democrat.

Does this combative spirit come naturally?

:) :) :)

From's Last Stand ((aka DLC Leader, Al From, Goes BERSERK!!!))

Al From is quivering with rage. It's the end of a long day in late July at the Wyndham Philadelphia, and with a sheen of sweat coating his face, he gleams with emotion as he launches into the closing speech of the day at the DLC's annual conference. It's a grim speech, delivered in rousing, impassioned tones more vehement than any other speech that day. "We cannot allow our party to be hijacked!" thunders From, railing against the leftists who have been his bête noire since he founded the DLC in 1985. "The future of our party and more importantly the future of our country is at stake."

Surrounded by supportive state senators and fresh-faced New Democratic governors, From, CEO of the DLC, is in his element. His anger has been foreshadowed by other discouraging conference speakers, whom The New York Times found "glum," "combative" and tending toward "pessimism" and The Washington Post dubbed "defensive" and "gloomy." "What we're fighting for is the definition of the party," From later told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "And this is probably the most bitter fighting -- or maybe intense is a better word -- in nearly 20 years. But it's because the left wants to go back to the way things used to be."

:no pity:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/8/franke-ruta-g.html

I'll tell the truth & I'll back it up, no matter how distasteful & unpleasant some may find it :)

He may be an extremist, but that doesnt make his statements unreliable.

If that were true, there would be volumes of individuals who hold high positions right now that we could include in the same category, could we not?

the chair of my county Dem party is so incredibly inept I am beginning to wonder if SHE isn't a repuke just out to destroy my county's Dem party.

It does make you wonder when they act all spineless and weenie ass and just go along with fascist shit instead of being the OPPOSITION PARTY.

Of course. Someone who goes through the grief and headache of serving as a leader in the local Democratic Party must really love Republicans.

Someone who has evidently earned the trust of veteran Democrats in your county, who spends many an evening in interminable county Dem committee meetings, who has clearly toiled in the Democratic vinyards for a long time must be a closet Republican because they don't read from the Gospel According to Bouncy Ball.

Everyone with whom you have an ax to grind is a GOP co-conspirator, mole, troll, plant, secret agent, sabatouer, or fifth columnist.

There is no possibility that there can be people who approach politics in a different manner (ideologically or stylistically) than you yet still are loyal, dedicated Democrats.

It is utterly beyond the realm of possibility that Democrats of good will can sometimes disagree on policies, on tactics, on candidates. Anyone who disagrees with you must be held up as a traitor, since they obviously don't qualify as a real Democrat.

and know what she has done to my county's Democratic party, then you have NO ROOM to make any comment on this. She is so inept no one understands why she is even still the CHAIR. She misses deadlines then says "oh, OOPS, I didn't know," she totally screws things up, she sabotages any publicity efforts.

You're gonna sit there and tell me you wouldn't seriously fucking WONDER about someone like that? She also argues against everything the county Dems want to do.

The woman is NO Democrat.

Incompetence is not the same as being a GOP plant. My own county has a less than stellar set of officers, but by no means do I think that they are "faking it" solely to benefit the other side.

to have someone that fucking incompetent running your county Democratic party?

You are a bit naive, I think. Both sides do it, though I suspect repukes do it far more than Dems do, especially in my state.

If she's not a repuke, why does she agree with the republican party on nine out of ten issues that come up?

Answer me that.

And what would be more effective than to get into the other side's party, become county officers and then ooops! be forgetful and incompetent, thwarting them at every turn?

I'll think what I want to think, thankyouverymuch.

Rather than pissing and moaning on an internet board, why don't you run for county chair yourself? Or, in the alternative, find a candidate and support that person by calling those who vote in the election of officers?

It isn't easy, but it can be done. Many years ago, I was part of a group that did it. We elected a slate of candidates for our county committee, and as a result, we had a much more active and vibrant organization during the next election cycle.

My point isn't to tell you what to think. I don't know the woman you are talking about (at least I assume I don't know her), and I don't know the specifics.

What I am trying to do is point out that questioning people's motives and going off on tangents about conspiracy theories doesn't really help the situation.

What helps is a concerted effort to change the situation. Reach out to people from other factions who might be fed up with this ineffective chair. In my state, there has been a good dialogue between the Deaniacs and the DLCers. Both have been excluded by the stale "chardonnay populist" crowd that runs the party, and both groups have genuine reform instincts. By getting past Al and Howard's little spat, we have found plenty of common ground. And we did it without screaming "corporatist, PNAC-loving, DINO" or "terrorist-coddling crunchberry vaporhead" at each other.

You are assuming I am NOT doing anything when I am, along with a lot of other Dems in this county. The people closest to the top with her are acting like weenies and are hesistant to ask her to step down but finally are taking steps in that direction. FINALLY. It has taken too long. The Kerry organization in my county is far more vibrant and strong than the official Dem party.

Don't make assumptions, ok? Again, I can say whatever I want about her and her motivations. She has done more damage to our county party than I can enumerate. I have only been involved for two years, but her damage has gone unchecked for almost TEN. It pisses me off and I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination, given her complete and constant republican ass-kissing that she would BE more in line with them than us.

DLCers with genuine reform instincts? Where?

You know more about this woman than I do, so I will defer to your knowledge of the situation. Likewise, I don't know you, so I will take you at your word, and wish you the best of luck in any effort to infuse your local party with new blood.

I apologize if I came across as an apologist for a slug. Anyone who knows me through my involvement in the Democratic Party knows that I have little patience for status-quo hacks of any ideological stripe.

On the second matter, yes, there are a number of reformist DLCers. Two prominent Mass. DLC members, Rep. Barry Finegold and Rep. Charlie Murphy, were outspoken opponents of the often dictatorial Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran, and pushed for a more inclusive, bottom-up leadership style.

In NH, Portsmouth City Councilor Steve Marchand has been very active in efforts to change an outdated and inefficient budget process and to make city services more accessible to city residents. Also in NH, a number of legislative Dems are actively supporting tough new lobbyist disclosure legislation sponsored by Rep. Peter Sullivan of Manchester, an active DLC member http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251676&kaid=104&subid=210

else from a state to a Federal level, why not infiltrate and deconstruct from the inside out, so as to quietly insure the ineffectiveness and diminishing power of our party as well, and engage in such behavior in every level they can, certainly monopolizing on the local levels?

They've done it before (and if it aint broke, why fix it)?

The extremist Republicans (versus those not as exreme*) are obsessed with control and domination to such a level that they hate the idea of any opposition and resent the idea of anyone telling them no. Part of that is our weaker leaders fault (and our responsibility as well) for allowing the extremists to get away with harmful destructive policies by allowing them to pass.

Like most bullies, and/or individuals driven by greed, they want it all, and until they are taught the word "no" and/or respectful boundaries, they'll keep wreaking havoc on our Democratic system and everything and everyone else that they believe stands in their way. Democrats would be best served to file that in our cerebrums*

The best way to take over a weakened faction is to further weaken and divide it in as many places as possible, primarily by passive aggressive, non-conclusive means so as to create doubt and/or frustration and to slow or halt any progress being made.

This is why its important for Dems/progressives,and overall good decent Americans at large*, to develop trust and solid relationships with other reliable good, decent individuals whom, we may not agree on every level, but are certainly aligned in principle and basic right and wrong.

for from its beginnings. The DLC is an attempt to compromise the principles of the Democratic Party to "win" voters from the Republicans, which it will never do. By getting into bed with the corporate interests, all that will happen is that the true base of the Democratic Party will desert it, and all that will be left will be Repug-lite, like Al From and Joe Lieberman.
We need leadership in the Democratic Party that will energize the TRUE liberal/progressive thinking base of the party!!!! If this party moves any further to the right and becomes any more enmeshed with the corporate interests, it might as well just merge with the Republican party. The Democratic Party will have abandoned every single basic principle that defined it from its inception. Why should anyone who believes in those principles stay in the party?
We need to dig in and start demanding that our leadership get some cujones and stand up and spit back at these Repugnants!!! Move further LEFT, not to the right!!!!!! Get more stubborn about the principles we stand for, not waver over them. How can we expect people to follow us if we are not sure where we are going???

It was Arianna Huffington who quoted George Lakoff:

"As cognitive psychologist George Lakoff told me: "Democrats moving to the middle is a double disaster that alienates the party's progressive base while simultaneously sending a message to swing voters that the other side is where the good ideas are." It unconsciously locks in the notion that the other side's positions are worth moving toward, while your side's positions are the ones to move away from. Plus every time you move to the center, the right just moves further to the right."

From this article:

THE NEXT DNC CHAIR: WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

Arianna Huffington, AlterNet

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

When did they say this?

This comment is particularly amusing, since it comes the same week that the DLC's "New Democrat of the Week" is Karen Carter, an African-American woman from New Orleans:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253087&kaid=104&subid=115

Maybe you are referring to these women:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252522&kaid=104&subid=115
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252545&kaid=104&subid=116
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252958&kaid=104&subid=116
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252559&kaid=104&subid=116
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252178&kaid=104&subid=115
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251390&kaid=104&subid=115

Or these minorities:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251658&kaid=104&subid=210
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253009&kaid=103&subid=111
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252452&kaid=104&subid=117
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251694&kaid=137&subid=900071
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250658&kaid=107&subid=175
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252856&kaid=104&subid=117
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251679&kaid=104&subid=210

Mel Martinez
Condleeza Rice
Alberto Gonzales
Clarence Thomas
Karen Hughes
Carlos Gutierrez
Margaret Spellings
Rod Paige
Elaine Chao
etc etc etc
It is not just the name and the face that matter..It is the ideas behind them as well...

Rosenberg: "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party."

those traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party being "minorities, labor, women, rights"

==

Rosenberg: "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020805&s=borosage20020726



SNIP..."At a time when the public thinks big business has too much influence in Washington, the DLC's mission is to increase the influence of business in the Democratic Party. Or as Simon Rosenberg, head of the DLC's corporate-funded political action committee, the New Democrat Network, put it, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party." But today, two-thirds of the public says big business already has too much influence in Washington. By 50 to 37 percent, Americans say Bush favors the interests of big corporations over ordinary working people. By 49 to 37 percent, they say Democrats favor ordinary working people. That advantage would disappear if the DLC has its way...."

Corporate scandals:
SNIP.." New Dems joined with Republicans in diluting efforts to clean up the current mess. New Dems in the House offered bipartisan support for the Republican accounting reform bill that was certified as harmless by the accountants' lobby. Before the WorldCom revelations, when it looked like reform was going to be bottled up in the Senate, Lieberman and DLC head Al From launched a PR drive to warn Democrats against being antibusiness and doing too much...."

SNIP... The DLC opposes affirmative action. DLC leaders initially criticized Clinton's decision to mend, not end, affirmative action. The http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=128&subid=174&contentid=1926">Hyde Park Declaration, their last major policy statement, contains a thinly masked call to end affirmative action, saying we should "shift the emphasis of affirmative action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens."

SNIP..."8. The DLC's political advice is often wrongheaded. The most recent DLC insight is that Democrats should target affluent, white, office-park males-one of the most Republican constituencies in the electorate. To appeal to that constituency, the DLC says, Democrats should abandon any populist rhetoric, tone down the drive for corporate accountability, embrace fiscal austerity and free trade, and distance themselves from unions. That may make for good corporate fundraising, but it's hard to imagine a better recipe for defeat....."

AND FINALLY: the icing on the cake.
SNIP...". The DLC champions privatization of Social Security as a centerpiece of its program for the new century. Or in DLC speak, as Will Marshall, one of its founders, puts it, "using choice and competition to advance...the big social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare." The DLC provides bipartisan support for a Bush folly that, as Senator Tom Daschle says, would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble...."

To quote my progressive friend Madfloridian who unearthed these charming quotes "What's that you say? The DLC just wants to help us? I don't think so."

"When you trade your values for the hope of winning, you end up losing and having no values -- so you keep losing"

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

I don't think a politician could hide their true beliefs long enough for them to be miscategorized.