DLC slanders Murtha/Pelosi as "surrendering" on Iraq

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

12.2.05
DLC slanders Murtha/Pelosi as "surrendering" on Iraq
The Democratic Leadership Council has really gone over the line. In today's Washington Post, their staffer Marshall Wittman - who used to be a Republican operative and top official at the Christian Coalition - said that Democrats who are pushing for an exit strategy from Iraq are "offering surrender." This is an organization that continues to say it wants to "help" Democrats - but as we can see, they aren't interested in anything like that.

The Post quoted me responding to Wittman. I said, "It is not surprising that a bunch of insulated elitists in the Washington establishment -- most of whom have never served in uniform -- would stab the Democratic Party in the back and attack the courage of people like Vietnam War hero Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for their stand on Iraq."

UPDATE: The DLC's Ed Kilgore, not surprisingly, feigns disbelief that anyone would think Wittman was regurgitating the right-wing talking points he learned how to regurgitate so well as a GOP operative. Here's what's wrong with what Wittman said, Ed - it's not that hard to understand. Wittman, like dishonest right-wing pundits/politicians, characterized a plan to withdraw from Iraq as "offering surrender." It is nothing of the sort - and characterizing it that way is disgusting and dishonest, especially from someone who now purports to speak, at least in part, for Democrats.

who needs enemies?

and we know who won in 1968.

Sorry I wasn't around than and haven't read enough. All I know is there was a fight.

Why hasn't chickenhawk Whitman signed up for boot camp?

DLC = PNAC = OIL

And you can take that to the bank. :patriot:

One of their members did...the DLC is like a think tank...they don't take official positions on issues. They represent what is viewed as the centrist Democratic viewpoint, and attract members who wish to be viewed as such. No one speaks for them in terms of policy because they do not have a specific set of policy positions that are "officially" DLC.

I'm not one to bash the DLC...alot of what some of their members have to say makes sense, and if you look at their issue papers many of them offer good suggestions that should be taken seriously. I do not like certain people in the DLC like this guy and Al From who I think is a blow hard.

Then again there are people I do not like in many organizations, but I don't taint all of it's members because of it!

a staffer. If a member, who doesn't work for the DLC but belongs to it, says something, it may be an individual opinion. this was, however, an employee speaking in an official capacity--therefore, taking a stand on behalf of the DLC. A former Repug, and Christian Coalition slug, but a current DLC staffer nonetheless.

They're not even Republican-lite anymore. They're just Republicans!

On matters of policy. The organization are the members...and I guarantee you most of them will repudiate this over the next couple weeks.

That's not rocket science. That's politics. :eyes:

He is a paid attack dog for the big dogs of the DLC or he wouldn't get air/print time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
Despite the DLC's centrist pretences, the organization spared no criticism of anti-war voices. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal, because of his anti-war stance. The DLC has dismissed other war critics such as filmmaker Michael Moore as "Anti-American" and members of the "loony left"<1>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."


The DLC has become unpopular within many progressive circles.
Mild critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. Opponents believe that moderation does not inspire passion in voters and lacks the persistent principles and moral clarity which are critical to building a popular political movement. In the long run, so opponents say, a strategy of triangulation results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditional voters.

Others contend that the DLC's distaste for economic class warfare has allowed the language of populism to be monopolized by the right-wing. Many argue that the Democrats' abandonment of populism to the right-wing has been critical for Republican dominance of Middle America. (See What's the Matter with Kansas)

More vocal critics believe the DLC has essentially become an influential corporate and right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Among the DLC's leadership are individuals with impressive right-of-center credentials, such as Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the DLC and the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and Will Marshall, a cosigner of a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) endorsing not only the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but also a foreign policy that has much in common with the neoconservative world-view. Finally, progressive detractors of the DLC note that the DLC receives funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation as well as from corporate oil giants, military contractors, and a large number of Fortune 500 companies.

How is it organized...who enforces adherance top policy positions

Do they hire lobbyists?

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

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.

Those companies would have lobbyists whether they donated to the DLC or not...it is simply another mechanism for donating, and probably helps them hide those donations.

By your definition every politician in Congress (except Feingold probably) are lobbyists. They all get money for their campaigns from the same organizations listed here.

If they actually had the kind of control you are talking about this wank Whittman would not have been allowed to speak in the first place.

I don't really care about the DLC...I think their influence is overrated and not worth the time to get worked up over. SOme of the issue papers they publish I find interesting.

WHat I hate is the broad brush people paint of everyone affiliated with them in any way...do you intend to work against the election of every DLC member in the Senate? Almost half the Democratic caucus is a member.

"I think their influence is overrated" by who? " The media sure does give them feed.

"If they actually had the kind of control you are talking about this wank Whittman would not have been allowed to speak in the first place."
Not true and you know it.

It's getting them nothing but grief...I think the guy probably spoke on his own...and is getting shit on now. He'll be gone in a week. The phone lines are probably burning with pissed members of congress demanding they get rid of the guy.

Yes, they are overrated by the media and by DU...

They are not lobbyists for the DLC...they are lobbyists for themselves. Donating to the DLC is one of the hundreds of organizations and individuals they give to trying to gain influence. You don't show how this is any different than them giving money to individual members of congress. What is distinct about the DLC that makes them so dangerous?

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | December 1, 2005
Iraq and the Vital Center

Yesterday, President Bush unveiled a "plan for victory" to shore up sagging public confidence in his Iraq policies. Though it broke little new ground, the president's speech at the U.S. Naval Academy did provoke an unfortunate reaction from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who endorsed Rep. John Murtha's earlier call for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops.

We share the widespread frustration with the Bush administration's utterly inept handling of Iraq's post-conflict rebuilding. But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253638&kaid=13...

And again...this is not an enforced policy position of the DLC...this is the position of its leadership. There are no penalties for members not adhering to it, there are no restrictions on membership, you do not have to agree with a word anyone else in the DLC says to be a member. Look at their website...look at the the DLC credo...not one policy position anyone is bound to respect to be a member.

Again...what makes the DLC different from any politician accepting contributions from corporations? What makes them particularly dangerous? How does the fact that a few members of their leadership take this position make them worthy of this level of thought.

Finally, if you believe they are acting in a way contrary to their tax status...file a complaint. They are a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Do you even read the stuff you wrote?


"Even a staffer does not speak for the entire organization"

"they don't take official positions on issues"

"I think the guy probably spoke on his own...and is getting shit on now. He'll be gone in a week"


" The guy is a wank...I agree"


Yeah sure......you agree with all positions don't you, you do know at least the defination of a wanker or do you?


It is particularly used of someone (usually male) who is self-obsessed or a show-off, but can also refer to a person who overzealously lies or continually remarks of his achievements. It has the similar meanings and overtones to the American "jerk" or "jerk-off".

The term wanker has also been extended as a generic insult to cover self-aggrandizement or overly showy performance, specifically where the performer's impression of their own talent manifestly exceeds that of the audience. By extension, wanking can be used to describe any activity which is showy but gives pleasure mainly to the participant, such as playing air guitar, free-form guitar playing or progressive jazz saxophone solos.

How does the DLC differ from any member of Congress taking money from the same organizations that contribute to the DLC? How are they dangerous? What makes them this all powerful evil organization able to control....well nothing it turns out!

The fact is the DLC does not control its members, does not enforce set policy positions, and is excluded by their tax status from attempting to influence elections. If you think they have violated this status...file a complaint, call the ACLU, get them to sue.

Agreeing that we should not withdraw immedietely from Iraq does not mean I endorse what the "wanker" said. He disparaged Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha in his statement in an uncalled for way. And I do not agree that this so-called "fissure" will in any way help Republicans. It is a figment of his imagination.

Murtha is a hero for being willing to bring up the subject, and for advocating a position that he knew he would be excoriated for by the Republicans. While I am not on board with his solution (in its entirety), I respect him for voicing it.

We get our panties in a bunch when the Republicans attack Murtha, rightly accusing them of trying to stifle civil debate (which you seem to be incapable of) over the war issue, yet when someone disagrees with your position on the war you attack in the same way. Not everyone agrees that withdrawl now is the best thing to do, nor do all Democrats agree with that position.

about their talking points...hint, hint, wink wink..., you will never convince me after all you just posted in this tread.


oh, and by the way,
Tell, Hillary she is wasting her money sending me her flyers, and mail here in California, you guys are wasting your time.

Disappointing response...not unexpected...but disappointing.

I expect a lack of tolerance for civil debate in the Republican party...too bad we have to endure it here as well.

I'll let President Hillary Clinton know if I see her not to send you anything.

"It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections."? Are you serious? What do you think the DLC has been doing attacking democratic politicians that disagree with their positions? No matter how much you want to argue, the DLC whether or not they put out official position papers, memorandums, or manifestos, have people that are known to express the organization's leanings and positions.IMO DLC has too much detrimental influence on the leadership of the democratic party that has emasculated the party's potential and cost us quite a number of critical elections. The influence of the organization must be curbed.

Exactly who are they influential with?

And no I am not a member of the DLC.

If you believe they are violating their tax status and are a political committe and are trying to influence elections contact your local ACLU office and have them sued!

The DLC these days feels deeply unappreciated AND they're losers. So on the purely animal level I can see why they lash out at us. But it's like blaming the messenger. Their problem is that we hate them because they've scuttled our best candidates and insist that appeasement is the only path of success when it's a demonstrated failure in the current political climate. Whether or not our distaste for the DLC translates to personal animus is purely up to us individually. I tend to believe that if you're aren't part of the solution...... That translates into a dislike for those who aid and abet any organization that I think is "in the way" of progress. But that's just me. :evilgrin:

Gyre

Then the last three elections were won by a DLC Democrat.

I don't recall him being one.

He was DLC.

Yet the political/ideological rift between Gore and the DLC is clear, capped by Gore's endorsement of Dean for DNC chair.

PPI | Bio | September 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.

I would really like to see it, but it will not happen.

Unless they do than he certainly did where it concerns the media.

But I am not gonna go from that to "I will vote Green before I vote for a DLC member." I hope they do fire him...and while they are at it they should get rid of Al From too.

Doesn't mean there isn't a place for a centrist Democratic organization.

Lets wait a bit for it to shake out...I'll From's phone is ringing off the hook with angry members of Congress...I predict the guy will be gon ein a week

He says the republicans will spin it as Republicans being tough on national security and the democrats retreating. He is right - we know thats exactly how Rove will spin it. Rove did it to Kerry who was a war hero, John McCain who suffered greatly for his service. The dems do seem to walk right into these kind of spin jobs. It doesn't mean dems are wrong but the repubs are definitely better at turning their statements around and making them look bad.

they want anyway..I certainly don't give a shite.

rove just loves this pansyass, marshall wittmann..

I don't know if its the media or the dems but the repubs have been incredibly sucessful at demonizing the dems and many Americans have bought the spin hook, line and sinker. It matters to me because it has allowed the repubs to take control of the the presidency, the house and the senate.

Remember Karl Rove's success is because he stoops to lies, cheating and smears.

Do we really want to be like them?

We can fight them AND remain honest. It takes guts, though, to call them liars and law-breakers.

She knew the DLC would attack if she and other Dems spoke out against the war.

And late though she was, she did speak out as her constituents asked her to.

:) Yay Pelosi!

democratic group? Ugh. Excuse me while I puke.

:grr:

:eyes:

I think most of us cast our last vote for the lesser of two evils in 04.

John Kerry would have been a very good President...though I supported Dean in the primaries, I had no trouble voting for Kerry in the general.

They've been doing it themselves for years.