Is the DLC the Neocon's Trojan Horse?

There have been too many 'changes' in the Democratic party over the last decade for it to be a simple coincidence. Some would say that American politics has always been this way...the 'art' of compromise. But never in recent history have we witnessed the wholesale giveaways and concessions of our party's principles and values by those who say they have our best interests in mind.

Has a 'Trojan Horse' been sent into our party in the guise of a gift of compromise? I submit that the DLC is the Neocon's Trojan Horse...sent into our camp to destroy us when our guard is down. What better way to weaken the resolve of the opposition than infiltrating their camp and luring them to be suspicious of each other and doubt their own beliefs and principles?

We are now confronted with a new breed of Corporate politician. They pretend to represent the Democratic base...but consistently vote for legislation and laws in direct conflict to their party's (and America's) interests and needs. Unnecessary wars. Tax cuts and corporate welfare for the wealthy. Patriot Act(s). Cutbacks or elimination of social programs. Blending the church with the state. Ignoring blatant civil rights abuses. Disregard for international laws and treaties. The list goes on and on.

This Trojan Horse wants you to doubt why you became a Democrat in the first place. They want you to be suspicious of liberals and progressives who warn you that the Trojan Horse is just a ploy by the enemies of Democracy. They would have you believe that they're selling out the party for the good of the party.

We may not have the power to remove this Trojan Horse from our party. But that doesn't mean we have to believe their lies and fall for their deceptions. Ignore the Neocon's Trojan Horse and be a Democrat. Don't let them deceive you into doubting what you can see with your own eyes. Be a Democrat who demands good and honest government from both parties. Put ethics and responsibility before winning at all costs. Ignore the Trojan Horse sent by the Elephant to weaken and divide us.

Carter was the last truly populist dem, in my opinion. Ever since that loss to Ray Gun in 1980, the DLC has abandoned it's base in favor of making deals with the GOP.

There is a scene in 'The Adventures of Baron Von Munchhausen' where the city administrator is sitting with a Turkish diplomat, and they are planning what days to attack each other. I think this is an appropriate analogy.

The DLC is absolutely in bed with the GOP and the neocons, either that, or they are so utterly incompetent that they have allowed the dems to become the GOP's bitch.

Certainly, the first step is to gain control of the leadership, before we would be able to effectively take one he neocons.

the mere fact Clinton was for NAFTA shows he wasn't for the working person, really. I truly hope that we are able to bring the Democratic party back into the hands of progressives soon, or there won't really be a Democratic party-just Repuke lite.

pnac didn't happen until 1997 and that marks the ascention of the neo-cons in the gop. The DLC was in existence more than a decade earlier.

Ergo, the older thing is very clearly not the creature of the younger.

...refers to the LAST DECADE. Or about the time the DLC came into existence. The PNAC part came after the DLC established itself within the party. The public promotion of the PNAC doctrine wasn't necessary until Bush* ran for office and began installing the Neocons into power.

Please keep in mind that there were 'special interest' groups that promoted the philosophy of the PNAC before they put it in writing.

And you go and spoil it!

Wait! I'll save him some time in replying...

"Typical of a DLC mole... don't you realize that Al From and Bill Clinton signed a contract with Satan to control the democratic party through corporate contributions and domination of third world countries? In fact, DLC reallu means Dominate Like Clinton or Dominate Little Countries or Donate Lotsa Contributions... or somethin'... bad ... evil... 666.."

Good post.

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

This board is under the constant "hate DLC" theme. I disagree with the DLC on many points, but I do not hate nor blame Kerry, Feinstein, Stabenow, Rendell, and Cantwell for all of our current woes.

I have read everthing from the DLC conspired to keep Dean down (a former DLCer) to the DLC controlled Kerry and made him lose.

edit:I have to add that I now expect you to go down and chastise the "Chihuahuas with bladder problems" post. Or is ridiculing only ok for one side?

It is the present incarnation that is straight from a republican think tank. Whether it is neo-con or not, it is deffinately a trojan horse for the right.

for the robber barons and they have been ever since the DLC's inception.

The principal players in the PNAC have been in power since the nixon administration. Just because PNAC didn't exist, it doesn't follow that the underlying principles weren't in play.

My answer is yes.

Their roots go all the way back to the defeat of Barry Goldwater..
You don't think these guys were around when Nixon and Reagan were in office..And what about the Elder Bush????

PNAC is nothing more a front group for the American Enterprise Institute that issues statements & open letters to the Presidents on behalf of all the neo-Cons. It's a small off-shoot, occupying the 5th floor, of the AEI which has been around since 1943. It may not have meritted an official name but there's nothing new about PNAC. AEI has had 12 very busy floors with plenty of time to send their operatives to the Democratic Party, or leave them in to be more accurate since the PNACers & AEIers are ORIGINALLY DEMOCRATS. To this day Richard Perle, Fieth and Wolfowitz are still Democrats. The day the Republican party, which they hijacked also, no longer suits their needs, they'll follow other PNAC neo-cons like Marshall Wittman back to the DLC.

The AEI, the PNAC & the DLC were founded by Scoop Jackson democrats who follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss. To this day the DLC is stacked with neo-conservative ideologues, who maintain deep personal ties to the war-mongers in the Bush Administration.

The DLC is following the footsteps of its neo-conservative, war-mongering predecessor organizations of the 1970s: the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM)((also see www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Coalition_for_a_Democratic_Majority)), founded in 1972 by the likes of Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, among others; the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) ((also see www.rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/cpd.php)), founded in 1976 by Richard Perle, Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, et al; and the Committee for the Free World (CFW) (( also see www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Committee_for_the_Free_World)), founded in 1981 by exactly the same crew. Rounding out the picture, CFW's chairman was Donald Rumsfeld.

The "missing link" between the "Democratic" DLC and the now-
"Republican" CDM/CPD/CFW neo-cons, is the Social Democrats-USA,
(SDUSA), whose chairman, Penn Kemble, was the Executive Director of
the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in 1972, until he brought in
Richard Perle's underling Stephen Bryen to take his place. Bryen, who
created the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) in
the early 1980s, when he served as Perle's aide at the Department of
Defense, is another leading member of the neo-conservative gang that
wants to go to war against the entire Arab world in the name of
anti-terrorism. Providing daily coordination between Perle and Bryen
would be Joshua Muravchik, a fixture at nearly every American
Enterprise Institute event--but also a leader of SDUSA since its
creation.

The DLC and SDUSA both maintain extremely close links to Tony Blair's
British "New Labour" party faction, and in parallel, are out to
recreate a new version of the Coalition for a Democratic Majority in
time for the 2004 elections. The battle cry for this effort is to
follow the "strong defense" lead of the original CDM's heroes: the
late Dem Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The CDM's two leading lights in Congress were the Democratic Senators
Jackson and Moynihan. The Cold Warrior and fanatically pro-Israel
Jackson remains the model for the DLC crowd today. Former DLC
president Joe Lieberman declares he is proud to be identified as a
"'Scoop' Jackson Democrat." It was these two Senators' offices that
housed the Straussians behind the no-exit Iraq War.

http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-ilad+Issues+527+-25-

From Jackson's office:
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Frank Gaffney

From Moynihan's office:
Elliott Abrams
Abram Shulsky
Gary Schmitt

In 1999, Norman Podhoretz, known as the "father" of neo-conservatism, wrote that the CDM was created to destroy the policies of 1972 Dem nominee George McGovern in the Democratic Party, especially because of McGovern's opposition the CDM was a flop that "never got off the ground." But in the mid-80s, the DLC certainly did get off the ground, and controls the Democratic Party today.

http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-ilad+Issues+527+-25-

((With great thanks to Tom Paine at alternet!!))

"...In the 1970s, under the leadership of Carl Gershman, SD/USA ((Social Democrats-USA)) became a supporter of Sen. Henry Jackson and his contingent of conservative, hawkish "defenders of democracy." As such, they gained a great deal of political experience and savvy, but little political power. It was not until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, that the SD/USA achieved positions of power and influence in both the labor movement and the government. (2)..."

"http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/sd-usa.php"

Some SD-USA members:

"Carl Gershman, chair of SD/USA from 1974 to 1980, was an aide to
Jeane Kirkpatrick when she was the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. In 1984, he served as an adviser to the National Bipartisan
Commission on Central America (the Kissinger Commission) established
by President Reagan. (2) Penn Kemble was on the advisory committee of
the U.S. Information Agency's (USIA) Voice of America. (34) Arch
Puddington worked for USIA's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. (35)
Elliott Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican
Affairs in the Reagan administration. Prior to that he served as
Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and as a staffer for
Sen. Henry Jackson. (40) Abrams was a major figure in the Iran-Contra
Affair. (41) Bruce McColm served as a consultant to the U.S. Senate's
Central American Monitoring Group and has taken congressional
representatives on fact-finding tours in Central America. (11) Jeane
Kirkpatrick was the U.S. delegate to the United Nations during the
Reagan administration. (53) Max Kampleman was a legislative counsel
for Sen. Hubert Humphrey and a chief U.S. negotiator to the Geneva
arms talks with the Soviet Union. (40)"

The anti-communist, anti-left fervor of SD-USA is no second to PNAC
(or the DLC, for that matter). Members were leaders in the AFL-CIO's
efforts in overthrowing Allende in Chile, and later in anti-left
action in Central America; they have been in the leadership of the
CIA's subversion wing -- the NED -- since its inception; they have
been on the board of the terrorist Mas Canosa's Cuban-American
National Foundation; they supported the 2002 coup against Chavez in
Venezuela and continue to support opposition terrorists, purging
unions in Venezuela (just as everywhere else) of any "left" leadership
or influence by whatever means necessary.

http://forums.alternet.org/guest/motet?show+-ui13dz+-ilad+Issues+527+-25-

Michael Lind for instance traced their roots back to the right wing Shactmanite faction of the American Trotskyite movement who entered the Democratic Party in the 1960s and then split with the Left over the Vietnam War. Many members of this group continued their rightward itinerary by rallying to Senator Scoop Jackson’s campaign against the New Democrats. Some finished with the Democratic Leadership Council, while others found a home in the Reagan and now the Bush fils administrations. Other critics who promote an “Iran-Contra bis” scenario for the current flap over intelligence trace the group back to the policy cabal that had promoted the Contra war against the Sandinistas and who had lost their power and influence in the second Reagan Administration as a result of the Iran-Contra hearings of the late 1980s.
http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm

I'd like to point out, that another committee spawned from the same cancer was the Balkan Action Committee which brought us step one of the PNAC wars, the one against Yugoslavia, and was staffed by the same neo-Cons. Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abramowitz, Carlucci were all on its executive Committee.

Anyway, I think you're getting the drift. They're pretty much the same. Both the same cancer, coming from the same place & destroying both parties.

If I were a Republican, I'd be pissed as hell at the Democrats from whom this shit spawned.

So IMO, you may theoretically be correct that PNAC did not create the DLC but in spirit you're incorrect because they, as well as the AEI, were spawned from the offices of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (-D) and Senator Patrick Moynihan (-D).

Interestingly enough AEI was founded by neo-Con Irving Kristol. PNAC was founded by his loving son neo-Con son William Kristol.
Both vile pieces of shit.

Thanks for reading it :)

Tom Paine at alternet pulled the first part, the important part, of that together. Since this is becoming such a hot button issue for us, I'm going to whip something up that goes even into more depth and is easier to read. The DLC is a great danger to us.

I was reading their mission statement...

That is why we best honor the true legacy of FDR not by acting as guardians of the dead letter of past progressive achievements but by living up to the bold, innovative spirit that made those achievements possible. With this Declaration, we affirm our intention to do just that.

:WTF:

:scared:

what does that have to do with the DLC?

If you let me know where the weak link is, I'd be happy to try to clarify it. HeddaFoil's and Eloriel's old threads on their associations would be a big help since they had really uncovered some dirt. Let me know and I'll look.

When I hear these sort of tenuous "links", I get very nervous. It reminds me of the worst of the abuses of the McCarthy era. "Links" are how Bonehead made his case to invade Iraq.

The AEI has been a carbuncle on America's face since its inception and I heartily concur with that premise. The are among the vilest of the vile. I sincerely hope that everytime anyone associated with that organization and it's philosophical offshoots experience urination, it is as firey ropes of lava bursting from their bladder hotly down their urethtra to erupt from whichever orifice they happen to use but that aside, and that the agony of it makes them sweat rivers and cry out to fate.

All that aside for a moment ...

The question Q first posed was whether the DLC was a Trojan Horse for these folk. Tentative connections do not establish this. Even if you were to find a little cross polination between AEI and the DLC, that doesn't establish that particular relationship so much as it reflects on the individuals involved.

I was more answering about the PNAC (ideas/people) being around longer than a few years but thought the ground was covered. I'll go back to the drawing board on the links. I see them/am convinced of them but will try to do a good job of connecting them. Today, I'm in shock over the magnitude of the catasrophe in Asia :( Stunned that all our government could send is $100,000! I'll work on this one this afternoon though I REALLY wish HeddaFoil or Eloriel were here to tackle it or that I had my star back (my own damn fault for not making my donation yet)! Peace to you for the New Year

Such great information and put together so well. You have explained so much that I didn't really have a grasp on. Thansk again. I want to share this information.

Here, the DLC is blamed for Gore's loss, Kerry's loss, the congressional losses, Carters Loss, and the existence of weiner dogs. But alas, it just simply is more complicated than that.

...because they don't happen to agree with you. We already know your intention here is to disrupt the flow of conversation and discourage others from posting that may be interested in the topic.

Your exaggerations and distortions of the facts do mirror that of the DLC. They and the RWingers would prefer to character assassinate people than to engage in a dialogue.

It's not nice to intimate that others are insane because they have a different point of view. That's all I was suggesting.

Long, good article!
==

(snip)

Game Plan

If you imagine the DLC as a team, then the captain would have to be Al From. A veteran of the Carter administration, From took over the House Democratic Caucus after the 1980 elections with visions of rejuvenating his ailing party. He had some natural allies. As Baer points out, there were at least three strains of Democratic pols who felt the party needed redirection---Southern Democrats like Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Lawton Chiles, neoconservatives like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and neoliberals like Rep. Tim Wirth and Sen. Gary Hart. Although they came to their views from different angles, they wound up agreeing on many of the same positions: They believed that the Democratic Party should be tougher on crime and foreign policy, less spendthrift with entitlements, and less indulgent of entrenched special interests like civil servants and unions. They also thought that moving the party in this direction would "restore its electoral viability" with the middle class that had deserted it for Ronald Reagan.

How did a group of elite politicians and operatives transform a political party?

First, they gave themselves a little bit of distance. After several unsuccessful attempts to influence the party establishment from within, the reformers formed the DLC as an extra-party organization in 1985. This avoided what Bruce Babbitt referred to as the "Noah's Ark problem"---the need to satisfy diverse constituents by taking representative positions on behalf of each one. They could also raise their own money (which DLC honchos like Virginia's Chuck Robb were notably good at), start their own think tank (the Progressive Policy Institute), and publicize their own views without tangling with the cumbersome Party bureaucracy.

Second, they worked the rules. They pressured the party to create a new class of "super delegates" consisting of state party leaders and elected officials who, they hoped, would balance out the interest groups that had come to dominate Democratic conventions. They also lobbied to cluster Southern and Western state primaries on "Super Tuesday," so that candidates who were strong in that part of the country (especially conservative Southern Democrats) would get an early boost that could offset a poor showing in more liberal Iowa or New Hampshire.

Third, they aimed for the top. After the Dukakis/Bentsen defeat in 1988, the DLC decided to groom their own hand-picked candidate for the White House. Baer reports that in 1989 Al From flew to Little Rock and told then Governor Bill Clinton: "Have I got a deal for you... If you take the DLC Chairmanship, we will give you a national platform, and I think you will be President of the United States."

And finally, they squawked when Clinton strayed. Baer describes the rising fury within the DLC when Clinton spent his early political capital on "Old Democrat" issues like gays in the military, Lani Guinier, and universal health care. After the disastrous 1994 elections, Dave McCurdy (an Oklahoma congressman who had lost his job) denounced Clinton as a "transitional figure" and PPI began working on a "Third Way Project" that might be the basis for a third-party movement. An embattled Clinton mended the fence by "triangulating" toward more conservative positions and pushing ahead on welfare reform---and by the 1996 elections, the DLC was confident they had him back in the fold.

Baer sometimes strains to make the DLC look like the secret of Clinton's success---and indeed he never convincingly puts to rest the suspicion that it was the other way around. But this does not keep the strategic summary from being an insightful look at the organization's motivations and methods.

(snip)

from Avoiding the Triangulation Trap
Reforming Liberalism Without Abandoning It
By Stephen Pomper

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0004.pomper.html

So many people are members ... good people like Spitzer and Salazar and many others, and I have to wonder if indeed, the DLC patina of success is due to BC's political skills rather than any of the DLC positions he moved toward in his 2nd term.

because you KNOW how opposed I am to many of the things he did but I still voted for him.

Clinton will go down the annals of American history as a great President (I say this very seriously PepperBelly, no sarcasm at all) because he did a lot to further American imperialism. My opinion that American imperialism will be the death of us is besides the point.

Unlike Bush, he was able to wage the same kind of illegal war, fight the same kind of corporate battles and trade wars against Europe (remember the Boeing and Banana Wars?) without pissing off the entire world and while letting us maintain our illusion that our country is good & caring.

There are of course the good things such as Clinton's determination to pay off the national debt as opposed to Bush running it up at the most obscene rate ever. My point I guess is that Clinton was... adorable enough to make even an extremist like me overlook many things. I did not trust his corporate liaisons but in an odd way, I trusted him- him personally, not the DLC which I didn't even know existed at the time. And I'm very glad I knew nothing about them because I couldn't gave voted for Clinton if I had understood what was behind him.

Next time your cousin runs, please advise him to stay as far away from the DLC as possible. He's intelligent enough to do this on his own and in the next election (if there's one), grass-roots & sincerity will win the day. The DLC will be an albatross around the neck of anyone they back and people like me will be keeping them under the microscope.

Clinton could have sold me an ice-maker during the middle of an Alaskan winter. The DLC couldn't sell me a heater because wouldn't trust that heater to work ;) Yeah, I go with BC's personality.

it will be to run away and not run for Prez again. I wouldn't put it past these gop bastards to kill him if they fear him. Wesley has put himself in the line of fire plenty for one life.

He should enjoy his retirement.

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

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

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

Democrats who refer to other Democrats as "insane" because they question the legitimacy of the DLC.

IMO, the DLC leadership, is composed of DINOs, who reap wonderful salaries from the corporate donors they solicit and party with and also from the Republicans.

I have no doubt that their spouses, children and other relatives have lucrative, high-ranking jobs in some of those corporations as a "pay-off" for making sure that the Democratic Party simply DOES NOT WIN!

..look up and down this thread. If "trojan horses" are those who insult other Dems, then we have a slew of them - starting with many of the anti-DLCers in this thread.

began in the 70's when Tip O'neill conspired with the Southern boll weevils to restrain the new populist challenge presented by the minority/ feminist influx. Basically that Congress stymied Carter at nearly every turn then promptly rolled over for Reagan before the Blue Dogs either retired or became Republican. The DLC is the stepchild of the party's shift from a working class patronage based agenda to a liberal/corporatist alliance.

was to try and be all things to all people. Usually, this meant fiscal responsibility, small government, a tax cut here or there, and a strong defense while holding to certain liberal principles. They themselves have moved the ball further right by getting undemocratic ideas confused with their original purpose and now are quite useless as America has moved into extremism with the absence of a decent and investigative media. It all a failing strategy to win elections now because they lost their souls to the same dogmas of the right and people vote for the original. When dems were dominate, the repubs made the same mistake when they moved left to emulate the dems and kept getting beat. Then they started moving right to where they have reached the extremism of today while they kept winning.

Wish I had the link...There have beeen several threads about it already. The DLC defenders always back off when you bring it up though. Go figure.

http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

Behind the DLC Takeover
By John Nichols

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

A day is soon coming when "we'll finally be able to proclaim that all Democrats are, indeed, New Democrats," declared DLC President Al From on the eve of this year's Democratic National Convention.

The triumphalist talk was backed up by the reality of the convention. Vice President Al Gore, a man present at the founding of the DLC and loyal to the organization ever since, was nominated for the Presidency. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, the current president of the DLC and very possibly the truest of its true believers, was nominated for the Vice Presidency.

<snip>

..but I stress the word "editorial."

He confirmed nothing but his own opinion - including a conspiracy theory regarding John Kerry and John Edwards being "inserted" into the nomination.

by voting for DLC approved policy.

...because he didn't get enough votes.

He won Vermont though didn't he?

But NOOOOOOOO... we had to include the votes of those other states.

and the only primary... then Dean had a chance.

DLC supporters on DU. DLC claims to speak for the Democratic party, but from what I am reading here and on other boards and forums, that simply is not the truth.

And the few DLC supporters that are there, never have anything intelligent to say about WHY the DLC should be supported. the ony responses are caustic and sweetly-nasty.

I can't help but notice that there are so few DLC supporters on DU.

There are many moderate democrats who just don't participate in the flame fest threads the anti-DLCers start.

DLC claims to speak for the Democratic party

No they don't.

but from what I am reading here and on other boards and forums, that simply is not the truth.

Internet armchair activists on DU and other forums hardly represent the Democratic party. Further, many mainstream average democrats who don't live and breather DU haven't a clue of who the DLC is.

And the few DLC supporters that are there, never have anything intelligent to say about WHY the DLC should be supported.

Funny. The anti-DLCers repeat the same mantras day after day but never provide solid proof of their claims, balk when asked for proof, and when a few do provide links to editorials and shadowy conspiracy-like connections to things they consider evil, they balk when asked why the things are so un-Democratic party- like.

the ony responses are caustic and sweetly-nasty.

I see the Anti-DLCers doing this. With the exception a very few, most of them are repeating what they've heard others say, and then resort to name-calling when challenged.


I see one main charge made by anti-DLCers - that the DLCs methods aren't what traditional Dems have done. Yet, they never provide a point by point analysis of the party during various eras and administrations as compared to the DLC. Their main eras of reference is from McGovern to the present day.

as there are in the republican party. And this year the sheep voted for the guy who "won Iowa" Mr electable himself.

So you can try to start an argument but we all know what happened in Iowa. The biggest mistake the party made was to interfere in the primary by smearing their own front runner.

In other words, don't dispute me!

bwahahahaha!

I think you are unclear how the primaries have worked since, well, they were instituted.

they made sure to attack him on their web site on several occasions.

be about Gore/Leiberman wouldn't it? Unless you are referring to a more recent article.

... I didn't notice the date, but still, it is a conspiracy theory and even more so if it is about Gore.

Like clockwork - almost by default - the VP of an outgoing president gets the nomination.. Gore didn't need the DLC to secure it for him.

cajole, entice, etc (use any word that implies dishonest, underhanded means) to gain the support of people from the Democratic party that they saw had even the slightest sign of a weak underbelly.
I am sure that those Dems who have switched to the Repug party did not come up with the idea all on their own without promises from the other side of some sort of benefits. The ones that did not switch parties, but voted with the Repugs were probably given some other sort 'protection'. The Repugs operate much like the Mafia...they will "protect" you if you go along...go against them, and you will pay the price. Just ask Arlen Spector, whose testicles are now in a small purse in KKKarl Rove's desk drawer.
Let's not even go into all the people who have met with "unfortunate accidents" or "committed suicide" after going against Rove and Bush.

The truth is some Democrats were and are as much for a free market as Republicans and though there are some things they'd do differently, they are completely comfortable enabling big business. They speak like Democrats to win elections but their actions, as you point out, contradict that rhetoric.

There is no reason whatsoever to trust anyone based on party affiliation. These people who purport to represent us are professional politicians with their own agendas. When we're lucky we benefit, otherwise we sit in frustration as the country revolves completely around a 'global economy' that does not benefit us.

sneaky, these repukes, using Nader in 2000 and th eDLC in 2004.

Thanks for the independant and creative thinking. How do you do it?

...that YOU would show up on an anti-DLC thread and defend the status quo. Your style of gadfly posting seems familiar. Where have we seen this before?

If this thread is so irrelevant...then why bother posting to it? Not interested and have no comment? Then don't post.

You really should give your post more credit than that. It' good for laugh.

BTW, why comment on my "non-comment"?

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

actually have a disagreement. So in a sense, because I am one of the few who don't hate the DLC, consider them traitors, or blame them for our current woes... then I am one of the few hopes for serious debate here. Kinda ironic isn't it?

...you're thinking of an 'argument'.

But, come on...be honest. It's about more than you 'not hating' the DLC...you defend them and trash anyone who starts this type of thread. You've been outted. You've said some pretty insulting things about people who post on these threads. I think you owe them an apology.

You're exaggerating what is blamed on the DLC. By exaggerating you hope to discredit. By discrediting you hope to shut down the conversation and keep other posters from taking this subject seriously.

I've seen your posts on this and other threads. If that's what you call 'serious debate'...then you need to find a dictionary.

" a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides "

I took your wise advise and looked up debate in the dictionary. You might want to call them, cause they seem to think that there are two sides to a debate.

I then went to the thesaurus, look at the choices the present:
ARGUMENTATION, and disputation

Maybe the DLC got to webster too?

...but your side is ALWAYS to smear those who oppose the DLC. Nice way to deflect from the topic at hand. Besides...debate and Websters is not the issue. The point is that your sole purpose on these threads is to disrupt. You'd rather look up the word debate than actually practice it.

The FACT is that you CAN'T honestly defend the DLC. Perhaps that's why you spend more of your valuable time attacking the DLC's opponents? Close the dictionary and read some of the posts on this and other DLC threads. They're indisputable facts about the DLC's associations and partnerships with the enemies of freedom and the Democratic party.

Dodd, Clinton, Rendell, Feinstien, Stabenow, Cantwell, Landrieu...
on a Democratic website.

Why must you attack them?

...in a country where the government is of, by and for the people. I consider it a citizen's duty to confront politicians they think aren't doing their jobs.

At some point we have to face the fact that THIS government is the most corrupt in our history and that a majority of Democrats seem to have no problems with that.

You only help "the most corrupt" government by bashing those who are opposing it. But not in your mind. In your mind, your "helping."

John Kerry fought against shrubs attack on abortion, his "faith based" initiatives, his assault on gays, his tax cuts for the rich, etc....

But thats not good enough for you, so you bash him. Brilliant.

...accountable for his actions. To not vote for his policies and help cover up his crimes.

Kerry took the advice of the DLC and took the path of least resistance. He didn't 'fight' Bush* over any issue. He gave a lukewarm response and avoided attacking Bush* on the most important issues. He played it safe and that's why he's not president.

We've devoted the last decade to attacking Republicans instead of making our own accountable to the people. We've given Democrats a free ride to do whatever they wanted with OUR party. They've enabled Bush* and the Republicans to the point where they have become irrelevant to American politics.

It's 'bashing' when Republicans attack Democrats. But why characterize Democrats as doing the same when all they want is a party that represents THEIR interests instead of the BanksParty?

Both parties must be made accountable. Not just Republicans. Democracy doesn't work that way.

Fascinating.

...presumably because Americans were tired of the 'politics of personal destruction' from the Clinton years. He didn't fight...he shadow-boxed. He didn't attack Bush* on his greatest weaknesses. Kerry didn't offer anything much different than Bush* when it came to Iraq. All the public knew about his position on Iraq was that he would 'fight it better' and 'kill terrorists'. He didn't make Bush's* lies and deceptions on Iraq (or anything else) a pivotal issue...instead saying that he would vote for the same things all over again.

Did Kerry even mention the Patriot Acts? Or the illegal detentions, torture and war crimes?

I liked a few of Kerry's positions during the campaign and started threads to say so. His positions on the issues of abortion and church/state were very well put. But he needed to ATTACK Bush* directly on his corrupt WH, war profiteering and a myriad of other issues. But even with the ABB votes...he couldn't pull it off because he didn't fight for the Dem party base.

;-)

The DLC is bankrolled by scores of Fortune 500 corporations. At one of its dinners last October, more than 290 corporate bigwigs and lobbyists "invested" from $5,000 to $25,000 each to attend. Rev. Jesse Jackson had it right when he called the DLC "Democrats for the Leisure Class."

In its rhetoric, the DLC seeks to undermine and marginalize the AFL-CIO. Labor is accused of promoting "class warfare" policies that are considered outdated and counterproductive. The DLC tells prospective candidates that they needn't reach out for union contributions because business PACs will take care of them.

But for all its high-level influence within the Democratic Party, the DLC is a head without a body. It has no grassroots support. It can't win elections without massive involvement by the labor movement.

Will the DLC succeed in conning unions into delivering a pro-business message to voters next year? The answer is not yet clear, but it better be a resounding "No!"

http://www.scfl.org/uln9-1.htm

...that has become painfully honest. At first I thought the DLC dumped labor because the RWingers accused Dems of 'pandering' to the union 'special interest'. But that's not realistic since the GOP has the market covered when it comes to special interests and pandering. But then I realized that like the GOP...the New Dems had taken the same path in eliminating the need to appeal for money from certain bothersome constituencies. Both parties went right to the source. Now they don't bother with debate about how to spend the people's tax dollars in the public forum...they just take the cash from corporation x and in return write custom legislation for them.

They're about as "progressive" as their master is "compassionate".

...and very clever of the DLCers to call themselves 'progressives'. It's as true as the Neocons calling themselves 'conservative Republicans'.

and therefore, by proxy, the GOP Trojan Horse as well!

You have to remember that for all intents and purposes the Neo-Cons as a force within the Republican party were dead until this administration revived them.

I do think the "third way" ideal of politics was successful in the 90s period, but that model has been broken as Blair has abandoned it to be Bush's lapdog and Clinton only got it to work (politically speaking) because he was such a gifted politician.

We need to keep the DLC within the party, but we cannot allow them to run the party.

...could share power...but that's not what the DLC wants. They want full control over the direction of the party...while selling off bits of the party like so much cheap real estate.

You have indeed brought up THE problem facing the Dem party. Is it worth 'keeping' the DLC if they continue to block progressives from leadership positions? Do we want those running the party to be more beholden to those who finance their campaigns than to the people who vote for them?

and great thread....I learned so very much that I really wanted to know and so many facts were put into chronological order that explained how things happened.

a group of rich centrists who tried to close the fund-raising gap and then realized it could bring them a lot of power too. As much as they wield power I don't think they are a tool of the Neo-Cons.

I think we need their type in the party, if only they weren't so power driven. But that is why they have been so successful, they care for it and will do what it takes to get it. What we need is some way to remind the people (not just democrats) what this country stands and stood for and to bring them al back in by force of numbers. 40% of the country didn't vote this time around, more than voted for Bush and Kerry, we need to reach out to those people.

...but the fact that there are PNACers in advisory and leadership roles in the DLC should indicate that it was more than an coincidence.

There are plenty of Democrats who are of the 'moderate' persuasion that don't belong to the DLC. It should go without saying that any political party needs moderates...but not when a once-democratic nation finds itself struggling with a fascist takeover and the Bill of Rights nullified for the sake of 'security'.

that in the 1980s they supported every idiotic military initiative that Reagan put forth (and many of his economic initiatives) and also supported the senseless and cruel interventions in Central America.

Any informed person who could do that with a straight face is immoral and a tool of corporate interests.

I define neocons in the White House and Pentagon today as a subset of corporatism, which includes many in Congress today in both parties who take a good chunk of corporate cash and are influenced to vote against people's interests in favor of corporate ones. The DLC and its corporate subsidies is just a 5th column of corporatism in the Democratic column, although I'm sure there are perhaps Dems outside the DLC who also take corporate contributions as well.

I'm not saying that some of these guys aren't staffing PNAC positions as well, but most members in Congress who are in the DLC aren't in the inner circle like Rumsfeld or Cheney.

...of the Bush* White House. That would be much too obvious, wouldn't it?

But the 'inner circle' can depend on the DLCers to back many of their policies...the most important at this point being an aggressive war against Iraq. No one pushing the war is naive. They ALL know it's illegal and immoral. That's why neither the Neocons and Neodems will admit that it's wrong and stick with their talking points about Iraq being a threat and wanting 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun.

Does a Trojan Horse actually have to be a Trojan Horse to be a Trojan Horse? :crazy: I mean, can the desired effect be achieved with the suggestion alone?

"What better way to weaken the resolve of the opposition than infiltrating their camp and luring them to be suspicious of each other and doubt their own beliefs and principles?"