Since I've been here, I've heard nothing but bad things about the DLC

Are there good things that the DLC have done? I'd really like to hear a discussion about the pros and cons of the DLC. They certainly seem to be a powerful organization.

Perhaps there is already a faq out there that I can read?

Lots of animosity here. A lot of people blame the DLC not only for the Democrats' losing streak but for sacrificing the soul of the party by adopting too many Republican positions and being too accommodating to Republican opponents.

I'm not sure that's a bad characterization, by the way. But it's not clear to me that things would have been better if the DLC had not existed.

One thing that should give everyone pause is the number of Democrats popular here who belong to the DLC, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Howard Dean.

I think the DLC was an effort to counter old-school liberalism in the party as personified by McGovern and Mondale, and to take back the mantle of fiscal responsibility and centrism. In itself, those were not bad goals. The way they have been pursued has not been. Al From, in particular, has had poisonous things to say about the progressive wing of the Democratic party while being conciliatory to the Republicans.

Bill Clinton showed it's possible to take certain DLC positions while being a fighter who's committed to the welfare of the average voter. I think that quality is more important than whether a politician is officially DLC or not.

Nobody shows up to answer.

as I accidently did with my first foray into this question and answer session.

over the years there solution to every electoral setback is to "move to the middle"--of course the party has done just this and if we move any more to the right we would be indistinguishable from the Republican party.

what is it about the Democrats that they follow this leader. Why is the DLC the leader? Or at least viewed as the leader?

which have taken over parts of the party. The corporate money speaks to too many politicians, dem or rep, and that is why they have the influence they do.

the Democratic Party by sneaky stealth. They formed this arm of the party while most of us were less politically involved than we are now. They used the "muscle" of having many Democratic politicians signed on as members. Suddenly, they appeared publicly as an "advisory" counsel to the DNC, which previously had been mainly a fund-raising arm and they simply "took over" the public face of the party without any consideration or the approval of the grassroots. Basically, they "bogarded" their way into power. Using the same techniques as the Neocons used on the Republican Party to simply "take-over."

The great similarity between the DLC leaders and the Neocons make me believe that they belong to the same party - the "Let-me- grab-everything-that-I-can-for-myself Party."

At the start, many of us erroneously believed that this DLC leadership might be what was what was needed, to focus on getting the "best possible candidates" for the Party. In being lucky with their first candidate, Bill Clinton, they achieved the aura of success. Something they have never accomplished since.

Then, many of us began to be warned about them from other sources, (in my case, an article at www.blackcommentator.com) well over two years ago, explained their conniving plans and ideas.

The DLC believes that we have to become more like the Republicans. They call themselves "centrists" but they are in some cases more rw than the RNC. Personally I would rather sell-out and become a real Republican before I would be affiliated with the DLC.

It really is that simple, its whoring for money and corporations are the mother lode, of course you have to sell out vast parts of your consituents to get it but there it is

You hit the nail on the head! The move to the center has just left us with the lesser of 2 evils. (Mind you.... bush the lesser is the most evil human ever seen in power in this country.):puke:

I'm sure there are. I mean, even Hitler liked kids and dogs.

:shrug:

so a followup question would be, if they have no redeeming value to us, why do they seem to take the mantle of leadership and why do we follow them?

And there are some in charge left over from Clinton that believe it was Clinton's centrist stance that got us into the White House (as opposed to Clinton being the best campaigner this generation or Ross Perot's presence in the race).

http://www.ndol.org/

I get the impression they are too pro-corporation for some democrats. They believe in social benefits but also social responsibility. They are in favor of a strong defense so they are more hawkish then some democrats. Edwards, Kerry, Gore and Clinton have all been participants and they have lost elections leading some democrats to believe DLC's policy is a loser as well

the DNC or the DLC or is it a marriage of some sort?

The DNC is the party and the
DLC is an influential group of Democrats.

is supporting Bush's war on Iraq which has done absolutely nothing to make this country safer or the world safer. All it did was alienate our allies and turn attention away from finding Bin-Laden. The DLC made it clear that they didn't feel someone who opposed the Iraqi war was their ideal candidate or could win in November '04. It retrospect it might have been just what we needed.

However, what democrats voted againts giving Bush authorization? Byrd opposed it I know. There were not many and were certainly not limited to DLC members.

one Republican: Chafee of R.I. and one Independent who caucuses with the Dems: Jim Jeffords. 21 Democratic Senators voted No:
Byrd
Graham of Fl
Durbin
Leahy
Levin
Stabenow
Kennedy
Feingold
Murray
Sarbanes
Mikulski
Wellstone
Akaka
Inouye
Dayton
Corzine
Bingaman
Conrad (ND)
Wyden
Boxer
Reed

Most Democratic Senators, except Wellstone, who were up for re-election in 2002 voted for the Resolution in fear that they would be defeated as "soft on defense" if they didn't. Some Senators who contemplated running for President in '04 (not Graham) also voted for the resolution because they felt it would be unpopular to oppose a president who had at the time 70% plus approval ratings on this issue.

Edwards, Kerry, Gore and Clinton have all been participants and they have lost elections leading some democrats to believe DLC's policy is a loser as well

Uh, Clinton was president for eight years?

Uh, Gore won?

Remember?

I can't believe people are so quick to completely condemn the DLC, that they will say things like this and hope we don't remember who was the president during the nineties or forget themselves.

I agree, as some have said here, that the DLC has gotten too cozy with corporate types (especially with the high-tech industry types, thus their reticence about coming down hard on stock-options, e.g.). However, to throw DLC tenets overboard like so much bathwater is ridiculous. And at least people should stick to the facts when they make anti-DLC arguments. Clinton won twice and Gore won the popular vote.

The Republicans co-opted a lot of Perot ideas, and were upset about the assault weapons ban, gays in the military, and myths about universal coverage. Also, it was the first real big push of the religious right.

Their power is mostly in the minds of a few of their leaders and many DUers.

The good that they did? They brought the Democratic Party back to power in the 1990s by moving the party to the center. They've also put the party on a firm financial footing.

The bad? Along the way, they've moved away from many traditional constituent groups of the traditional Democratic coalition---like labor, women, minorities---regarding them as "special interests" to be sacrificed in favor of chasing after the "swing voters" who supposedly inhabit the middle ground between the Democrats and the Bad Guys.

In 1994 the DLC was in full control of the Democratic Party. They made *all* the important decisions.

new blood in. They did squat about voter theft. They never seem to want to upset Republicans. They don't seem to want to do anyting about the smearing of the Democratic Party by the media. When they do appear on the media, they are 'disappointing' (which takes various forms for me - too amenable, not direct, don't/can't tell it like it is which may not be their fault, though others can such as Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich.)

They know their way around the political arena, but don't necessarily let in new blood and appear to always move along the same path.

On the plus side - they know fund raising, the fine points of funding laws, who's who, political history, opposition history.

The Bradley Foundation, Koch Industries, perhaps others.

There are PNAC (neocon) ties -- and that alone is enough for me never to trust them at all, in any way, for anything.

AFAIC, DLC demonstrates we have been victimized thusly:

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

As posted on other threads here.

It's not flame bait. It's a genuine question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1476582

The point is, the DFA doesn't single out DLCers as satan. They fund them where it will help the party. Dean campaigned for Kerry, a DLCer. After the primaries (and the primaries are over) we are all on the same team.

DLC, not DNC. Never mind.

or links to the table. Effectively asking other people to do the work.

Sorry, but this is the 2nd such post in about a week's time concerning the DLC.

Edit... it's actually more like the 3rd or fourth.

At any rate, Eloriel did a great thread about DLC leadership etc some time ago that was really pretty far reaching.

An advanced search might bring it up.

;) The pack is back?

Posts like yours upset me. This site is called "DemocraticUnderground". As a newcomer a few weeks ago, I was also surprised by the amount of internal warfare regarding the DLC. I had no idea the level of rancor that exists between the progressive and centrist wings of the party.

Also, as a more moderate/centrist Democrat, I think the debates on DU between progressives and moderates are helpful. I have come to better appreciate the progressive viewpoint. On some occasions, more "progressive" people have said they see where I'm "coming from". This kind of communication and thinking through difficult issues can only be good. Cutting debate off by accusing people of fomenting division isn't a good idea in my (not so humble) opinion.

and there are parties here who throw out a hot topic without giving any info or a personal opinion. That is an interesting phenomena. Communication is great. Tossing hand gernades about is not always as constructive, if you get my metaphor.

And I hadn't noticed until after I replied that the original poster was not new to the site (!). I'm still somewhat sensitive to people jumping on posters and accusing them of ulterior motives (the response to my first post on DU was...., well..., I'll sum up my reaction as, "Yikes!! What the heck did I say to be called that!" Plus, people accusing others of ulterior, shady motives gives the site a conspiratorial feel: I see why people get upset at "baiting" attempts but the overall effect is to diminish the site. Just my opinion so I'll shut up now.

See, we cleared up a misunderstanding. :hi:

doesn't mean I know much about the DLC. I've heard it mentioned many times but without enough context to understand what they are about. I certainly got that they are quite despised here. That much was obvious.

My first attempt at getting conversation going on this was poorly worded and it was locked. I did it differently the next time. Communication is great and often helpful. Accusing people of not being interested in said communication because the topic isn't liked is a pretty negative and unhelpful.

I'm getting some helpful information from those who are willing to provide information. I'm getting attitude from this group without much information.

I've got some information for ya. Are you man/woman enough to take it, do the hard work and actually read it? Do you care ThAT MUCH about your subject matter? Some of us have our doubts. I'd like to see you prove us wrong. So here it is -- let's see what you do with it:

LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

New Dems formed to get corporate donors, be free from party base ideology
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1346735&mesg_id=1346735&page=

Ask the questions NOW of the DLC and Clinton. Corporate funding.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1372759#1373432

RIGHT WEB: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

Overview of DLC
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php

PPI
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

WILL MARSHALL: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.phpAlthough

(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2784312
Link: http://nypress.com/17/48/news&columns/taibbi.cfm



Two of the newer threads (within the last week):

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1481121#1481428

WTF? Roemer (Candidate for DNC Chair) funded by Scaife!? <[br />http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1475435&mesg_id=1475435
Mercatus Center (Roemer, Scaife funded)
http://www.mercatus.org/capitolhillcampus/article.php/933.htm

and I was going to come look for the posts you made after being told about them. Thank you for saving me some work. Now perhaps I can have a more informed point of view about the DLC.

Have your doubts if you wish. Check out my other posts to find out my positions overall. I'm not a troll. I'm going to assume that this attitude is because people are still smarting (and understandably so) from the loss of a dear friend. I'm not an enemy.

I've only gotten through a third of this and I'm sick to my stomach. I've been calling a lot of the politicians Corporaticans (my made up word for Democrats and Republicans corrupted by corporate rule) for about ten years now. This information you've provided was mostly unknown to me but it fits with my world view a little to well. I would say I feel vindicated but really, I just feel sick.

Now I see why people here seem to hate the DLC.

In an appalling political landscape this is actually even more appalling. I didn't realize that they had organized so very well here in the US. Actually, on some level, I guess I did, but to have it spelled out like this........

I'm going back now to finish the rest of this.

I was surprised by this attitude as well.

I was hoping those who knew more than I might be willing to help me understand.

I'll check out Eloriel's post.

for all my DLC links (I think that's all of them.)

they obviously are not on our side anymore.

you have to at least judge by results and forget the infiltration proof because in the end that means they are THAT bad.

And I too thought this WAS the old Eloriel thread minus the good stuff.

There ALSO needs to be a knockdown discussion between the DLC idea guys and more progressive thinkers. Someone is seriously whacked out of a reality and I don't personally believe it is the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Personalities is another matter and there one can plainly see the horror show of organizational DLC spokespersons, especially if they are not elected reps.

The way I see it the DLC thinks to triangulate the GOP, but cannot possibly get the locked in GOP members to defect(temporarily if at all which means SMALL gains) and corporations to throw in their lot with the Party as it TRIES to disavow corporate governance and civic responsibility. Those guys have shown they NEVER will support such moves unless forced to by political clout such as the FDR Coalition enjoyed. And never will they trust a party that harbors economic liberals at all.

That is what the "leadership" council sells its soul and the very meaning of leadership for with small real regard to the actual voter despite their claims otherwise. Actual Dem members and real reps with real credentials gyrating hopefully(and fatally) around the DLC false flame are another matter. Mostly it has crippled their political with a false sense of success owed to group support and ideas.

any other questions?

How did we ever let him out of the primaries?

Anyone remember him?

They are often CREDITED with that -- largely and loudly self-credited I would say, which has unfortunately led to a lot of people actually believing it. But Clinton is also the most talented and charismatic politician in a very long while. And his first election win was helped in no small part by a fairly powerful 3rd party candidate (Ross Perot) who siphoned off votes from Bush.

Giving the DLC sole credit for Clinton is a huge exaggeration IMO.

BUT -- even if it WERE completely true, that's all pretty far in the past by now, and they've done nothing since but factionalize the party and kiss up to even more corporations as well as the Repugs whose job it is to represent corps and the wealthy (whereas it's the Dem Party's job -- supposed to be, anyway -- to represent the little guy, average workers, the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless, etc. The DLC betrays the Dem Party's sole reason for being and traditional base. They are traitors to and destroyers of the party, not the soul of the party.)

I think he would know.

Clinton? Yeah, I liked him, he was quite the personable fella, but liberal he wasn't. I could even argue he wasn't much of a Democrat. He wasn't however fascist (as the current administration seems to be) so I can't complain, much.

But, not to quibble (yes, to quibble) it was the voters who gave us Bill Clinton, not the DLC.

and during the 90s the third way movement was successful in backing Bill Clinton to the White House.

Of course, they also aided the Republican push to the right, sold out labour and other Democratic constiuencies to business, and decimated the left wing of the Democratic party

DLC members are one thing - the leaders (From and Reed) are another.

The DLC thinks we should go along with the current administration on many things. They claim to be centrists but steadily try to drag our party further and further to the right.

The final straw for me was their treatment of Howard Dean. Even their poster child, Bill Clinton, is beginning to get on my nerves. And I used to LOVE Bill and Hillary, but they been selling out a lot lately.

I can say that good about them.

They mean well...I can say that.

The laundry list of the negatives is a bit too much to post, and you didn't ask for it. The only thing I'll say about that is that they seem to have moved the main (visible) part of the party too far to the right, when a more liberal approach would probably have been better.

We really do need to present a clear and consistent alternative to the reichwing, IMO.

as you would of learning the truth about the Democratic Party on Free Republic.

The DLCers just get mad when they find out we know more about their group than they do.

It is the half truths and outright lies told in the process.

find so absent here? Unlike at Free Republic, your posts aren't likely to disappear.

I am a retired teacher. For the last two years, I taught at a very poor school with old books and sad conditions. Yet the charter and magnet schools were getting everything.

I treasured my time at that school, it was a new experience. I learned what was happening....that these were the children who were going to be screwed. In my classroom were children with all ranges of intelligence, but unfortunately most were from poor families.

A few of them had been accepted into the magnet and charter schools, but those schools don't have to keep you. The ones who returned to our school were good kids who just could not meet the intense standards and criteria. One slipped and got Cs, in a class with doctor's kids and professor's kids. He was sent back to our poor school.

This is a very long article about the DLC's plan for charter schools. Some of you who do not agree with the public school system may agree with their goals. I do not agree. I think the future of our country is based on a free, public, equal education for all. The children in my school did not have an equal education.

This is long, so I am only including one paragraph.
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/lyman.htm

SNIP..."Those at the DLC take a “Third Way” approach to education reform. Their basic vehicle for improving the quality of education in America is the charter school. These schools are freed from most of the traditional rules that apply to public schools, but are in turn held accountable for results measured by performance reviews (Sylvester 1997, 82). Many are also established to address specific needs or talents, including student disabilities such as deafness or blindness or certain concentrations such as music or dance. What this model provides is a focus on results; it exists only as long as it serves its students well and attracts support from parents. But charter schools differ from private schools in that they are still held accountable to something besides market forces. In addition to supporting charter schools, the DLC has called for voluntary national academic standards, more teacher accountability, and an end to social promotion in which students are allowed to move onto the next grade simply because that is what the rest of their age group is doing. Also, the DLC believes that while reducing class size is important, teacher quality is what matters most to a student’s learning....."

You want a discussion. Discuss this.

That is indeed the point. You'll see the same thing happen to social services and social security as resources are diverted to private and 'faith-based' interests.

This isn't about 'improving' anything. The corporate thieves behind all of these 'initiatives' don't care about the quality of education or serving those in need. They want the tax dollars that have traditionally been used by the government to help the people in their own pockets.

This is the biggest scam ever pulled on the Democratic party and the American people.

It's Raiding the Treasury big time. It's also fascism.

Senators:
Max Baucus
Evan Bayh
John Breaux
Maria Cantwell
Tom Carper
Hillary Clinton
Kent Conrad
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Dianne Feinstein
Bob Graham
Tim Johnson
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Zell Miller
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Debbie Stabenow

Govenors:
Jim Doyle
Michael Easley
Jennifer Granholm
Bob Holden
Joseph E. Kernan
Gary Locke
Jim McGreevey
Ruth Ann Minner
Ronnie Musgrove
Janet Napolitano
Ed Rendell
Bill Richardson
Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius
Tom Vilsack
Mark Warner

The DLC is a think tank trying to come up with ideas to counter the ideas the repukes generate.

Bill Clinton was a former chair of DLC and speaks fondly of them My Life.

I was given the information I was looking for. I've been given ample information to go on to form my own opinion. And my opinion, as of now, is that the DLC is dangerous.

I think I'll judge those members by the organization they belong to instead.

that convinced you to consider a moderate think tank as dangerous?

gave me tons of information. I made the deduction after reading that information. It's on the basis of the company they keep. And the company they keep is very, very ugly, IMO.

I knew so very little about the DLC that I couldn't form any kind of opinion, I just knew that many people here behaved as though they were satan's minions.

You have to understand that if Kerry really is the most liberal Senator in the Senate (he isn't actually, but for the sake of argument lets say that) then I am about 100 steps to the left of him. Heck, I'm damn near a socialist, I'm so left leaning. So, I'm unlikely to find the moderate point of view to be very resonating. And, with their apparent slavish devotion to world domination and globalization as the be all and end all, does it seem surprising to you that an extreme left leaning progressive such as myself, when given the information to make an informed choice, would find them distasteful, if not outright dangerous?

If you judge a pol by the company he/she keeps, then don't just pick on the DLC. You should judge any pol that have corporations, and individuals who grease both side of the political spectrum in their company as "dangerous." I may be further left than you, which is why I cut slack for these dems. If I labeled as "dangerous" every pol I discovered doing something I disapprove of, I'd be a man without a country.

and yet pragmatic. It is a difficult walk I've had to learn. My idealism has suffered greatly in the compromise.