Centrist Democrats Warn Liberals

Published on Monday, April 4, 2005 by the Washington Times
I found this at Commondreams.org.
I think the Democrats need to be real progressives and stop trying to be something they are not. Truth and genuine leadership with convictions will win elections not fake adherence to militarism.


Centrist Democrats Warn Liberals
by Donald Lambro

The Democrats' postelection war about what they should stand for is heating up again, with centrists challenging liberals to "real fights" within the party about staking out a tougher position against terrorism.


In an attack on the party's dominant left wing, anti-war base, and a warning for new Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean "to do no harm," the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council said it is "a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections."

Instead, the DLC called on the party to dramatically change its message to "recapture the muscular progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and convince voters that national security is our first priority."

They've done a great job leading the Dem Party into Minority status. They just want to make it a permanent minority status.

Screw the DLC and Centrist Dems. They don't speak for this Moderate.

have won the White House in the last 20 years? None. How many DLC? 2, and 3 if you count 2000.

Some of us are starting to sound like staunch, unwavering Republicans who don't speak of compromise!

Lovingly,
Writer.

How many times, before I actually joined DU, that I wanted to reach out and shake sense into some people. Just look at the record!

I more than appreciate your response.

Writer.

Not wise. The "centrists" have done nothing but allow this counrty to stangate or regress to the right while other 1st-World nations have built social systems that make our once wonderous America green with evny.

...but hey, winning elections are good. Winning is everything. Do you get rings like in the Superbowl?!?

Regards,
U4ikLefty

There was a big backlash against those things, and probably gays in the military too. How would going further left keep that from happening? Care to explain, specifically, how the DLC caused the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives? Specifically, not "failure to lead" or "failure to take a stand" or some other smokescreen.

due to Clinton's personal talent, not the DLC as a whole.

While Clinton was in the WH, the DLC continued to lose elections in Congress and across state governments. Democrats LOST POWER under Clinton and the DLC and will continue to lose elections as they try to steer the Dem Party farther to the Right until it becomes the Republican Lite or Rockefellar Republican Party.

The Republicans in 2004 did not retake the WH based on "Swing voters." They defeated John Kerry by energizing their base and giving reasons for those Republicans, who stayed home in 2000, to come out and vote for Bush. Karl Rove knew that there were not enough "swing voters," you know the voters the DLC lusts after, to help the Republicans win in 2004,k so they did what the DLC said was a no-no -- energize the base.

What I'm reading here is that Clinton lost Congress in 1994 "just cause" of centrist logic. Wrong. Do you remember Clinton's policy initiatives from 1992-1994? They weren't exactly centrist. Universal health care? I think he just about shot off his foot. (Although, I must say, it sure would have been nice if that had passed today, right?)

The religious right was energized. The fall of the Berlin Wall forced conservative Americans who were so focused on the Soviet Union to begin focusing inward - on the "evil" in the White House. Republicans began reshaping their base from Cold War militance to one surrounding the Christian Right. Remember Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition? Remember William Bennett and his "Book of Virtues?" No no no. Republicans painted Clinton as the devil red-state Americans must avoid, and that meant less Democrats in Congress. Take the devil's power away! We need to keep him in check! etc. etc. etc.

No. I don't think it's all simply about ideology.

Lovingly,
Writer.

Your point about the right painting Clinton as evil is an interesting one - if it worked so well, and contributed so much to electoral losses, how do you explain Clinton's extremely high approval rating on the very day Congress was voting on impeachment?

I also seem to recall the "Gingrich Revolution" being short-lived and Newt and some of his fellows leaving in disgrace.

Not a single universal health care activist backed the Clinton bill, which was just a huge bribe to large insurance companies to pretty please insure more people if we dump billions into your coffers. It was the smaller insurers who were left out who cooked up the Harry and Louise crap.

Clinton did it on personal ability. And it was also just the time when someone like him could win. The Great Wurlitzer of wingnuttery was in its infancy when he ran the first time. Anybody who tries a Republican Lite campaign will be ripped to shreds.

Right now this nation is in the spiritual grip of the wingnuts and their religious brethren. Their philosophy can be boiled down to this: "I don't care if Bush got us into a dumb war; I don't care if Bush had a male prostitute posing as a reporter in the Washington press corps; I don't care if the nation goes further and further into debt; I don't care if prisoners are tortured and killed. And the reason that I don't care is that George Bush is a Christian. End of story."

The only way that this nation can be taken back is by establishing clear ideals and programs. No fudging around à la DLC to try to con people is going to work.

People must be able to identify with policies and goals: Healthcare for all; good jobs; elimination of "outsourcing"; fair taxation; preservation of Social Security as a true safety net. Etc., etc.

Doctor Panacea

Forgeting SCOTUS's judicial machinations, if the DLC model was so appealing, why was the 2000 election so close that it came down to a dispute over Florida?

Al Gore was running as the incumbent VP of a popular President, who had just seen the country through 8 years of peace and economic growth.

Notwithstanding all of this, Gore failed to carry multiple states that had gone for Clinton twice.

Maybe it's time admit the awful truth that Clinton won on the force of his personality, and that the DLC third way is total turkey for those who don't have Bill Clinton's personal charisma.

pretended that he too was centrist.

Not one of those "mean" Republicans who impeached Clinton in 1998.

Was a self-contained phenomenon.

Perhaps because some were convinced that the Democrats were short on character regardless of the success of their programs?

The GOP couldn't beat us on ideas. They had to resort to smears.

Clinton left the White House with a 65% approval rating.

Looks like we're back to self-contained phenomenon.

A self-contained phenomenon is simplistic. Exactly what are you trying to say here - that the DLC's Clinton was popular? Doesn't that, then, disarm your attacks on centricism? Clinton was an excellent president, with a good economy and low oil prices. The congressional Republican smear patrol made a sacrifice play in 1998. The impeachment proceedings cost them many seats, but they were able to use it to present Gore to a wealthy, self-involved American public as someone not worthy having a beer with. Yeah, we hate it, but that's how folks vote, okay?

Character does count with many Murkins. If we keep making the mistake by thinking that we can talk them into voting for us with all our great liberal ideologies, then we will lose. Again and again. People are not colored in black or white, but many shades in between.

Lovingly,
Writer.

I am saying that Bill Clinton was popular, not centrism.

I am also saying that Clinton's popularity was a self-contained phenomenon, and not an indication of the public's endorsement of DLC policies.

As a President, Clinton's popularity and successes were almost exclusively confined to himself. He had no coattail effect to speak of on the rest of the party, and his immense popularity did not carry over to his chosen successor.

In other words, if centrism is to be our message, it appears that all of our messengers will have to be as charismatic as Bill Clinton in order to win with it.

that centrist ideology did not lose it for Gore. Politics is much more complicated than what a man or woman is saying! As we say to the Murkins, let us not oversimplify the issue, shall we? For example: If Gore were to stand up, in 2000 during a good economy, and say, "Okay, folks! Enough with the middle! I'm tired of Clintonomics. Let's create a universal health care system and drop Clinton's popular welfare reform!" something tells me that wouldn't fly.

Writer.

are flat out wrong. The DLC haven't won ANYTHING. Clinton won because he was Clinton.He could sell ice cubes to Eskimos' He won despite them, not because of them. The midterm elections proved that.
Election 2000 had many people saying that they couldn't tell the difference between Bush and Gore. Go back and look at the debates Bush echoed everything Gore said. People said they didn't like either so held their nose and voted party lines. Gore would have won except for Nader, but it still would have been close.The DLC interfered in this election and muddled up Kerry. We needed a clear choice and they tried to give us Repuke lite! Harry Truman said that given a choice between a Republican and a republican a voter will vote Republican every time! Why vote for the carbon copy when you can have the original? This is the lesson the DLC will NOT learn.
Bill Clinton quoted that insanity was defined by doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Isn't that what the DLC are doing. They haven't been winning and they want us to do it more "their" way? Get serious.We have got to offer people a choice. If going to the center was such a great idea, why did the Repukes go right? They differentiated themselves from us and that was when they began to win! Duh! They gave people a choice

YOU are flat out wrong.

The DLC haven't won ANYTHING

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

In addition, did Gore win the popular vote in 2000 or didn't he?

Was the election stolen or wasn't it?

Election 2000 had many people saying that they couldn't tell the difference between Bush and Gore.

Funny - one of DU's most arden DLC bashers disagrees.

Q said in this thread, "Gore rejected the DLC, shot up in the polls and won the popular vote against a cheating opponent."

You guys need to organize and get on the same page.

Just examine how Clinton is received when he travels at home and abroad, not currently making any policy. The guy's a freaking rock star. Hell, I despise some of the policies he enacted, and even I have a hard time not liking the guy!

"Character does count with many Murkins."

Apparently, a significant majority of Americans found Clinton's character to be fine, as explained by his high approval rating (the right's futile attempts to discredit him notwithstanding).

I think you give too little credit to the man's personality, and far too much credit to his policies. Do you think the corporate, increasingly-consolidated media (which Clinton helped along with the Telecommunications Act, ironically) actually reported the negative issues with DLC-favored policies like NAFTA? I sure don't recall that being the case. After all, why would they? Conservatives loved NAFTA, and the media was growing more conservative by the day.

Fact is, despite Clinton's high exit ratings, people had experienced Clinton fatigue.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=65

His favorability ratings often averaged less than 50% during the 2000 election season.

Doesn't seem to mesh with the idea that Americans "were convinced that the Democrats were short on character regardless of the success of their programs".

At the same time, those programs favored by the DLC, like NAFTA, may have been less lauded by Americans than perhaps the corporate elite would have us believe. NAFTA certainly was a factor in pissing many off - I remember Perot's polling numbers, and his frequent talks on NAFTA and the "giant sucking sound".

If anything, perhaps it was the case that Americans by and large liked Clinton, but didn't like all of his policies?

... for Clinton's favorability ratings and Clinton fatigue.

Also, please post #156 concerning polling numbers and NAFTA.

Clinton fatigue could be explained in much the same way that Americans may experience "Michael Jackson fatigue" - the constant trashing of Clinton throughout the media may have made people eventually throw up their hands and hope for the end of the Clinton era, just to get those sanctimonious assholes in the media who wouldn't SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY!

Likewise, the true damage NAFTA has done (which I assume you're aware of, as you stated that you no longer support the policy - I agree and applaud your stance on that, btw) was not and still largely is not discussed in the corporate media, and thus Americans as a whole are still not fully aware of the extent of the damage.

Then, too, there's the Republican base, a majority of which swallow whatever their leaders tell them to. When those leaders say, "NAFTA good!", their ignorant followers chime in, "You got it, boss!"

Mind you, this is my opinion, I'm not claiming it to be the perfect truth. Makes some amount of sense to me, however.

Despite the overwhelming approval of Clinton's job performance and policies, the GOP and media convinced just enough people that none of that mattered because Clinton was of bad moral character. Thus, the Dems were turned out not because of their policies but rather on moral issues and the GOP has been running on that since.

If the media HAD told the truth about policies such as NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, or welfare "reform", perhaps enough center-left Americans would have been pissed enough to stay at home, and the Dems might have lost by default anyway.

You and I both know that the corporate mainstream media has almost NEVER told the truth about the terrible effects of such policies on Americans.

... at the time, the harmful effects of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, and welfare "reform" were not as apparent.

The media could have reported on what the effects COULD be, but the media doesn't typically do that kind prognostication.

Welfare reform was a popular concept (the reasons for that are debatable but the fact remains), and as I've shown earlier, NAFTA was at least something Americans were willing to take a chance on. A plurality approved of it.

But I don't buy any scenario where center-lefts would purposely stay home.

I rather liked Will Pitt's acessment that the left was asleep in the 90s, comfortable with a popular president, never dreaming we would lose power.

We (I say this reservedly, because today's "left" is really yesterday's "center") were largely asleep. The thinking was that we had a Dem, and after Reagan and Poppy Bush, all were relieved and assumed everything would be swell from that point on.

Not the case, as we can now see.

Your first sentence is fair, though I think the media did have a responsibility to be more balanced toward the policies and should have included more experts opposed to those policies.

Btw, I prefer these kinds of discussions, rather than the blasting back-and-forth that too often accompanies these topics. Thanks for engaging in a worthwhile discussion. My respect for you has increased a bit.

... is a healthy discussion on issues and history, not weekly calls for purging of the DLC that some people who have no understanding of politics and democratic party history do. :)

Q has very valid concerns, and I agree with him that the DLC corporate whores who support and vote for conservative policies that attack the working class and illegally attack citizens of countries that did not attack us need to be dealt with.

There is moderation, and then there is capitulation. Some things cannot be moderated on - like a woman's right to control her own body, or corporate accountability laws.

Q has an understaning of politics and party history. I know you strongly disagree with him, and I guess you feel somehow obligated to confront him, but he is coming from a place of concern, and that is worthy of respect.

Frankly, you two probably have a LOT more in common than either of you think. I mean, you're pro-DLC, yet you don't support NAFTA, school vouchers (I think?) and certainly don't support illegal wars like the one we're waging in Iraq. I'm certain he agrees with you on those views.

I won't use the name because he isn't in the thread. I'm not about doing to someone what was done to me on "the place that can't be mentioned." (I actually enjoyed the noteriety)

But there are some who call for the purging of moderates, who call for a return to some misguided impression of what the party once was, without realizing that the party has ALWAYS been about what they profess to deplore. THAT is where certain people's lack of party history becomes apparent.

I take Dean's position on NAFTA -fix it.

I don't support illegal wars like Iraq BUT Kosovo was somewhat illegal (No UN suport) and I supported it.

I don't support school vouchers but I'm well aware that Lyndon Johnson did.

"But there are some who call for the purging of moderates, who call for a return to some misguided impression of what the party once was, without realizing that the party has ALWAYS been about what they profess to deplore. THAT is where certain people's lack of party history becomes apparent."

My thinking on this: purges are bad. Advocating that people not vote for politicians they find voting against their interests, of course, is not purging (not that you said this). Also, I do believe there has been an increase in corporatism and associated negative political behaviors over the years. Further, my comment elsewhere stands: just because bad policies were accepted in the past does not mean we should accept them in the present.


"I take Dean's position on NAFTA -fix it."

I'm very curious how this can realistically be done when NAFTA was essentially written by the corporations that it affected. How do you change the rules when those same corporations still hold the purse strings?


"I don't support illegal wars like Iraq BUT Kosovo was somewhat illegal (No UN suport) and I supported it."

I'm still torn on this one, but I am pleasantly surprised to find you admit the illegality of that action.


"I don't support school vouchers but I'm well aware that Lyndon Johnson did."

See above - we can do better now than we did in the past, ya know?

In the same way that Gore was not an effective politician. Elections aren't won on ideology alone. Layers of likeability, marketability, and weakening your opponent also come into play. God, please help us if we run another Dukakis! Another Mondale! <cries!>

Clinton is the Kennedy that future Dem. candidates will look to emulate, but Gore didn't lose simply because he wasn't saying the right things (don't you wish we had that SS "lockbox" now?)

Writer.

He's looking to run again just like Stevenson ran twice in the 1950's and lost. Like Kerry, Stevenson was the preferred choice of the Dem Party bosses. The bosses had to let go of Stevenson when they decided to win back the White House.

NT!

And, BTW, would you rather vote for someone who had held steadfast over the past 30 years in their pro-war, pro-free market stance, or someone who just took that stance because 'someone' told them to take that stance.

Everyone would choose the ones who held steadfast because everyone knows what their position is and will be.

No one wants to vote for someone who will change their position as soon as they're in office because 'someone' told them to.

so what's your point?

Of FDR, Truman, and LBJ, and convince voters that making their lives better is our first priority.

The DLC Corporate-suck up model is what turned us into a minority party. Not national security concerns.

The DLC Corporate-suck up model is what turned us into a minority party.

BS.

And if you were around during the time of FDR and Truman, you wouldn't have found them very appealing.

Under the guiding hand of DLC leadership over the past 10 years, the Democratic Party has:

1) Lost its majority in the U.S. House of Representatives

2) Lost its majority in the U.S. Senate

3) Lost its majority in State Governorships



Of course, you're free to ignore reality and pretend that the DLC has a winning strategy for the party.

The DLC wasn't around when Dems had major Congressional and Governor losses in the 1940s, and lost control of Congress twice in the 1980s.

...or when McGovern/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis suffered landslide defeats.

Haven't shown that the DLC was the cause for Clinton winning twice. You don't get to have it both ways. The claim that the DLC WAS what won for Clinton but NOT what lost the, House, Senate and Governorships is in no way logically consistent

..and another one runs from the question.

In reality, the Dems losses in the '90s were a result of 30 years of Dem control and a party that grew complacent and out of touch.

That assertion WAS made, if you are not supporting that assertion then you are arguing only that we cannot blame the losses on the DLC (logically you have a point, I wont argue with) but have NO successes at all to point to FOR them. My point was either you accept that there is NO success you can attribute to the DLC or you accept that they have to take blame for the losses. You cant do both.

you are arguing only that we cannot blame the losses on the DLC (logically you have a point, I wont argue with) but have NO successes at all to point to FOR them.

Finally an admission.

But they have been successful.

Since you cannot by your own admission claim Clinton, I am interested in what they are.

After all, in '92 he ran as a moderate on welfare reform and won.

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

John Kerry recieved more votes than any Democrat in history.

The DLC has elected more candidates to national senate and house seats, governorships, mayors offices, and other elected positions than any other political group.

Currently the DLC claims:

Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Brian Higgins, U.S. Representative, NY
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Dennis Moore, U.S. Representative, KS
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR

Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI

Ralph Becker, State Representative, UT
Ethan Berkowitz, House Democratic Leader, AK
Patrica M. Blevins, State Senator, DE
Karen R. Carter, State Representative, LA
Ken Cheuvront, State Senator, AZ
Lou D'Allesandro, State Senator, NH
Ryan Deckert, State Senator, OR
Joseph Dunn, State Senator, CA
Barry R. Finegold, State Representative, MA
Eric Fingerhut, State Senator, OH
Dean Florez, State Assemblymember, CA
Dan B. Frankel, State Representative, PA
John A. Fritchey, State Representative, IL
Michael Garcia, State Representative, CO
Gabrielle Giffords, State Senator, AZ
Ron L. Greenstein, State Representative, FL
Daniel Grossman, State Senator, CO
Ken Guin, Majority Leader, AL
Karen Hale, State Senator, UT
Jeff Harris, State Representative, MO
Robert Henriquez, State Representative, FL
Debra Hilstrom, State Representative, MN
Sam Hoyt, State Assemblymember, NY
Michael Jackson, State Representative, LA
Gilda Z. Jacobs, State Senator, MI
Wendy Jaquet, State House Minority Leader, ID
Evan Jenkins, State Senator, WV
Douglas Jennings Jr., House Democratic Leader, SC
Steve Kelley, Senate Majority Whip, MN
Rosalind Kurita, State Senator, TN
Eric LaFleur, State Representative, LA
Jennifer Mann, State Representative, PA
Lisa Tessier Marrache, State Representative, ME
Bill McConico, State Representative, MI
Karen Morgan, State Representative, UT
Charles A. Murphy, State Representative, MA
Marc R. Pacheco, State Senator, MA
Alfred Park, State Representative, NM
Jeffrey Plale, State Senator, WI
Samuel Rosenberg, State Delegate, MD
Jefferey Schoenberg, State Senator, IL
Rod Smith, State Senator, FL
Malcolm A. Smith, State Senator, NY
Peter Sullivan, State Representative, NH
John Unger II, State Senator, WV
Jonathan Weinzapfel, State Representative, IN
Peggy M. Welch, State Representative, IN
Philip Wise, State Representative, IA

Som Baccam, School Board Member, Des Moines IA
Brenda Barger, Mayor, Watertown, SD
James Bennett, City Council, St. Petersberg FL
Marty Block, Community College Trustee, San Diego CA
Zach Brandon, City Councilmember, Madison WI
Roberto Canchola, Superintendent of Schools, Santa Cruz Co., AZ
Twanda Carlisle, Council Member, Pittsburgh PA
Carol Chumney, Council Member, City of Memphis TN
Michael Coleman, Mayor, Columbus, OH
Christopher Coons, Council President, New Castle Co., DE
Ruth Damsker, County Commissioner, Montgomery Co., PA
Sergio De Leon, Constable, Tarrant County TX
Doug Duncan, County Executive, Montgomery County MD
Jamie Fleet, City Councilman, Gettysburg PA
Douglas F. Gansler, State's Attorney for Montgomery Co., MD
Michael Golden, Borough Council Member, Jenkintown PA
Ron Gonzales, Mayor, San Jose, CA
James S. Gregory, City Councilman, Bethlehem, PA
Daniel Grimes, City Council, Goshen IN
Patrick Henry Hays, Mayor, North Little Rock, AR
Thomas Hickner, County Executive, Bay County, MI
Helen Holton, City Council Member, Baltimore, MD
Nicholas Jellins, Mayor Prom Tem, Menlo Park, CA
Randy Kelly, Mayor, St. Paul, MN
Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, MI
Victor King, Trustee, Glendale, CA
Richard Kriseman, City Council Chairman, St. Petersburg, FL
Duane E. Little, Assessor, Shoshone Co., ID
Dannel P. Malloy, Mayor, Stamford, CT
Matthew Mangino, District Attorney, Lawrence Co., PA
Sharon McDonald, Commissioner of Revenue, Norfolk, VA
Jules Mermelstein, Township Commissioner, Upper Dublin, PA
Keiffer Mitchell, Jr., City Councilman, Baltimore, MD
Eva Moskowitz, City Council Member, New York City, NY
Keith Mulvihill, Commissioner, Mt. Lebanon PA
Gavin C. Newsom, Mayor, San Francisco CA
Michael Nutter, City Councilman, Philadelphia, PA
Martin O'Malley, Mayor, Baltimore, MD
William Peduto, City Councilmember, Pittsburgh PA
David Pepper, City Council, Cincinnati OH
Eddie Perez, Mayor, Hartford CT
Scott Peters, City Councilman, San Diego, CA
Bart Peterson, Mayor, Indianapolis IN
Gregory Pitoniak, Mayor, Taylor, MI
Aaron Reardon, Snohomish County Executive, WA
Stephen Reed, Mayor, Harrisburg, PA
Joe Rice, Mayor, Glendale, CO
Timothy Scott, Council Member, Carlisle Borough PA
Eugene M. Sellers, Vermillion Parish Engineer, Lafayette, LA
James Shapiro, City Representative, Stamford, CT
Kenneth Shetter, Mayor, Burleson TX
Scott Slifka, Mayor, West Hartford CT
Andrew Spano, County Executive, Westchester Co., NY
Greg Stanton, City Councilman, Phoenix, AZ
Larry Stone, Assessor, Santa Clara County, CA
Charleta B. Tavares, City Council Member, Columbus, OH
Peter Voros, Mayor, Pittsgrove Township NJ
Jack Weiss, City Council, Los Angeles CA
Anthony Williams, Mayor, Washington, DC
Earnest Williams, City Councilman, St. Petersburg, FL

And YOU Haven't shown that the DLC was the cause for Clinton winning twice. That was my posting to which YOU responded.

I haven't made that assertion.

So exactly how are you now claiming that you CAN claim Clintons victories unless you want to but didnt make the claim, in which case you are being disengeuous. So back to my point, explain to me how you can claim the DLC as the reason Clinton WON but that the DLC isnt responsible for the losses in the House and Senate and the Governors. It must be a nice setup to get credit while dodging responsibility. IF you are saying that we have to PROVE the DLC is responsible for those losses why is it not only logical to ask YOU to prove the DLC is responsible for Clintons win.
I understand why you WANT to have it both ways I dont understand why we should let you. An impressive list, it doesnt change the fact that since they have been dominant in the Party the Dems lost the House the Senate and the majority in Governorships

quote the post. Copy and paste it in a reply. Show me where I've said I couldn't claim clinton.

it doesnt change the fact that since they have been dominant in the Party the Dems lost the House the Senate and the majority in Governorships

Which takes us back to the original point that you keep avoiding - prove a correlation between the DLC being dominant in the party and the Dems losing races in the 90s.

Both my assertion and your response were cut and pasted

Cut and paste where I said I couldn't claim Clinton.

I did say I've never made the assertion, but that is a bit far from saying I said I couldn't claim Clinton.

I could believe the moon is made of cheese but unless I make the asserion that it is, I've not claimed that it is.

Why do you keep ignoring the impact of historical events? Why must we melt everything down into simplistic ideology? That's NOT how many people vote!

When you claim the DLC model to be the party's best bet, you cite a solitary example...Bill Clinton.

Saying that we can't win without centrism, but only coming up with a single example of someone who won with it is, well, simplistic.

If it works for one but doesn't work for the rest, that's called an anomaly.

And you have have nothing but losses to credit for non-DLC candidates. Nothing but losses.

What was that again about being simplistic?

How many Democrats were elected to two terms since FDR?


Hey, Sandpiper. I'm sorry that you're so upset that I called your remarks simplistic. I really do think, though, that some of the logic refuting the DLC is a bit simplistic. But let's not continue this puerile flame war.

Out,
Writer.

Perot took votes away from the repukes - if Perot didn't run, we'd have had bush I in for 2 terms followed by who knows?

Last time I checked the ONLY time between 1994 and 200 that we gained seats and governorships was in '98 in Congress partly due to the backlash against impeachment. How does DLC centrism work if it loses everything but the position on top?

Populism and progressive policies were what made the Democratic Party the dominant party for 5 decades.

Not centrism.

Centrist policies have alienated one of the most important democratic constituencies, working class Americans.

we're not allowed to have differing viewpoints in this party, I suppose. It's all or nothing. One way or the highway. Yadda yadda yadda.

I recall that Reagan did a great job of pulling in blue-collar types in the 1980's. I remember extreme battles over Iowa labor endorsements between Gephardt and Dean in 2004. Again I don't think it's all that black and white. I think many very left-wing types are taking a few hints from Republicans and blaming Clinton for all our woes.

Out,
Writer.

Southern Democrats, labor, immigrants who tended to be very much in favor of strong military, Conservative Northern Jews and Catholics, with just a hint of further left liberals.

It was made up of economic liberals, some of whom were social conservatives. But the backbone of this coalition was the working class, who wanted a better life for the working people in this country and supported FDR's economic reforms.

Teddy Roosevelt style imperialism wasn't what carried the day for FDR. Most of the United States favored isolationism on matters of foreign policy and did not support projecting American military power into foreign conflicts.

The DLC on the other hand wants a corporate-centered rather than worker-centered economic policy, along with U.S. military hegemony.

FDR being a very solid moderate who had the respect of conservative Southern Democrats and conservative Northern Catholics and Jews. The leftists who were part of the coalition were there because he adapted their platform in his New Deal. But they were the minority in the New Deal coalition.

...the New Deal ITSELF was not centrist, and thus the makeup of who voted for it hardly contributes to your point.

...the New Deal was born out of the Depression where people were more than willing to try radical means to solve the crisis.

Still, there were many in the Dem party who opposed it but went along for the sake of the party.

And further, FDR said,

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief."

It does not matter that those who voted for it included moderates. That does not change the nature of the New Deal itself.

It appears to me that you are arguing that, because some who voted for the New Deal were moderates (or "centrists"), that defined the nature of the New Deal itself. That's simply not reflective of reality.

In fact, in your own reply you note that people were more willing to try radical means. Guess what - "radical means" tends to rule out the New Deal as moderate or conservative in any way.

I have no issue with moderates/centrists voting for progressive legislation like the New Deal - hell, I wish they'd do more of that these days, instead of returning favors to corporations for campaign contributions!

But the New Deal Coalition (some call it the FDR coalition) was very much centrist - consisting mainly of conservative southerners and Northern Catholics and Jews.

So influential was the moderate/centrist element in the party at the time that they were successful in having Roosevelt dump his "too liberal" running mate in 1944 in favor of Truman.

I wish they'd do more of that these days, instead of returning favors to corporations for campaign contributions!

Returning favors to corporations for campaign contributions isn't exclusive to moderates in the party.

The legislation was more important than the makeup of those who voted for it (something I've always believed - "it's the policies, stupid"). The reason I have a problem with the DLC is not their moderation, but their support of conservative policies and their corporate whoredom (obviously, this does not mean every single DLCer, but a significant amount is bad enough).

"Returning favors to corporations for campaign contributions isn't exclusive to moderates in the party."

True. I've always tried to be clear that there is a difference between moderates and corporate whores. There are liberals who whore, too.

...

Internationalism?
Capitalism?
welfare reform?
school vouchers?
"corporatism"

All were ideas originated by Democratic presidents pre-Clinton.

I've always tried to be clear that there is a difference between moderates and corporate whores. There are liberals who whore, too.

Then your problem as far as corporate money isn't with the DLC but rather with the political process that allows politicians of all stripes to take advantage of the cash cow.

"Internationalism? Capitalism?"

These are ideologies, not specific policies. But to give examples of negative policies that make a mockery of these two ideologies, I offer the current war in Iraq and the recent bankruptcy bill respectively.


"welfare reform?"

The issue is not with reform where needed, but how that reform is conducted. I submit that the kind of reform pushed through under Clinton met the financial goals, but not the societal goal of having a strong safety net. That's what made it conservative in the traditional sense.


"school vouchers?"

I'm against inequality, which the use of SV creates. One reason I could argue that SV are a conservative policy is that the idea is being used by the rightwing to damage (and ultimately destroy) our broad, inclusive (in intention if not execution) public education system. A dumbed-down populace, which happens when public monies are taken from public schools, benefits the Republican party.


"corporatism"

Again, this is more of an overarching idea rather than a policy. I'm pretty cynical, but not so much that I believe either party has a written committment to corporatism. In my view, it's more of an institutionalized matter of lethargy and greed.


"All were ideas originated by Democratic presidents pre-Clinton."

Even if true (I would have to research more in order to come to a conclusion), that does not entail that we can't do better than the past. That's the whole point of being a Dem in the first place, right? To improve the lot of everyone as much as we can? Just because past ideals or policies that limited personal freedom or screwed the working class existed and were accepted is no reason to assume the same must be true today.


"Then your problem as far as corporate money isn't with the DLC but rather with the political process that allows politicians of all stripes to take advantage of the cash cow."

I agree in part, but I do see a lot of shameless cronyism on both sides, and the DLC is no exception. Of course I'd like to change the laws so that neither party could milk the corporate teat. As you can probably guess, that fight's been going on a long time and will likely go on for an even longer time.

There are policies position on each of those.

...I wonder if I could ask you your opinion on Will Marshall endorsing PNAC statements on several occasions.

I'm not baiting you. I'm honestly curious to know your stance on his support for PNAC.

There is no evidence that the DLC lost these elections.

while the Radical Right keeps on winning elections based on their perceived superiority on (wait for it)...national security.

And no, I don't have any links, but I know they exist. I remember reading--probably on this here very board--that the voters who told exist pollsters they'd voted on "moral" issues were push-polled, i.e. they were asked if they'd voted on "moral" issues, so of course they said yes.

Those voters who were simply asked why they'd voted the way they did responded that they'd voted for Bush (if they did in fact vote for Bush) because they thought the Republicans were stronger on national security.

You could look it up...

We did it by trying to out hero them (our hero is bigger than your hero).
So let's try that again in 2008, only this time with Clark who came off as an inexperienced schmoo. That should work. :eyes:

with that of a four star general, I'd say you've done a bangup job of loading the dice.

But cheating's always been your game, eh Ches...er, Moll?

Brilliant. If I ever run for office, you'll be the first consultant I'll hire.

No, really.

for Hillary Clinton and Hillary said I don't drink it with cream, the Times would be blaring about the deep division within the Democratic Party and the harsh words that were exchanged.

Besides, "the party's dominant left wing"? On what planet?

Not Centrist, but not far left either.

Sigh. Where is our organization. We need a mid range Moderate to Liberal. Because both the DLC and Moveon.org bug me.

become the very thing we detest. Yeah, going more toward the center and becoming Republican lites has worked SOOOOOOOOO well in the past, hasn't it? :eyes:
The DLC can kiss my ass. If we're going to lose elections at least we'll lose them standing up for what we believe, not kowtowing to hawkish members of The Party who've lost touch with us. :grr:

Toward the center while Republicans move the center to the right. In effect we are moving to the right wing. Nixon was a liberal compared to todays GOP. Delay and Bush, Cheney and Santorum? These guys would make Attila the Hun blush

Chasing the "center" as conservatives drag it rightward is hardly centrism. It's insanity.

What are the biggest criticisms lately of Dems? They dont stand for anything, they have no principles, they will do anything to get elected. They have no ideas of their own, just attack the GOP. Forget whether these criticisms are fair, where is that perception coming from? Why does the GOP get away with portraying us that way? Do these criticisms sound more like the center or the left. The party needs both YOU centrists and US lefties. I dont want to drive the center out of the Party but I dont want to hear WARNINGS from the center either you guys need us as much as we need you. If you think different you are denying reality

The party very much needs the left, but it also needs the centrists to keep the boat steady. And yet I continue to read one low-blow post after the other knocking the DLC!

I dont, their stance on Nafta for instance is NOT centrist and NOT popular, its corpratist. THAT is the problem the left has with the DLC. You cannot serve both corporate masters AND the base of the Dem party, labor, consumers, and the poor. Corprotism IS power itself. The Dems should be standing with the weak against the powerful. You cannot do THAT and support the corporate agenda. That is republican ground. One of my two basic political philosophies is NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak. THAT is my problem with the DLC

... and you will be appalled when someone pulls out the list of non-DLC dems and THEIR "corporate masters" again.

Truth is, there aren't many Democrats who don't take corporate contributions.

This is not a problem I am unaware of. It is however a problem that needs addressed

That's so funny, I think I'm going to die laughing!

and were called "Dem-lite" and failed miserably. Having a clear policy of being very different from the Democrats is how they took over our government.

Democrats are way better on national security than the Republicans are. Just listen to guys like Wes Clark and Howard Dean talk about the need to secure soviet nukes and inspect cargo at our ports and whatnot.

I'm so glad Howard Dean is in charge. We ARE the mainstream.

Exactly when are you talking about?

The Democrats controlled everything for a long time by being liberal on social programs that help people (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson) And Republicans tended to be moderate (Eisenhower, Nixon) Hell, even George H.W. Bush tried to balance the budget to appease Democrats! Dems even held Congress until Hillary-care in the early 90's.

But during that time the Republicans were building up their party to be a clear alternative to the Democrats. Reagan is widely considered to be the turning point, he was like the quintessential Republican.

and they want to take Democrats with them. What's the point? If I wanted to be a Republican, I'd be one.

right over the proverbial cliff with the rest of the lemmings in the "me, too" crowd.

I welcome this fight from the "centrists." What they are basically saying to me and people like me is "we don't need you." Which is a little bit hard to hear after 10 years of them telling me I was some kind of traitor if I left the Democratic party.

If the Democratic Party embraces the idiotic, counterproductive GOP quest to cause widespread war in the nuclear age, I don't really care how many elections it wins them. They won't be my party. I guess what the DLC is saying is, that's fine by them. And to be honest, after many, many years of being a staunch Democrat, I'm starting to realize it's fine by me too. You guys and the Republicans deserve each other. Blow the planet up in peace.

Many here should realize that they are in the extreme left wing of the party. I think that the extreme wing of any party should realize that their job is to help the party win, then attempt to ensure that their voice (as a minority in that party, but a voice nonetheless) is heard.

A middle ground is needed. The fringes should work to help the party win, not whine because the rest of the party isn't as radical as they are.

Think back to the 2004 election. Where was Roy Moore and all of the rest of the real extreme right wing? Not on the convention floor, Republicans trotted out their moderate wing for the TV cameras. We would do well to learn from that.

the base of the Democratic party. I, for one, do not consider myself to be in the "extreme fringe". And I do not believe that the DLC speaks to the principles which made it great. The DLC does not represent the worker or the disenfranchised. It represents business concerns--the base of the Republican party.

Here's what I have to say:

Take away all the other irrelevant issues that you and other moderates think are so important, which most of you can't describe or discuss with any coherence.

The single most important issue to me with regard to this government is its attitude toward large-scale violence.

What the DLC is saying, and you can't deny this unless you just aren't paying attention (or you're dishonest), is that those of us who opposed large-scale violence in the case of the failed Afghanistan war are the problem because that war remains popular.

Meanwhile, those of you who supported the failed Iraq war, now unpopular, are not the problem but the solution.

If that's what this party is, I'll have no part of it. But I think that you and the rest of your moderate allies are about to find out that isn't what the party is after all.

Let's have at it.

Define the term, then prove your assertion.

I contend that sticking up for economic justice and not allowing corporations to run the country via purchased politicians who owe them favors for campaign contributions is hardly "extreme left wing", but perhaps you believe otherwise.

I will not "give" it away anymore.

If they continue to move any further to the right than they already have, they can count me on staying home on election night.

I will not vote against my beliefs anymore!

If the dem party wants my vote - they will have to EARN it!

I've fought since 1976 for the "good of the party" while I was ignored and threatened. No more.

And if I vote for who I BELIEVE in and lose - at least it will find me in the same place but I will feel better to have fought for WHAT I BELIEVE IN instead of "Anybody But (fill in name here of current repuke idiot).

I'm tired of voting for AB.... with a raging fever.
I'm tired of walking miles stumping for candidates who wimp out and refuse to FIGHT BACK!
I'm tired of working for candidates who, instead of supporting discrimination on the national lever, PREFER TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE STATES TO DISCRIMINATE! - never mind to be TOTALLY OPPOSED TO ANY AND ALL DISCRIMINATION, NO MATTER WHAT THE "LEVEL"!

How about focusing on the opposition, you remember, the Republicans...instead of causing internal warfare?

Since they are, and always have been, Republican moles dedicated to destroying the Democratic party from within, We, the real Democrats - liberals & progressives - and even TRUE centrists - are the ones they are opposed to.

Well said. :toast:

Julie

There is nothing "far left" about standing up for workers rights, civil rights, women & GLBT rights, environmental protection, and regulating corporations, not people.

TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC VALUES ARE AMERICAN VALUES.:woohoo:

who spew repuke-lite points with ease.

Are they using these tactics simply as a ruse for their own "inaction" of late???

We here on the web are doing all the work, our representatives are sticking tail between legs and cowering. Methinks this is pretty simplistic.

I say, Get Some Shit In Your Necks and Stand Up and Fight For YOUR Party. Quit trying to DIVIDE... better that you try to CONCUR!!

I've had my fill of all the Wing-Nuts we've had to put up with lately!!

We don't need these guys. They are not centrist. They are neo-cons in disguise.

...on the topic...

...and in another DLC thread...

Let's see some factual data to back up the assertion being made against the DLC and that the DLC is alone in the Democratic party in regards to what you criticize them for.

Don't post links of other DU threads, or from other opinion pieces other left writers have written.

Present the cold hard evidence.

Here's one I'd especially like to see: The often repeated meme that the DLC was responsible for losses in '94, 2000, 2002, and 2004.

Prove it.

If you can't, you've just got a case of sour grapes.

DU history lesson: If you think you have dirt on someone, chances are your guy/gal/"wing" is guilty of the same or similar.

I wonder, then, who truly are "acting like Republicans?" I don't think you're going to get much cold, hard evidence here.

Writer.

...but I will get a fair share of effort from those who believe the nonsense. I do give them credit for firmly believing what they believe

Given that Bush has thumbed his nose at the people since 2001 and has seemingly won many political battles since 2001 (I'm sorry, but WHAT major historical event are we ignoring here?) I think many believe that the only way to fight his puerile politics is by becoming his counter-weight. This is why Bush is such an effective polarizer. Seems like he's doing a pretty damn good job polarizing US.

Yet it's not going to work. We cannot change the culture of 50% of America, but we can speak their language in order to win their hearts and minds. That means that abortion stays "rare, safe, and LEGAL," and that we too can be strong in the face of terrorism while not running around the planet like Yosemite Sam.

Maybe we ought to let this staunch, left-wing logic run the show a bit, lose a few more elections (and they will) then figure out how fear is the reason why voters avoided the Democratic Party since 2001 - not centrist ideology.

Writer.

There is no 'staunch, left wing' and we don't WANT to move the party or the country to the left. The true center is what we're looking for.

We simply want the party to stop the move to the right. This means a return to a party that supports worker's rights, corporate accountability and a SANE national security agenda.

The DLC is saying we must accept their national security agenda or risk looking weak in comparison to the far-right. But their agenda is bascially the same as that of the Neocons...so that is no choice at all.

Voters don't 'fear' a centrist ideology. They fear the ideology of the DLC.

I'm now a propagandist!

Well, let me continue propagandizing, then. I say that there is a left-wing of this party who is not tolerating any moderation in their viewpoints. I say that this left-wing has been aggravating division in the party (at least on DU) by the countless rabid anti-DLC posts (most of them rude and childish) that I have witnessed on here for at least a year before joining this site.

So you want worker's rights in light of corporate abuse? Fine! I'm right there with you! But what is your plan? Clinton supported (and pushed through) an increase in the minimum wage, for instance. Is this what you're talking about when you say that the DLC opposes workers rights? How about health care. Clinton tried, and failed, to push through universal health care. It was too early, perhaps, but is that what you call compromising Democratic values of helping those who can't help themselves? And the Iraq War? How many NON-DLC Democrats voted for permitting Bush to take us there?

I'm starting to think that the disagreement in this party is more petty window-dressing than a true disagreement.

Writer - a PROUD propagandist.

Edited: for spelling

He proposed a humongous bribe to large insurance companies to pretty please insure more people. It would have broken the budget and STILL not covered everyone, and the people left out would have been the ones most likely to get expensively sick.

He proposed a humongous bribe to large insurance companies to pretty please insure more people. It would have broken the budget and STILL not covered everyone, and the people left out would have been the ones most likely to get expensively sick.

...when you can't even prove that the DLC has been anything more than a thorn in the side of the Democratic party. The only 'win' you can point to is Clinton...but you can't really count him as a 'win' because his most popular policies...such as health care...didn't come from the DLC. The DLC doesn't believe in National Health Care. The only DLC policies that came out of the Clinton era were those immensely unpopular with most Democrats...like welfare 'reform'...NAFTA and the telecommunications act.

Gore rejected the DLC, shot up in the polls and won the popular vote against a cheating opponent.

Kerry took the DLC's advice and LOST.

The issue isn't really about left versus center...because the DLC doesn't represent the center...it represents the Neocon right. The true center of our party supports the same agenda as the progressives.

You constantly accuse other DUers of not being able to come up with 'facts' to support the contention that the DLC is bad for the party. But one doesn't have to look any further than their 'progressive internationalism' to know that they have many of the same goals as the Neocons.

It should piss you off that the DLC is helping Bush escape justice for lying this nation into war.

So let's take it from here:

The only DLC policies that came out of the Clinton era were those immensely unpopular with most Democrats...like welfare 'reform'...NAFTA and the telecommunications act.

At the time of these bills being passed, PROVE they were not popular with Dems.

Gore rejected the DLC, shot up in the polls

Link?

Immensely unpopular with most PEOPLE. Where did you get the idea that Nafta was popular? It is popular with the corporate crowd which is our point

I asked for proof that NAFTA was unpopular when it was passed.

I never made a claim as to whether is was or not.

But since you just made another assertion with no proof ("Nafta is STILL Immensely unpopular with most PEOPLE"), I did a little checking.



Looks like two polls from 1999 and the latest from Pew on the subject reveal that it is popular with the people who know what it is.

Further...

November 2002 Ipsos-Reid poll, 48% of respondents said that the United States has been a “winner” as a result of NAFTA and 37% felt that the United States was a “loser.as a result of NAFTA.”

In a May 2000 Gallup poll 47% said NAFTA has been good for the US, while 39% said it has been bad. In an October 1999 PIPA poll a plurality of 44% viewed NAFTA as good for the US and just 30% saw it as bad.

Do I support it personally? Not anymore... but I also don't presume that everyone thinks like me.

The first poll clearly shows support I notice only a plurality and not a majority, but I concede the point, the second however cannot support your assertion that it is popular, not when only 27% support it as is. and 58, thats more than double want it changed or ended.

Looking back now, we see it hasn't lived up to it's promise.

But remember the Dems who supported it - like Howard Dean.

Dean (and I think Kerry) both advocate modifying it, but not scraping it.

An issue where the corporate contributers conflict with our base which doesnt think globalization should benifit only the investor class. Which side will the DLC take on this. If they stand with the people and against the corporate cash that I percieve as their true objective then I will be more circumspect in my criticism of them. If they go the other way, then you see why I make such criticism

... your point can only be made if you accurately defined what this "base" is and if everyone who takes corporate donations stops.

I see little chance of either of those happening.

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

your definition of the "base" is typical in the post-McGovern era.

But is still incomplete.

And your personal attack didn't go unnoticed.

Why ask for a link to common knowledge?

...or an Al Gore quote somewhere.

Another example of an ant-DLCer running away when asked for proof of an assertion.

rather than imply that their assertions aren't true.

Putting them in italics does nothing to negate his "assertions". This is the internet...if you were able to find contrary evidence you could post it yourself.

Or don't YOU have any...link?

Someone makes a claim, that someone either proves it or is discredited. Whether I have contrary evidence (I do) is beside the point.

Seems to me that the onus for providing that is on the DLC, since they started this fight based on the idea that liberalism was responsible for the party's losses in the 80s.

If they can't, then *they're* the ones with a case of sour grapes, are they not? Cold, hard evidence.

is the idea that liberalism was ruining the party. They started this, they get to answer first.

So, no, those that make that claim get to answer first in this thread. If you would like to ask the DLC leadership to join up on that other thread you started to avoid providing any factual information concerning the left's claim about the DLC, go ahead.

But that is what you (you in the general sense) are doing as you always do: Making the old assertion then running when asked to prove it.

I, personally, have not made that claim, so I feel no need to back it up. Perhaps I have - show me the post. I've certainly made the claim that the DLC didn't save us from disaster in those elections, which seems obvious on its face.

Now, back to my point. Please show me the cold, hard evidence that proves that liberalism was responsible for the party's electoral failures in the 80s.

on edit: I'm touched that you've read my other thread. Perhaps you'd like to add your thoughts? It's a fairly straightforward question.

...and If you yourself have not made that claim, why jump into a sub thread where the proof for it is being asked for (again?)

And why not ask some of the other anti-DLCers to shut me up by providing the evidence?

Now, back to my point. Please show me the cold, hard evidence that proves that liberalism was responsible for the party's electoral failures in the 80s.

I've never made that claim.

And why not ask some of the other anti-DLCers to shut me up by providing the evidence?

Because evidence is scarce down here in our lowly level of citizenship, as I imagine you're aware. Besides, I very much doubt that it would discourage pro-DLCers were it available, and my aim, at the end of the day, is to end the reign of this stupid organization in my party. It is enough, for me, to point out that the grand "cure" has failed to produce the desired results.

I've never made that claim.

In a sense, then, we understand each other. On the other hand, you back (unless I have totally misunderstood you) an organization whose very existence is based on that claim.

Because evidence is scarce down here in our lowly level of citizenship, as I imagine you're aware. Besides, I very much doubt that it would discourage pro-DLCers were it available, and my aim, at the end of the day, is to end the reign of this stupid organization in my party.

So people make stuff up then out of desperation or is the info being supressed? :tinfoilhat:

Please, in detail.

Please, in detail.

And, not ignoring you dodging of the point - if there is no evidence available or it's "scarce," either some have a secret source or they're making stuff up.

Aren't you?

Good god, man - you can't even remember what you've WRITTEN!

Post 107 - "so... the only option is to make stuff up?"

YOUR exact words!

You're right. That was in post 107. But did I say ulysses has made anything up? Why, no... no I didn't.

My god, man. Can't you follow a thread?

I'l do your work for you.

Post 85 - I said, "But that is what you (you in the general sense) are doing as you always do: Making the old assertion then running when asked to prove it."

Comment: "you in the general sense" means those who make this assertion.

I further clarified this point in post 90, with ulysses obviously understood because he made no other mention of it.

So, at this point, the usage of the word "you" was clarified and clear to the two parties in the discusssion.

In post 101, ulysses said, "evidence is scarce down here in our lowly level of citizenship, as I imagine you're aware. Besides, I very much doubt that it would discourage pro-DLCers were it available, and my aim, at the end of the day, is to end the reign of this stupid organization in my party."

In post 105, I asked, "So the only option is to make stuff up?"

Reminder: Asked AFTER it was clarified that we were discussing anti-DLCers in general and not ulysses in particular.

Now, go ahead and tell me that isn't what ulysses and I were discussing. You obviously know.

As by the same standards you PROVE the DLC was responsible for the Clinton victories

So, AGAIN you run away from the question.

The second time you have made that bald and false assertion. I answered it last time, I stand by my previous reply

Provide the proof or run away again.

I think you have delusions of adequecy. Certainly I have no reason to run from you. This in fact doesnt even make sense. My point was as we went over higher up, that you cannot both claim Clintons successes and run from the defeats. The point is valid. I have nothing to prove as the logic is obvious. Whether you choose to accept the DLC as responsible for the defeats or not claim the Clintons successes is fine as long as you dont try to claim one and deny the other. Try to keep up. I never claimed that the DLC is responsible for these defeats nor for Clinton one way or the other. I urge you to attempt more cogent posts

A little quote from his post #212:

Welfare reform was a popular concept (the reasons for that are debatable but the fact remains), and as I've shown earlier, NAFTA was at least something Americans were willing to take a chance on. A plurality approved of it.

You are welcome ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1704557&mesg_id=1705796&page=

..as for welfare reform:

the Family Leave Act, welfare reform and the minimum wage increase are also viewed as very important accomplishments by strong majorities of Americans (68%, 67% and 64%, respectively).

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=105

That would be a 67% approval for welfare reform in 1997.


You are welcome ;)

But you are running away from the question.

The anti-DLCers make very bold claims but then cut and run, reply with diversionary side shows, etc., when asked for proof.

My point was as we went over higher up, that you cannot both claim Clintons successes and run from the defeats.

I have done neither.

I urge you to attempt more cogent posts

:eyes:

Then we are on the same page since this cannot possibly be done. You did say I never said I couldnt claim Clinton. When I made this point, that you cant claim both, why did you argue it? I never said at any time that I could prove the DLC was responsible for losses. There is no way to do this. It does seem to me disengenuous to demand proof for the DLC losses IF you are going to claim Clintons wins. You are slipping all around this. My point is simple. You dont get to have it both ways, you cant both claim Clintons wins and deny DLC losses. Do you or dont you agree?

OF COURSE DLC candidates have lost.

But there's no proof or evidence to suggest they lost because they were DLC.

volumes of evidence presented - even on this thread!

You only choose to see what you choose to see.

One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Evidence requires proof beyond your personal beliefs.

There has not been even one link to any data to suggest it.

There are plenty.

...humor me.

Give me the post numbers or repost the links.

Let's put this little debate to rest, shall we?

Remember 1998? The Republicans tried to become a big, bad loud-mouthed opposition party, so much so they dragged the Commander-in-Chief into an impeachment battle. The result? They looked like jack-asses and lost many congressional seats in 1998. That's why, in 2000, Bush tried the "softer side" approach. We all know what resulted then.

This is what happens when emotion governs logic. We all lose. Please, let's not compound the problem.

Writer.

Honestly, impeaching a president over a fucking BLOWJOB! That was more of what shot them out of several seats in Congress, not problems with policy.

Look it,

All i see is a bunch of people yelling about how blue is blue rather than saying it's not red. If you have centrist leanings, bless you for thinking, if you a little more leftist great as well, it's your Passion that will keep us from being confused with the right. We must use both ends. The far left doesn't reject the centrist, rather he/she is confused by how easy it seems for the center to look just like the right. The centrist would just like the far left to be quiet long enough for us to take a few from the right center.

The truth is however is for both sides to be more realistic. Far-left, we have to really look at what the people of this land want. It's not want is best for them, or the best for the planet but what they really want. It seems that many radical Dems have forgotten how to come down and speak with the common man, and not "preach" to them. The sermons from the left on the ecology, tolerance, and peace are just as bad over time as sermons on "the evil gay", the war on terror, and tax breaks. Centrist, guess what people in the center aren't worth fighting for and Dem base may not be far left but it sure as hell ain't centrist. Most dems are in the middle the middle of the far left and the center. They don't want to be republican or revolutionaries. they would rather be fair to as many as they can when they can.

If we want to be the dominant party again it's easy to do. We have to all remember that we are a party for the people all people. We must look as the open window of hope to the working class. As the guardians of the weak and poor not the friends of the rich. We must respect religion and embrace those who honor it. WE, all of us must stand in the gap for a new day. If not we and our country will lose year after year.

"The centrist would just like the far left to be quiet long enough for us to take a few from the right center."

YES!

DIEBOLD

It matter not which way we turn without harnessing the machines to actually show the people will.

A lie can't stand to the truth. If out of 100 people 75 voted one way 25 the other and a computer said difrently that 75 will figure it out rather quickly, no! We must start to win a majority of the votes so our outrage, and reaction to false elections would be too feared to be tried. In a close race you can sneek in a vote here and there in a land slide you can't hide it! If we understand the people and I really think our party has SO much more to offer more of this great land than the repubs. However, it won't mater if our message is getting lost in our bickering and seeming disorgaization.

We dems really need a 10 point platform that we sell day in day out without question. One, that's clear and gives us a diffent light than the repubs. Two, that makes the common man feel he's not being talked down to. Three, a list that stays true with our core progressive beliefs that outweight the closed mind foolishness of the right. If it sound simple that's becouse it is.

The majority of the American people, want universal health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. That they prefer social spending to tax cuts. That they (until they are IN the war) dont like foriegn adventurism. That they think the Pentagon gets too much money. That the poor should be helped. Hey, I may be far left but if we just go with that agenda I will be a very happy liberal

that we should have more issue-oriented journalism yet still read and watch the smut. They also say they believe in eating healthy, yet choke down carb-laden junk food.

The American people speak about ideals yet live none of them.

I am not sure its relevant to what I was addressing. The assertion made that: "Far-left, we have to really look at what the people of this land want. It's not want is best for them, or the best for the planet but what they really want."

If we are not addressing what the are SAYING they want then what are we supposed to be addressing? To assume that they actually want something other than what they are saying they want is to be more condescending than his next point:"It's not want is best for them, or the best for the planet but what they really want. It seems that many radical Dems have forgotten how to come down and speak with the common man, and not "preach" to them. The sermons from the left on the ecology, tolerance, and peace are just as bad over time as sermons on "the evil gay", the war on terror, and tax breaks. "

So my point is that the left isnt out of touch with at least what the American people are 'saying' they want

The DLC are lying bastards. What does an unprovoked, illegal war and occupation have to do with national security OR Truman, Roosevelt or Kennedy?

Their arrogance is matched only by their friends the Neocons. They will be the downfall of the Democratic party if the grassroots doesn't get together and agree NOT TO VOTE for any politician associated with this group of warmongering fools.

THEY ARE NOT 'CENTRISTS'...they're RWingers pretending to be Democrats.

It didn't work either time. How stupid can you get?

... they would include "bite me" and "go fuck yourself".

say what you really mean?

.. I just did, believe me!

n/t

No thank you.

I still feel that all progressive Dems should drop the Dim Party and join the Green Party. Yeah, Greens will never win any Natl. elections in Congress or the WH say many. Of course they won't until enough Dems join up and push for a "real" alternative to the Corporatist so called Republican, now morphed into extreme RW, Neocon and Fundie zealots.

....just to respond to this topic, is proof that they KNOW they're losing power and are scared shitless that Democrats might actually be in charge of the Democratic party again.

What, honey, do you mean me? You talking to me?

For the last two years I have been reading countless knuckle-headed postings blasting the DLC for everything from the Iraqi dead to the peach fuzz on their face. There's no proof. There's no alternative. Just whining.

Clinton did what Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis could NOT do - that is, win and win two terms. What - do you want to go back to the days of McGovern, losing in landslides, carrying the stigma of being turtle-necked, weak-kneed Americans who cry pitifully about why Americans didn't listen to our "good sense?"

I suppose you do. Go ahead and do so at your own peril. The DLC will continue to lead.

Writer the Propagandist DLC Intern.

The Vichy Democrats are only responsible for the Iraqi dead; their "peach fuzz" is immaterial.

Two years must be a record for lurlking at DemU. I only lurked for a day before I couldn't resist posting.

But I will play your silly game, or take the hook or whatever: What is the DLC leading? It looks to me that the party in general has passed them by.

And what leadership existed before Clinton? What party identity existed other than that sprung forth by the ghosts of FDR and LBJ? A list of losing Dem candidates is all I see.

So... if the DLC are losers and apparent "real" Democrats are losers... then we're all up shit creek.

While the "real Dems" pump their fists and attempt to romanticize the '60's (Where are all the big social protests? Sniff!) the DLC will be looking at the contemporary American climate and moving forward into the 21st Century.

The only game with a mark in the win column is the DLC game. I'd prefer to stick to a winning strategy.

Writer, the Propagandizing DLC Intern and Master Lurker.

...and it already appears to be your favorite scapegoat...besides the 'staunch left-wing'. It's quite the coincidence that RWingers also hate the 60s and refer to that time in the same condescending way.

The 'contemporary' American climate is one of nationalism and jingoism. I'm not at all surprised that the New Democrats want to join with the Bushie Neocons in capitalizing on the anger, terror and fear.

I don't care if you're a DLC intern or a Master Lurker. Either way it's rather obvious that you're the board's latest and greatest champion of the oppressed New Democrat.

What 'leadership' existed before Clinton? Stop drooling on your Clintonian keyboard for a moment and realize that BEFORE him the party was in control of government for decades. With a progressive government...we pushed through programs that helped people first and foremost. America was on our side. Teachers. Unions. Truck drivers. Bakers and candlestick makers. We represented PEOPLE and we were proud of it. And please don't forget that the Democratic party has been around a couple hundred years...WITHOUT the help of the DLC or Clinton.

I'm glad you notice that the party is up 'shit creek'. Is it the fault of the DLC? One could make the argument that while the Right was buying up the media and putting together a smear machine that would have made Nixon blush...the DLC was busy 'triangulating' and finding ways to get rid of the baggage of the poor, working class and disenfranchised. The Right was building their base and the New Democrats were culling the herd.

Could you please point out this winning DLC column? And where is this 'winning strategy'? Are you again referring to Clinton? Is that all you've got to illustrate the DLC's grand strategy and winning ways? Please excuse me if this sounds mean...but the DLC's claim to fame sounds no more credible than when Bush declared 'mission accomplished' or that stealing another election somehow gives him a 'mandate'.

It's good to have you here on DU. We needed a fresh perspective on the same old tired rhetoric from the DLC.

I'm sorry my presence urks you. Apparently it bothers you that once again, someone is fighting for the center. Your sarcastic message oozes with resentment that someone like me is even here. Your litmus-test prattle only underscores how much like the current Republicans this new "my way or the highway" Democratic logic appears to us centrists.

You say I keep talking about Clinton as my "only" winning strategy - honey, do you have any?

So I'm the new champion of the middle here to upset you. So be it.

Out,
Writer.

...and now you've brought in 'urks'. No one is 'bothered' by your presence. I think it's great that you've come to DU to defend the DLC. It's for certain that they could use the help as they tout their 'winning strategies' for the party.

I don't believe that you're 'fighting for the center'. You're fighting for the right-center and calling it the center...much like Bush fights for the extreme right and calls it conservative. The DLC had to invent a 'radical left' so they would look 'centrist' by comparison. I won't credit you with this 'strategy' because it sounds more like From or Marshall.

The reason I mentioned anything at all is because your posts are so similar to the rhetoric one finds at the DLC / Blueprint websites that it couldn't be a coincidence. They love to use the term 'elite' and worship Clinton as a political god. And of course they have to label Liberals and Progressives as radical (or loony, as the DU DLCers put it) to make their RWing policies look 'sensible' to true centrists.

If you're indeed looking for strategies that bring wins for the party...why all the effort on the DLC's part to alienate liberals and progressives? You'd think that a better strategy would be the 'more votes the better'?

I've been on this board for a few years now and I thought you'd like to know that there didn't used to be any kind 'vitriol' against the DLC because they were virtually unknown to many Democrats until after the 2000 'election' when Gore publicly separated from them. And there really wasn't any kind of debates about the DLC until a (very) small group of Defenders showed up one day and began to attack the 'fringe liberal elite' for their opposition to Bush's 'muscular' wars.

As more Democrats from this and other boards began to discover what the DLC was all about through researching their website...they realized the intent of the New Democrats wasn't so much to bring a winning strategy as it was to move the party to the right. Like the Neocons...the DLCers wanted one of their own in office even if they had to character assassinate more progressive candidates to do it.

You can keep repeating that you and the DLC represents the middle...but that's not how it's perceived by many Democrats. Those who have taken the time to research the DLC see it as a way for the Right to finally neutralize their only remaining opposition: liberals and progressives. They can now attack from two directions...with operatives on both the inside and outside of the party.

The true middle of the party are the champions of the working class and the 'have-nots'. That puts the DLC on the right side of the party with their championing of the Haves and their version of trickle-down economics which they call the 'opportunity society'. The New Democrats no more represent the middle of the Democratic party than Bush represents conservatives in the GOP.

You'll find that many Democrats won't fall for the false choice of either becoming like Republicans or staying true to Democratic principles and values. Most will choose the traditional values every time.

You write as if you've discovered the Holy Grail of Democratic thinking, yet none of us have the answers you claim to have - about the DLC, the DNC, the RNC or any other organization. It's all a matter of perspective. I disagree with you on nearly everything you've written about the DLC and everything I've read in your post above. I believe I represent the middle, but you believe differently. Will you change my mind? No. Will I change yours? :rofl: Something tells me you're so conservative in your opinions that no logic will make you budge.

Creating a litmus test for who is or is not a "true Democrat" is destructive. Democrats should not act like Republicans, their judgmental fingers pointed toward the door, casting out those that don't correspond to a narrow ideology. (Once again: who really are acting like Republicans here?) If that is your prerogative, so be it.

As of now, I will not continue this counter-productive flame war. Your ball.

Out,
Writer.

A two-party system of government can't exist with both parties promoting the same agenda. The lack of an opposition party makes it a one-party state with expectations of conformity from both parties.

I'm not trying to change your mind. Likewise...if that was your intent when you came to this board you're going to be very disappointed.

There is no 'litmus test' for being a 'true Democrat' beyond believing in certain principles and values. If you support issues that the RWingers have been pushing for years...like the elimination of worker's rights and unprovoked, unilateral, illegal wars...then you're probably a Republican. Someone that doesn't believe in the traditional values of the party probably shouldn't be IN that party.

Do I need to remind you that it's the DLC that's trying to define real Democrats with their rants against liberals and progressives and the litmus test 'what we stand for' propaganda? What they're saying is that if WE don't believe in their agenda then we're not only hurting the party...we're somehow un-American or unpatriotic. At the same time they're insisting that it's THEY that represent the party. If there's any shoving going on...it's on the part of the so-called centrists.

I'm now wondering if you even read the title to this thread? You accuse me of pointing fingers and here we have the DLCers 'warning' Democrats to the left of them that they must conform with their agenda or be 'attacked'. It would be nice if you dwelled a little less on projection and more on how the DLC is attacking those who don't WANT to move the party closer to the ideology of those in control of this country.

how come the number of your posts stays at '45' no matter how many you write? Could it be a DLC intern, master-lurker conspiracy?

...but a closer study of the situation will show there is ample evidence that he's guilty of treason. Now the DLC is following his lead...looking for plausible deniability instead of facing their opponents with direct answers.

How is it possible for the DLC 'to lead'? Just exactly whom are they leading? They are not an official organization of the Democratic party. They are to the Democratic party what the Neocons and Heritage Foundation is to the GOP. The DLC is a bunch of failed political hacks looking for another Clinton and another cold war so they can stay around just a little bit longer.

They can pretend to lead all they want. Few will follow.

DLC had to dispatch an intern to Democratic Underground.

You should take that act on the road!

But I would question whether it is a DLC shill or a REPUKE mole!

;)

the neocons have already put out there through their multitentacled right wing media. If we go with the DLC, we are capitulating to the marketing of ideas that the right has done since the 1970s. We are basically conceding EVERYTHING ideological to a bunch of impractical wingnuts whose ideas aren't working except for the very wealthy who are funding them.

intelligence and suddenly he's a flaming liberal bent on destroying the Democratic Party. The so-called centrists are either charlatans, imbeciles or thieves (and Clinton did not run or win on military adventurism or pre-emptive war). Perhaps the conciliators on this thread should ask why no one in the party leadership has problem with the opposition owning the voting machines and then speak with the 60% of the population that deplores this ill-conceived, insanely prosecuted war war and are convinced the country is heading in the wrong direction. But if you are a shill or mere apologist for the corporations I don't care whether you are left, right or centrist road-kill, you're no Democrat.

...because even though they'll always give the Rs LOTS more money than they give us, they still give us lots too! So we have to make sure they still have lots to give! So forget workers' rights, a civilized safety net, protecting the environment, or opposing the illegal, imperialist, insane war(s) that are making them LOTS AND LOTS of money. As long as we get some of it, who cares how many children they blow to bits? Not us."

How else to explain the insane repudiation of policies that in poll after poll a majority of Americans seem to want? Yeah, we're so radical that we are in agreement with a majority that this war is not worth it, that everyone should have health care, and that the environment is worth protecting.

Shit, what I want is the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society recaptured, not aggressive foreign policy!!!!!!!

Ya picked the wrong facet!

I could be argued that H. Ross Perot was the spoiler in the 1992 race. He helped open the door for Clinton. That said, to opine that Clinton was every American's favorite choice in that pivotal election year is, well, disingenuous. Clinton was and is charismatic; that helped in a big way, especially with younger people, as I was at the time. He really pushed the envelope in his first couple of years, but then he got really timid. And I think that is the catchword of the DLC of today: timid. There is nothing they are fighting for; they are fighting against! They have become the reactionaries. It's really sad to me.

That said, don't get me wrong - I was glad of the door being opened for Clinton. He was a good President, and I am proud of him.

But the DLC was basically made by Clinton, and they have never honestly appraised how/why he won in 1992. I think that is is a great weakness in understanding the American electorate of today.

If someone can explain to me why the Third Way/DLC would have won the election one-on-one with the elder Bush (no Perot), I'm all ears. But the way the votes ended up, well, I will probably always be skeptical. And I hate that. I actually want the DLC to be right.

edited for clarity

then I would much prefer to lose by Gore's .01% (wait a minute, he didn't lose) or Kerry's 3% than to lose by Dukakis' 10+%!

Bush's approvals were hovering around 35% by the '92 election. The man could not win. Many say that Perot's voters would have voted for Bush. I say that many would have just stayed home.

But they didn't! That means that they thought they had an option. For Perot, they showed up.

So, please, tell me -- why should I believe that Clinton's win in 1992 was because of his "third way" politics, or even his charisma, as suggested in an earlier post?

I still think that the DLC has not deconstructed Clinton's first win enough to see the underlying electorate trends.

Again, all of this is my opinion. But I have it, and if I do, others might also.


on edit, bad capitalization...sorry.