The battle is forming - its DFA versus DLC

Howard Dean and his group Democracy for America represent the upstart effort to reform the Democratic Party to bring it back to serving its base of supporters. The resistance is coming from the establishment candidates who are entrenched in the depths of Beltway politics as represented by the DLC. As evidence listen to the comments of Joe Biden when he says Dean does not speak for me. You know who these folks are. And yes, my friends, Ms. Hilary Clinton is one of them. The DLCers are feeling threatened right now by the in-roads made by Dean. On the one hand they love the fact that he is a money raising machine, on the other hand they fear that it is money and support that will not wind up going to them. For all of us activists this is going to be a battle we must keep are eye on. As I see it we have two choices. Either we support Dean's efforts to reform the Party, or we allow those who are currently in power continue to hoodwink us into believing that they represent our interests and are an opposition party.

that is a mere technicality. He founded it and it embodies all of the ideas that he has brought to the DNC.

talking on Air America about his secret battle plan to put the DLC out of commission.

I personally don't think the DLC is that powerful anymore. They represent a fraction, albeit a decent sized fraction, of the Dem Party. They perhaps seem more viable because they annoy the crap out of people.

Dean's idea of donating $20 a month through democracy.org is an excellent one. He is truly working to rebuild the Dem Party in a way I believe most folks can sign on to. He will be more diplomatic now, as he should as DNC chair, to those WITHIN the party.

However, I think the net-roots online organization for the Hackett campaign proved where the REAL power lies. I really believe the progressive wing will prevail. I also believe the DLC is much less influential than some people think.

The DLC doesn't have people's intrest's unless they're for corporations and republican-lite in my opinion. I think from what we witnessed in Ohio that people are ready for TRUE democrats. I'm glad Dean is the chairman because he knows that it's the people who should have control over the party and not corporations.

Just like you don't try to turn too much for just one sector of your base, there is no need to turn the 2006 races into leadership pissing contests.

We need unity.

The DLC advocates and supports the following, which are the opposite stances of not only a majority of Democrats but a majority of polled Americans:

1) Has Supported the Iraq War from the start (majority is against the war, and 58% were against it before we ever invaded)

2) Supports the Patriot Act (majority is against it)

3) Pro-outsourcing via corporate wealth-transfers like NAFTA and CAFTA (majority are against these policies)

4) Favors taxpayer-funded private school vouchers (majority do not support this)

5) Favors keeping health care in the private sector (a majority of Americans support universal health care)

These are just a handful of issues. How, exactly, does one reconcile these major philosophical differences, zulchzulu?

Aside from the "support for the war", I would venture that most Moderates (Repug and Dem) are NOT:

1) Pro-CAFTA
2) Pro-Bush war
3) Pro-voucher (they have kids in public schools due to economic limits)
4) Anti-health care reform (most probably have shitty coverage or none at all)
5) Pro-Patriot Act (they know an inkling about being lied to according to polls)

The absolute key to electoral victory is appealing to Moderates. Of course, it's about decisive framing of the issues.

The DLC appeals to the Moderates. The DFA appeals to the "left" base.

The key is getting out the vote in overwhelming numbers to overcome the inherent cheating that the Repugs have made a part of their twisted version of "democracy".

This is no time to play the "holier than thou" purity contest between the the DLC and the DFA. That would be the BEST Repug plan.

Keep your eye on the ball. Please.

First, you correctly surmise that most truly moderate voters are not

1) Pro-CAFTA
2) Pro-Bush war
3) Pro-voucher (they have kids in public schools due to economic limits)
4) Anti-health care reform (most probably have shitty coverage or none at all)
5) Pro-Patriot Act (they know an inkling about being lied to according to polls)

Then you suggest that the only we have of reaching these voters are so-called "democrats" who voted the WRONG way on some or all of the above.

Now how does that make sense?

If Joe Sixpack Moderate knows that a Republican Senator or a DLC Senator will screw him equally on any of the above issues, what incentive is there to vote for a DLC Senator?

I'm guessing the DLC has ran candidates in Ohio's 2nd district before, and they didn't get over 30%. Paul Hackett doesn't seem to fit the description of a flaming liberal by any means, but he came close to taking that district (without getting into "humidity" and Clear Channel "power outages" and what not.)

The lessons to take from Ohio is that the 50 state strategy proposed by Howard Dean is working. And so are candidates that tell it like it is, and represent the people. Not the corporations.

Officially, I mean. To destroy the DLC? Is it Dean's position officially?

Howard Dean speaks for me.

:bounce: :bounce:

This is very divisive.

first, a brief history ... i was a very early Dean supporter who quickly switched my allegiance to Kucinich because i did not, and do not, like Dean's views on Iraq ... i don't agree with him that "we're stuck there" ... second, i don't agree with Dean's support for Casey in Pa. ... Casey has abhorrent views on the "choice" issue ... contrary to Dean's statement that we have to stand for more than winning, it feels like supporting Casey is exactly that ...

now, having said that, I strongly supported Dean, and still do, for DNC Chair ... the Democratic Party, i.e. the minority party, is in desperate need of reform ... Dean offers real hope for that possibility ...

which brings me to DFA's strong support of the recent Hackett candidacy ... i was sorry to see Hackett lose ... but I also will not support candidates, Hackett included, who support the "we're stuck there" view of Iraq no matter how critical they may be of bush's mishandling of the war and the occupation ... why would DFA be so excited about a candidate who just pushed more of the same old DLC bullshit ... we either fight for our beliefs on the war or we don't ...

the reason I didn't support Dean in the primaries was because of his views on Iraq ... and now we see more of the same from DFA ... the bottom line for me is that I hope to be able to support both Dean and DFA as a reform movement ... but if that necessitates going along with this naive view that anything good will come from continued US occupation in Iraq, count me out ...

i haven't given up on either Dean, DFA or the reform efforts underway in the Democratic Party ... but i am truly concerned about the direction these efforts seem to be taking ...

I think he's doing a very good job keeping the party faithful alive as DNC chair.

Yet I don't think he espouses the same beliefs that many believe him to espouse. He speaks from a moderate view, at times. Yes, he says, we are stuck in Iraq and we have to work with that. He has also spoken the same way on issues of faith and abortion.

I am starting to think that DFA has become its own animal.

the day i conclude there is no longer hope for reform is the day i'll leave the Party ... and i currently have very serious concerns about whether a reform movement in the Party will succeed ...

the two groups fighting for reform seem to be both DFA and PDA ... increasingly, i've become concerned that DFA is more a pro-Dean group than a reform group ... exactly what reforms is DFA pushing for? maybe i just don't understand ... i hope that's the case and i hope someone can elaborate on DFA's mission ... if their mission is supporting continued occupation of Iraq because "we're stuck there" and supporting Hackett who agrees "we're stuck there" and supporting Casey who does not support a woman's right to choose EVEN IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST, exactly what reforms are they pushing for???

issues aside, the main reform i seek is an infusion of democracy into the Party ... i want to see our processes changed to give a real voice and real participation in defining the Party's platform to each and every Democrat regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum ... right now, we are a top down party ... that has to change ...

so for now, i remain in the Party doing what i can to make the changes i believe in ... frankly, i'm no longer all that hopeful ... and Dean and his image as a reformer are indeed keeping me "alive" as you put it ... but a Party that continues to support the occupation in Iraq when 2006 rolls around will find a whole lot less support from me than they did during the Kerry campaign ... i see myself as both patient and flexible, but the status quo cannot continue ...

rest of the World(the other 99%).
Dean vs. the DLC is merely a Shadow Box microcosm of the REAL battle.
So far, the Corporate Owners are winning.

Dean is funded by the Grassroots. The DLC (and the Republicans) are funded by the RICH Corporatists. It is refreshing to see Dean stand up to them, but Dean has little power in the Smokey Back Roooms of the RICH WHITE MENS CLUB where Democratic Party Policy is bought and sold.

I FULLY support Dean because he is currently the Point of the Spear of the Grassroots.

Most of my money goes here:
http://www.pdamerica.org/

I never supported this action in Iraq. I knew we didn't understand just how sticky and messy it all would become. But my argument goes beyond political ideology or popular vs unpopular viewpoints.

This goes to the heart of human decency and responsibility. We have wreaked havoc on a nation, whether because of lies or not. We have destroyed its citizenry, its infrastructure and its ability to fend for itself in a very hostile region. Whether we agree with the reasons or not for being there, the fact remains, we are there and we are responsible.

Even if a Democrat were elected who opposed the war from the beginning and voted against giving Bush the authority to go to war; it would be just as horrible to just pull up stakes and leave Iraq. Frankly, I think, it would be the responsible thing to do to openly admit to the mistakes of the prior administration, confess and apologize for the wrong-headed action that had been taken, and begin the healing of Iraq by asking for help from her neighboring countries who stand to gain by having a stable and prosperous Iraqi nation. This, of course, is but one of many steps that would need to be taken. We would need to make amends for the wrong we have done, just like you or I would have to make amends for wrong actions in our own lives.

i appreciate where you're coming from but i also disagree ...

it seems we're in agreement that the US never should have gotten involved in this insane war ... i ranted, raved, wrote letters and called my Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) that we would do nothing but create a huge power vacuum in Iraq that we would not be able to control ... the guy who answered the phone in Kerry's office told me his calls were running 20-1 against voting for the IWR ... hmmmmphhhh ...

anyway, since we began occupying Iraq, we have beaten Iraqis, threatened them and destroyed their farms, and have used water (and probably food) as leverage to get them to disclose "our enemies" ... and we seemingly have "misplaced" more than 9 billion dollars in reconstruction funds ... funny how we're able to build military bases all over Iraq but we don't seem able to do much for the civilian infrastructure ... the excuse given, of course, is that the "terrorists" keep blowing up everything ... well, everything except our bases ... the truth of the matter is that bush never had any intention of rebuilding Iraq until his puppet government was installed ...

the objectives of those who say we can't just leave because we've done so much damage there we have to stay to "stabilize" things and help the Iraqis rebuild is admirable ... it's also, in my view, totally naive ... the objectives are great; i fully support them ... the reality is, though, that we are a major de-stabilizing force ... US occupation is a guaranteed magnet for more violence ...

look at the 2 and a half years we've been there ... look at it honestly ... are we making things more stable or less stable ... i believe we need to get the hell out of Iraq either immediately or in the very near-term ... we are a major obstacle to peace in Iraq ... can i guarantee that civil war will not break out if the US withdraws? of course not ... what i can guarantee is that the violence will not end while we remain there no matter how noble the objectives of some may be ...

so do i think we should just "abandon" Iraq? of course not ... i am in full agreement with your recognition that we have a huge obligation to help with the structuring of a political process (made up of regional countries and interested factions within Iraq) and to help with the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure ... this was an imperialist war run by an imperialist administration ... calling for the kind of idealistic repair of Iraq when the military objective has always been destabilization until a puppet could be put in place is just plain wrong thinking ...

perhaps if there were a Democrat in office, a Democrat who could be trusted not to exploit Iraq for commercial and political gains, the strategy you advocate would be worth considering ... but with bush in office, no way ... it's time for the US to leave ... we've done enough damage to those poor people ... it's time to let them settle things on their own ... the US should withdraw and offer Iraq economic and humanitarian assistance ...

This is also why Dean is so important to the Democratic Party. This is the first time since the corporate-lobbyists etc. of the "D"LC took over the Party with their "we will help you kill the liberals" line to Republicans, that there has actually been an organized, fighting group able to take it all back and return it to the rank-and-file. Ordinary Democrats have been upset about the Democratic Party's total lack of response to the non-rich of America for a long time, but there was nothing to do but try to knock on the window-pane and crash the party--easily defeated. Now that the people's real concerns can be structurally addressed again from the top, and not just blocked every time by the "D"LC corporatists, the great mainstream majority can finally start to relate to the Democrats again. We don't need "framing"; we need people in power solving our problems, where we can't.

A 400 billion dollars a year defense budget.

while the DLC and DNC Democrats bicker about who's who...and what's what.....both have put out the same message to be strong on defense. Yet neither will mention the bloated gigantic defense budget that keeps us chained prisoners and shortchanges any hopes we might have of instituting worthwhile social programs like Universal Health Care and shoring up Social Security...without even having to raise taxes!

We can talk 2006 and 2008 all we want, but as long as the U.S. Government is broke, none of the promises that the politicians make mean much (unless they have a doable plan for getting us out of Iraq).

Issues: Universal Health care vs. added care and insurance benefits? Which to choose?

Don't matter...cause we ain't got not money for either one...and if we think we are going to get this money by offering to repeal these tax cuts that citizens have had for the last 5 years.....we lose per the "big Tax and spend" propaganda that the GOP will put out.

Let's see which Democrats touch this issue...cause that's who I will support.

Reprioritize the pentagon budget....and cut the goddamn oorkfat and the Industrial defense Complex' profit....and lo and behold, that's where the money to balance the budget could come from.

We need a change. These organizations are killing us.

I say we take the best of both the DFA and the DLC and construct a stronger party.

that the Repugs have noticed: that voters don't vote based on "facts." They vote on emotions.

The DLC represents the corporatist wing of the party. Their stranglehold on national leadership was based on their ability to deliver cash from corporations to the party so that it could compete with the GOP. They used their control to move the party to the right and to join in with the corporatist wing of the GOP in framing issues to eliminate all consideration of progressive solutions to problems.

We do not need their money anymore. What else do they have to offer that is positive?

Because of stupid words like "corporatist." PAH-LEEZE. We need to find a balance between workers' rights and job growth.

Because of the plethora of leftist posts always finding a new reason to shout "foul" and pin blame on some type of conspiratorial illuminati.

Because sometimes I agree that a moderate approach is better.

And I don't care if other Democrats disagree with me on those points. I do care, however, on getting more Democrats in Congress and the White House.

Oh, THAT's the way to build bridges and win elections...

:rofl:

NGU.

The DLC track record with the exception of Clinton has been a record of electoral failure.

I do appreciate your attempts at honest dialog on this issue.

Here is an example of how DLC frames issues to favor corporations: Clinton's failed health care reform- that corrupt abomination of a proposed healthcare system that kept corporate healthcare profits intact and was so complicated that it easily was destroyed politically by the right. Meanwhile every poll I've seen on the subject shows that the population in general supports universal healthcare.
For example: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

The only thing is that DLC candidates never propose universal healthcare, they continue to propose something similar to the failed 93 initiative - a system that keeps the profits pouring into the corporate pharma and health insurance coffers, and that is consequently unable to deliver either universality, affordability, or quality.

I had the same question, as you can see, although you've done a better job of expanding on it. Good question, if I do say so myself! :D

chirp.....

chirp.....

chirp.....


I've never seen any defender of our corporatist friends respond intelligently to the UHC issue.

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

Just stopped back in and checked. Very typical.

Let me give my example: Colorado in 2004.

A senatorial campaign ensues. Salazar v. Coors. Salazar, a conservative Democrat, captures the seat.

Why? Because he was more conservative than Coors. Spoke about faith without much shame. Coors, on the other hand, pissed off many conservatives in the state by supporting benefits for same-sex partners. A rather large no-no to the average conservative.

Salazar won, but not only that, Democrats RECAPTURED BOTH HOUSES OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1960!

Now here's the thing that really makes me laugh. So a bunch of pissed off DFA'ers were truly angry that the state party got behind Salazar (SOMEONE knew that a conservative state would vote for a conservative candidate...) and passed aside their pick, Mike Miles, in the senatorial primary. So they TOSSED OUT THE STATE PARTY CHAIRMAN, THE MAN WHO ORCHESTRATED THIS HUGE WIN FOR COLORADO DEMOCRATS.

Now who's laughing?

:rofl:

You have in no way addressed my question. So, I'll ask again: why doesn't the DLC support universal, non-market-based health care, which a majority of Americans support?

...even when asked point-blank.

I guess they don't HAVE an answer.

Clinton's healthcare plan was attacked by the right as "socialism" and by the left because it wasn't a single payer system (like Canada).
Even though a majority of Americans supported the plan initially, insurance industry opposition eventually killed the proposal.

So - maybe the DLC doesn't back a single payer system because - since Clinton's more business friendly proposal couldn't get passed - there's no reason to think that a single payer proposal would be more than a waste of time.

The DLC doesn't seem interested in taking stands on issues just to take a stand - they want to get legislation passed - even if it's only an incremental step in the right direction. That often means working across the aisle with the other side.








and for the record - I am not a member of the DLC

I've asked some of your fellow DLCers, and none have actually attempted to answer this, so I'll ask you in the hopes of getting an answer...

A majority of Americans support universal health care. It is clear to me that the DLC does not, instead preferring that health care be handled by private health corporations such as those owned by the Frist family (see Evan Bayh's donors list, for example).

The DLC claims to be in the business of attracting voters and getting more Democrats into office, right? So why do they not support a policy that a majority of Americans, across the spectrum, support?

the dlc.."stupid words like corporatists" that mean the politicians are doing the bidding of the corporations instead of looking out for the People.

You care about getting more Dems in Congress and the White House?..good..cause repuke lite doesn't cut it..it hasn't yet and it sure as heck isn't going to cut it now.

Edit~typing errors~

Which gives me another opportunity to plug his book, "Don't Think of an Elephant." Inexpensive, an easy read, and it'll change your life.

NGU.

we don't need to pander to the DLC, we need to bypass them.

Swaying voters by appealing to their emotions is a form of propaganda. Why does anyone want to continue the dumbing-down of American voters?

The idea is that men and women are reasonable and will vote that way.

But that is not how it REALLY works. That's why Rove's tactics are so disgusting. He really knows how to manipulate people.

And THAT is why we lose again and again.

If so, count me out. If not, then you're describing Lakoff's technique, which of course does not preclude actually standing for principles that support working people over corporate profits, civil liberties over government intrusion, and the like.

That is a shame, and this will turn into a bashing thread.

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

It bothers me how Biden will spend fifteen minutes talking about why it is so important that we do such-and-such and then spend five minutes explaining why he can't vote that way.

He reminds me of my State Rep, Christine Canavan in that regard. Except Biden is prettier.

..or do you have some inside knowledge?

Didn't think so.

Not necessary.

Somebody will have to be around to clean up the mess after it's over.

I thought the idea was to keep everything quiet? Bayh got eaten alive for suggesting we have an image problem when it comes to national security. I wonder what the country would think of this? The media would love it, that's for damn sure.

a battle and schism within the party. Get used to Republican control of government because it seems it's here to stay.

:rofl:

NGU.

what are you talking about?

Get used to Republican control of government because it seems it's here to stay.

I say...

Never Give Up.

but I don't see a divided Democratic party every regaining any power, do you?

NGU.

but this thread suggests the opposite.

B-)

And I am right.

On the other hand, speaking of internal warfare, what about that rift between the corporatists and the fundies that the Republicon Party keeps pretending isn't there? I'm having a lot of fun prying that apart...

NGU.

they have two factions that have a completely different set of interests. On our side, even though we do have our differences, we aren't completely divided into two groups with totally different goals.

NGU.

and I don't know why it's disabled

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

B-)

NGU.

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

That is not the purpose of DFA and it is hurting the cause of unity to post things like this.

do you think she who complains the most frequently will win?

it's not that i either agree or disagree with what you've said but you've provided no data to support your point of view and you just keep repeating the same point over and over ...

This is a divisive thread. It does not tell the truth about DFA.

And, by the way, my local Democracy for America members, including myself, are VERY anti-war, and VERY progressive.

We are focusing on the integrity of the voting process, and on organizing our local citizen involvement in the democratic process, at the moment.

They're mixing it up, too, and actually gaining positions of power in Minnesota.

i have great respect for PDA as an organization ... they seem to understand that we have to define what we believe before we define whom we believe in ...

it will be interesting to see whether the gap between PDA and other Party constituencies is healed before the next campaign season begins ... i'm growing increasingly skeptical ...

pda is doing excellent work around the country - and have a lot of common ground with dfa. both groups hold great disdain for the dlc.

they just dont know it yet.

when they pick up the phone they might get someone to answer their calls, but they can not rally the masses.

their time is over.

Lets do our thing at let the issues stand by themselves- as opposed to getting into a "he is in the wrong club" thing.

Let's handle this issue by issue- am I making sense?

We're the big tent party... right! There is room for everyone.

Remember, the DLC and the DFA are both on OUR side and we all want the Democratic Party to win big in '06.