Honest Question: How do we get rid of the DLC??

its been a cancer on the partys body for tooooo long. How do we get rid of it??

and vote Republican.

That we can keep losing elections, and keep having something to complain about.

Sounds like a plan.

they insist we can't do what has historically been the reason for democratic dominance, which is stand up for the working people instead of acting like a bunch of corporate whores.

And do NOT vote for a DLCer. It may smart in the short term, but these "Republican Lites" who worship their corporate masters and take payola under the table, do NOT belong in The Democratic Party. Hopefully they'll scamper out of politics altogether or resurface as republicans, i.e., their true standing based on sucking up to corporations first and always.

trying to tell the difference.... lets see DLC types are like Lieberman/Biden types love big business and selll out the party there. DCCC are more like Hollywood deal makers and its all about , the look, the money and star power. One gives us Joe Biden and the Bankrupcy . The other gives us The Terminator and Millionaires club. Its not democracy and its KILLING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THESE ARE THE MECHANISMS FOR THE RIGHTWARD WHORELIKE COWARDLY MARCH OF THE DEMOCRATS.

Call me crazy.... I thought politics was mostly about issues. Bring back the Party of Roosevelt. GIve me a cripple or an ugly honest man over 100 slick willies.

Companies If his name was Joe "Assad" and voted for the credit card companies you would say nothing.

and that if an Arab guy voted the same way it would be okay?

Seems like a cheap shot.

.... that's why nobody likes Russ Feingold. :sarcasm:

You're delusional, and pointing out a few good votes in a sea of betrayals isn't going to change anyone's mind about Holy Joe.

The two entities are separate but the DCCC is being run by the DLC playbook.

What does the DLC have to do with Congress?

that actually won the Presidency came from the DLC? You want us to have no-hopers each election? Are you a Defeatist elitist who thinks losing is romantic? Do you love to "sigh" at the horrors going on around us? Well then lets narrow the field to the unelectable. I am not DLC but I will take a moderate like DLC Bill Clinton over a Bush any day. Many people including Greens have found out that Yeah there is a difference.

sounds like something From himself would say. As if there's anything more elitist than ivory tower types like From and Marshall.

And crediting the DLC for Clinton's wins is a bit much - it'd be like saying that the only reason Clinton won is because he was an adulterer, and if you don't want adulterers running for President, you're a defeatist elitist. Either one sounds absurd.

unelectable nominees. Clinton won 92- by claiming he was a "different kind of Democrat." Don't you remember that slogan? Do you remember "triangulation;" The 96 strategy to place Clinton away from certain Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Clinton was marketed between the Democratic house and Newts Repugs(OOPs I wrote a word that is going to offend you-MARKET!!!!) Defeatist Elitist is strictly political. It has nothing to do with business. Defeatist elitist are people that love to sulk and hate winning like many who claim to be "progressive" on these boards.

Could you name a single politician I have promoted or tried to saddle anyone with?

completely bizzare, its like you're arguing with some voice in your head instead of me. I'll leave you to battle your strawman, its obvious you don't need me except as a prop for your weak argument.

left. The far left is like the far right in this respect it pulls shit out of its ass and expects you to believe it- some of us don't

"far left". And MOST importantly what do these alleged "far leftist" advocate that you would consider "far left"?

Can you name even one?

I didn't think so.

we've been losing elections ever since they started doing nothing but begging for corporate money.

what your talking about. Democrats went after Corporate money well before Clinton or the DLC, it is nothing new. The DLC was formed primarily to address criminal justice issues in which Dems were viewed as weak. The Third Way on Economics- government can help but there are times when it needs to step back.

Right. Like welfare "reform". Nice timing with the recession and all, too.

I don't remember any recession except the one we were coming out of 92 when Clinton started his first term. I guess you believe Bush when he says the recession started before he took office. You people are just like the right you pull anything out your ass to support your view. You grasp at any straw to back these losers. Dems were starting to lose in the late 70s because Democratic members in Congress were setting up their own little welfare fiefdoms. Yeah you will say anything to back unelectable Presidential candidates. I have seen it before. Many of you would have saddled the party in 04 with a certain congressman from the Cleveland area who looks like a hobbit and believes in flying saucers.

I guess you believe Bush when he says the recession started before he took office.

Booms and busts are largely independent of which party is in power. The recession began in 2000, but really geared up in 2001, just in time for welfare reform to kick in.

You people are just like the right you pull anything out your ass to support your view. You grasp at any straw to back these losers.

Actually, no on both counts.

Many of you would have saddled the party in 04 with a certain congressman from the Cleveland area who looks like a hobbit and believes in flying saucers.

At least Kucinich wouldn't have fucked the poor in an attempt to win the White House, as Clinton did.

mind. If you claim Clinton and Bush the same you are out of your mind. The only people I hear saying say Booms and Bust are independent of the Governments actions are Bush apologist. Lets just ignore the role Government plays in the economy.. what nonsense. You are so desperate you are using freeper talk. If thats the case bring on your losers who cares if we win.

Neither am I saying they're the same. What I'm telling you is that I have little use for Democratic politicians who co-opt Republican ideas and plans - and hurt real people in the process.

The only people I hear saying say Booms and Bust are independent of the Governments actions are Bush apologist.

Are you claiming that, had Clinton been able to continue in office, we would never have had another recession?

sorry, I just don't think that welfare should be available forever to people who are fully capable of working. I agree with Clinton, that welfare should be a second chance, not a way of life. Of course, there should be exceptions for those who are physically unfit to work, and extensions for those who are putting forth the effort to find work but can't.

Oh, and I believe if Clinton were still in office today, the recessions would not have hit nearly as hard because Clinton knows how to handle a budget and wouldn't cut taxes for the wealthy the way Bush did.

basically threw-away the grassroots donation list and pushed the Democratic Party into greater reliance on corporate lobbyist for donations and to help set the agenda.

Since then every single national campaign without exception has been based on the notion of avoiding issue-oriented campaigns while advocating a so-called "centrist" agenda.

It may have appeared successful in 1976, 1992 and 1996. But the same approach was equally disastrous in 1980, 1984 and 1988.
Some people have forgotten that Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states while promising to keep 80% of Reagan's budget cuts and tax cuts while 100 % maintaining his military budget.

Since you seemed to be referring to Mr. Kucinich in the above post, although I was not a Kucinich supporter and I doubt that he would have been a strong candidate in 2004; I would like to know,what positions does Mr. Kucinich advocate that are by any wild stretch of the imagination "far" left, "fringe" left or whatever?

Can you name one?

I didn't think so.

in order to be "electable," and anyone who isn't is automatically a loser? Sounds like a piece of conventional wisdom straight out of the DLC playbook.

Perot split the republicans in 1992.
I don't think it was the DLC who won that election for the Dem's.

If the Greens are responsible for Bush
Then Perot is responsible for Clinton.

like we did with Lieberman in 2004.

Though admittedly the worst of them.

or people who took some DLC positions.

I mean, Lieberman was the DLC candidate in 2004, Lieberman's humiliating loss was the DLC's.

That's how we do it.

What happenned in Iowa (and the fact that Vil-SUCK was rewarded for it) would suggest otherwise.

Anyway, not to dwell on the crimes of the past, I'd rather not vote for any DLC'ers at all. And I won't do so again.

Al From supported Lieberman.

Bruce Reed (DLC President) supported John Edwards.

Will Marshall (PPI president) supported John Kerry.

Ed Kilgore (DLC Policy Director) supported Kerry.

Elaine Kamarck, the author of the influential DLC monograph "The Politics of Evasion", supported Howard Dean.

Several other DLC types were involved in the campaigns of Clark, Edwards and Kerry, as well as Lieberman.

Then you choke it while calling it a dirty, dirty whore....... Sorry I was channeling John Ascroft. :evilgrin:

I'm in!

TC

to them. I agree we need to dump the DLC - too much republican-lite..

I think a link was posted here a couple of months ago, and it was pretty astonishing how rapid the rate of decline there was from retirements and election defeats. It's an organization that is very much about being stuck in and unwilling to move on from the political situation of the late Eighties and early Nineties.

There are good number of members who have reasonable excuses for membership- i.e. their districts are so Republicanized/backward (e.g. Dennis Moore) or poor (e.g. the Black Caucus) that they need the cover or the money badly enough. There has to be a different solution offered them for the problem the DLC helps them with.

Most of the solution is about simply electing more Democrats in more liberal parts of the country until these folks' votes are dispensible.

A lot of the most annoying members are an older generation, i.e. people elected in the aftermath of Watergate. The game with them is largely about getting them to retire. Some others simply personally mismatched with their district can probably be 'primaried'- not so much defeated as pushed into 'evolving' their positions- if their district is sufficiently solidly Democratic.

They have the backing of corporate America and beyond. Theirs is an agenda being pushed my the globalists, big business, and every ant-little guy special interst on the planet. There are deep pockets lining up to back them. What we have to do is refuse to vote for them, across the board. No matter who the candidate, if he/she is DLC, no vote. Period.

TC

and I am entitled to my place in the DNC. This thread is crap.

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

DLC "Libera's war" (snip)
"My liberal friends are quick to point out that the left's chief grievance is with the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. But what does it do for the image of the Democratic Party -- not to mention the thinking of rank and file Democrats -- when some of our most skilled commentators use a moment of unambiguous terror to first find fault with an American policy (unseating Saddam Hussein) rather than first condemning the terrorists? It's both morally wrong and politically dumb. These musings in the left-wing blogosphere may be read regularly by only a few thousand people, but they seep into the intellectual bloodstream of the Democratic Party. They once again place Democrats on the wrong side of the ultimate issue of our time: winning the war on terror."

DLC "Know-Nothing Liberalism" (snip)
The reality is that left-liberal activists tend to be slow learners who, still reflexively clinging to a Vietnamera framework, are trapped in mindless negativism. Ironically, like Saddam himself, they also view any opposition to America as an updated version of the Vietcong. That's in part why the killers in Iraq are called "insurgents" instead of more accurately describing them as members of "death squads."


THATS crap. and theres much more where that came from.

edited to provide links. for fun reading.
Liberal's War
Know Nothing Liberalism

Continue the spiral downward? I've never agreed with the comments above, but I do agree with some of the DLC's solutions. Yet continuing the petty internecine warfare does no one any good.

That's why this ENTIRE thread, and argument, is crap.

And thats exactly what the DLC does. They attack liberals, call us names like 5 year olds on a playground, then we (liberals) get chastized for not embracing them. They obviously dont want my support. Otherwise they wouldnt be putting stuff like this out. Theyre whole "thing" is being anti-liberal. Yet, liberals who are anti-DLC are called petty. Blame the DLC for slinging the shit... not the liberals who react to being hit by it. They started it.

By blaming them for every loss following Sept. 11th. And if that isn't enough, one certainly can argue that they exacerbate the situation with... threads like this.

since the DLC has been around since 1985.

:)

Now now, Ulysses ;)

acronyms can be a problem!

So my beliefs, some of which reflect those of the DLC, deserve to be a part of the DNC.

Edit: Because I have other things to attend to.

Others, however, are entitled to a dislike of the DLC.

I don't care if people don't like them. I care that they want to exclude a my viewpoints from the debate. Some of my viewpoints reflect those of the DLC.

I don't see where you have a problem as far as DU is concerned. As for the wider sphere - well, your friends at the DLC have long sought to silence progressive voices in the party, so I'm not going to feel too badly on the off chance that party centrists have to STFU for a while at some point in my lifetime.

I'm starting to get ill with both conservatives and liberals. I'm finding both ends a bit repugnant.

Hmmm... I'm thinking of starting my own website: moderateunderground.com

What do you think of THAT now?

Sincerely,

Writer the Raging Moderate.

and I agree with you.

What is your point?

They dont need or care about our money because they have fortune 500 behind them. So, he only way to get rid of them is to stop them from winning primaries, which will prevent them from being elected. If they continually lose when challenged... eventually they would fad away. We need to work hard to promote non-DLC candidates, and rally together to put non-DLCers on a more equal playing field financially. Its a slim hope I know. But is there any other?

Work and fund progressives in primaries.

I'm walking for a local progressive running for city council in an adjacent town tomorrow.

My money and effort will be concentrated on progressive candidates. I also make my views known at the local level, at dem parties, club meetings and fundraisers.

We got Dean pushed through as Chair, we're NOT stopping there.

disallow them to speak for the entire party. They need to be isolated and challenged for the soul of the party. I believe they have a place, just not the most prominent one.

They got the big corporate money backing them. But not much support from democratic voters.

Maybe with enough small personal donations we can flood them out. Make them irrelevant and they will collapse.

They are there to bend the Democratic Party to the corporate agenda. As long as there are corporations, there will be a DLC.

The question is, how to make them totally irrelevant? The DLC should be totally ostracized, but people need all the help they can get to be elected, and no one is going to turn down the DLC's help.

The DLC thinking actually started to dominate the Party way back in 1973 when DNC Chair Robert Strauss took his position and pushed the Party to reliance on corporate financing and a more corporate-lobbyist friendly agenda.

I don't believe good will come out of trying to excommunicate them. The issue is to create a progressive agenda and a progressive majority.

Let me guess - it's all rigged.

... when the DLC becomes the conservative party in the US and the Repuke party is disbanded. In such a climate, a truly liberal party would arise on the left, and I might be able to vote without holding my nose for a change.

-Laelth

Democrats and somewhat conservative Deomocrats. US would look much like Europe in 5 years

...I don't let it bother me.. DNC, DLC, DCCC, DDD-whatever..

I'd go nuts if I worried about the different levels of Democrats.

I wish we had one unified DNC.. but we don't..

So I don't worry about it. I select whoever I feel is the best Democrat during the primaries.. and I vote for whoever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination..

become a truly progressive party.

Unity is a nice idea. But it is difficult when you have the likes of the DLC's Will Marshall publicly denouncing Democrats as unpatriotic. Or the DLC's Al From going on TV and spreading his usual anti-Democratic Party propaganda about Democrats being "far" left or "fringe" left without the slightest evidence to back-up his name-calling. And they don't just do this on political junkie blogs they do it very affectively throughout the mainstream media. The RNC has never had a better friend at spreading their talking points.

Results is what matters.

Those who do the heavy lifting end up defining the campaign and the party.

...instead we need fresh leadership that won't allow the DLC to control our party. The DLC is most welcome to have a seat at our table...but they MUST stop presuming that they own the table.

The ONLY reason the DLC has any power in 'our' party is because of Bill Clinton. Once a strong, progressive leader steps forward with the support of the majority of the base...the DLC will fade into history.

Meanwhile...the DLC could actually HELP 'our' party by shutting the hell up and stopping their attacks on Democratic candidates that don't believe in their 'third way'.

Seems to me that there's systematic repression and marginalization of strong progressive leaders -- by the corporate media and by our own party.

Well, there was Wellstone.

Once a strong, progressive leader steps forward with the support of the majority of the base...the DLC will fade into history.

But there will never be a "strong, progressive leader" because too many folks on the left will find some reason to dislike him/her.

And the DLC will never completely "fade into history" because there will always be enough moderates in the party and independents to support DLC candidates in certain regions of the country.

...'perfect' candidate? It has nothing to do with purity and everything to do with finding candidates with character, ethics and a conscience.

It used to be that liberal and progressive candidates had only to worry about the RWing Smear Machine during campaigns. But since the 80s the DLC has helped the Right destroy (character assassinate) progressive candidates...or anyone else on the left that wants to use government to help the working class and 'have-nots' instead of financing corporate welfare and trickle-down economcs.

The DLCers have falsely labeled themselves as 'moderates' and anyone to the left of them as radicals, extremists or on the 'fringe' of the party. They've done this in an attempt to make mainstream Democratic values seem unreasonable or unattainable. DLCers want rank and file Democrats to believe that wanting fairness and equality is asking for too much.

Moderates will always have a place in the Democratic party...but the DLC is not the place to look for them if one wants a candidate that is more beholden to people than corporations.

Don't vote for DINOs. NO! Not Ever. Those boys and girls are intelligent and will "catch on" quickly. No, if it's only between a DINO and a Repug, I SIMPLE will not vote, or write in a Democrat who's truly for the working and middle classes INSTEAD of the bloated corporate masters who are *driving* the war machine.

I would imagine that this particular label couldn't exist in a big tent.

Don't give Howard Dean and the DNC a red cent. That way you are really showing the DLC how smart and clever you are by not donating to the group that is trying to change things.

It is just that simple. Break the back of the DLC by breaking the back of the DNC.

:sarcasm:

By golly, you DNC lovers are finally getting the message. Howard Dean has backed off of his idea to withdraw the troops because he's now part of the fancy smancy ARROGANT and RICH Democratic elite.

Nope, it's time for a purge. It will hurt bad but it's much better than living with PRETENDERS = DINOs = Love multi-national corporations FIRST and Foremost.

Let the gutting begin. ;)

On Edit: NOT Sarcasm ===> Genuine.

I have nothing else to say to that. I am a DNC lover because I think it is the best hope for us to get back into power.

What a strange term to use about the Democratic Party at a Democratic forum.

The WEALTHY, ELITE Democratic Representatives best pay attention to their base of Middle and Working Class Americans. If they continue to give away our hard earned taxes in "Corporate Welfare" programs and censure (The Bankruptcy Bill) of the taxpayers, THEN no, they don't deserve our vote. Maybe they can pass a law to give companies like Microsoft 100,000 votes? <eg>

Many of our Democratic Representatives are complacent with corporate payola. They have NO IDEA about how the Average (less than 100,000/year) American must "deny themselves and their family" in order to just survive in today's economy.

I'll be ONE of the first to call for voting out ALL representatives who voted "YES" on the Bankruptcy Bill. What a horrid assault on the Working American. :grr:

IMO there's nothing strange about NOT voting for "elites" who primarily serve Corporate America.

They get their support from the DLC and NDN....if you don't give money to the DNC, you actually are supporting them.

It makes no sense to be against the DLC and then withhold support from the Democratic Party itself. You are aiding and abetting by hurting the DNC.

Seems strange for me to be the bad guy here at a Democratic board for speaking up for the rebuilding of the DNC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Just wondering. I feel like I stepped into the twilight zone of unreality. Being called a DNC lover is so odd here.

First, we get rid of the Republicans. Then we can jettison the Republican Lites.

With much love,

Writer.

edit: to include this kind smiley face :)

Of all the things to be called at a Democratic site with the caveat of "this is not sarcasm."

:) :-) :-)

Makes me wonder if, indeed, we have beaten this argument to death. We (as a bunch of pseudo-informed online Democratic bloggers) will never agree on this issue. We never will come to a conclusion. It always will stand as a divisive issue and I'm about done with it.

Although saying that a person is a DNC Lover - what's up with that, man?

But then the outrage of it all hits me again. I was supposed to be shamed by being called a DNC lover....trouble is I am at a Democratic site.

It should not be this divisive. We have a lot working in our favor. It is being done on purpose by a couple of progressive groups who think that Howard Dean is not good enough to be leader.

They don't have any other options, but they will do what they can to hurt him. They will try for 3rd party, crash and burn, and hurt all of us.

But I guess that is Democracy.

is as big a deal to those progressive groups as it seems. I just don't think they liked him as a presidential candidate. But given his popular mobilization of Democrats in 2004, it would have almost been stupid not to make him DNC Chair.

Unless you're thinking of different progressive groups than I am??? :shrug:

It was done because they thought he was a good man whom they could pressure because he had a conscience and soul about things.

Now they make fun of him and the DNC by writing articles that are insulting.

Yes, they wanted him as chair, but no, they don't want him there really. They are using him as a means to further an agenda of 3rd party. Dean thought of 3rd party, but quickly dismissed it at this crucial time in our country.

SO, there you go. Me?....just call me DNC Lover. :7

Best Regards, EP :hi:

I lost my sense of humor on that.

Besides what in the world would some people do if I quit advocating to rebuild the DNC? They would have no one in the world to call DNC Lover for the 1003 time.

I aim to please.

I just try to obey the rules here about not advocating destroying the party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Then by extension, you must LOVE Cliff May? :loveya: He often represents "The Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

My point - Just because DLC and DNC uses the word "Democrat" does NOT mean they are DEDICATED to serving their constituents first instead of the War Machine and other bloated Multi-National Corporations.

1984 Anyone. :hi:

We have someone willing to try to change it. But see, here's the problem. If one advocates for the DNC here at Democratic underground there are many waiting to pounce and say DNC lover DNC lover and other silly things.

Yes, that might be 2001 times, and not funny at all. But that is for the admins to consider....not me.

The reason the DLC exists is because the left-wing of the Democratic Party is electoral poison in large portions of this country. If the left-wing were a viable political force outside of the Northeast and the West Coast, there wouldn't be any need for the DLC.

then why the DLC exists in significant proportions in the areas you named. Kerry, Clinton, Dodd, Lieberman to name a few...

Additionally, Lieberman was created by the right-wing to oust liberal Republican Weicker. He received an endorsement from the National Review and now from Limbaugh, too, recently.

So there.

Hey, they're entitled to have a voice. Our voices simply must be louder.

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

NAFTA

DLC ---> Encouraging the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. Goodbye Middle Class! :puke:

Please don't fight against internal groups or people. That is the circular firing squad that is destructive and keeps the party out of power. Now that the Republicans and arch-Conservatives have been firing at each other, leave that kind of sniping to them.

Internally, focus on policies. In the end, there will be a mix of policies that the party and candidates adopt. Argue positively for policies. Don't alienate people of the party, even if you feel alienated. Otherwise, leave the party if you want to knock down people instead of policies.

by means of a philosophy and electoral calculus different from the DLC's.

The DLC is a one-trick pony; they want to coast on the Clinton success forever. In theory, it should not be hard to prove that times have changed. So go do it.

worry about the Democrats.

Threads like this are mostly flamebait.

Only then can we think of replacing those who are against us half the time. Meanwhile, that's better than Repubs who are against us 100% of the time.

a DLCer somewhere is asking the same question about those damn lefties in the party.

The Democratic Party doesn't work and play well with others.

Take the legal money out of politics. Forcing tv to provide limited free time for campaign ads with no paid ads would do the trick. There would be little good cause to raise all of that cash without the cost of tv ads. It is but a pittance of sacrifice for them considering the fortune they rake in on the public frequencies. That would remove the DLC's reason for being. They are naught but corporate whores in blue.

Get rid of this gang of fixers without attacking their root cause will just saddle us with a new batch of corrupt hustlers. Money like water will find low ground.

I love the money comment