The DLC, a different perspective

There has been quit ea bit of discussion about the DLC on DU. Personally, I am not a supporter of the organization or its leadership.

I would state my reasons, but rather I will let Senator and Governor-elect Jon Corzine do it for me. Jon Corzine wrote this article in 2001 a few months after being elected to the United States Senate.

http://www.ourfuture.org/onmessage/other_contributors/corzine_4_16_01.cfm

My surprise is that this article is never dug up when we are having these debates about the DLC. I think that Corzine in a very elegant and very diplomatic way gives good reasons as to what is wrong with the DLC.

The discussions that we are having on DU are important. They are about the direction in which the Democratic party is going. That being said, I think that we focus a tad bit too much on labels and not quite enough on policy.

It seems to be a little known fact that on DU that there were some US Senators who are card carrying DLC members that voted against the Iraq War Resolution. They include: Bob Graham, Debbie Stabbenow, and Kent Conrad.

One of DU's criticisms of the DLC is that they marched in lockstep with Bush on the war and in a sense enabled it. I will agree that Al From marched in lockstep with Bush. I will agree that the DLC as a whole marched in lockstep with Bush. But clearly there are a few members of the organization that did otherwise.

My problem with the way that many members of DU condemn members of the DLC is that they condemn the members of the organization for simply belonging to the organization. They often don't look at what their actual stances on policy.

On the other hand, there are several non DLC members who were huge supporters of the Iraq War. Joe Biden is a perfect example of this. Interestingly enough it is a common misconception on DU that Joe Biden is part of the DLC. Look at the directory on their website, I assure you that his name is not there.

Look at the difference between the way that John Kerry votes and the way that Joe Lieberman votes. Is Kerry the number one liberal Senator like the Republicans claimed? No. But it is hard not to see that he votes with the Democrats FAR more often than Lieberman does. Yet both are members of the DLC. The reason, I believe, is that there is a difference between being a member of the organization and being bought and paid for by the organization. Kerry is a member of the DLC. The DLC backs Kerry because he is a powerful figure and they want the appearance that powerful figures are part of their oganization. The DLC needs Kerry a lot more than Kerry needs them and thus he is not under their control. Lieberman, I believe, would not go to the bathroom without Al From's permission. He is one of those people that truly IS controlled by the DLC.

I am not saying that much of the criticism of the DLC is not valid and that the debate that we are having is not important. I just think that DU should focus a bit more on policy and a bit less on labels.

..if the vote is a "done deal", and it would hurt a dem to vote for it, they show up on the correct side of the aisle.

Believe me, when their vote is needed, they vote their pocketbooks.

Some of them vote shitty legislation out of committee, then vote AGAINST it when the bill is up, because their vote is not necessary for it to pass.
They have gotten away with this for a long time.

We are watching now.

you become, in part, representative of that group as a whole.

Sure there are dissenters. But you can bet that those in power in the DLC are probably not happy with their insubordination.

Overall, I think the DLC has done nothing to really move the Dems forward. All they've done is move them closer to the GOP.

Just my two cents. :-)

Would we say of some Nazi's..."hell, I don't agree with Nazism, and I think Hitler and Gobbels are crazy. But not all Nazi's are that bad, so being a Nazi per se is not wrong...is it?"

All members of the DLC are idiots. Period.

You are implying guilt by association should be a standard for everything and using perhaps the most extreme example in existence to do this.

The minute that Al From and the DLC start lining Jews up against a wall and shooting them is the minute that I will say that people like Bob Graham and John Kerry are guilty by association.

Don't get all bent out of shape.

demanding that anybody be "purged" from the party, and even mentions the good work the DLC has done.

Good find!

and they still have their moments of dissing him in their publications. And why? He had the guts to tell the truth on Iraq while also being popular. Maybe they should attack republicans with the same vigor.

Did you see Bob Graham, Debbie Stabbenow, and Kent Conrad attacking Dean about Iraq. Or did you see Al From, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh doing it? I believe that there is a difference.

they decide as an organization to take that tack, I have to oppose the DLC in general. I support Graham out of that list by the way.

However, you are right; not all DLC members are BushCo, DINO, infltrators. I also agree with the suggestion that one must compare policy to DLC membership to get a clear picture of who to decry as a traitor to the Party.

Fortunately, I already have done that research. This is a representation of the last Congress's votes with the highest numbers going to those that most reflect progressive policy where it counts....when votes come up for actual legislation.

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC
Levin (MI) 80
Dodd (CN) 70 - DLC
Leahy (VT) 70
Mikulski (MD) 70
Reed (RI) 70
Sarbanes (MD) 70
Shumer (NY) 70
Wyden (OR) 70
Clinton (NY) 65 - DLC
Obama (IL) 65
Bayh (IN) 60 - DLC
Biden (DE) 60
Dorgan (ND) 60 - DLC
Stabenow (MI) 60 - DLC
Byrd (WV) 50
Inouye (Hawaii) 50
Murray (WA) 50
Reid (NV) 50
Rockefeller (WV) 50
Baucus (MN) 45 - DLC
Bingaman (NM) 40
Cantwell (WA) 40 - DLC
Johnson (SD) 40 - DLC
Kohl (WI) 40 - DLC
Conrad (ND) 35 - DLC
Feinstein (CA) 35
Carper (DE) 30 - DLC
Leiberman (CT) 30 - DLC
Landrieu (LA) 20 - DLC
Lincoln(ARK) 20 - DLC
Nelson (FL) 20 - DLC
Salazar (CO) 20 - DLC
Pryor (ARK) 15 - DLC
Nelson (NE) 0 - DLC

One of these state abbreviation is wrong (from what I remember). I basically used an ADA-style system, but I only counted actual bill passage or appointment confirmation. As you can see, the bulk of DLC members make up the worst traitors in our Senate. I think these DLCers are more ideological than the rest. The DLC members that score well are more opportunists than ideologues.

My contention is that we keep the "good ones" (like Kerry and Stabenow) by discouraging them from retaining membership to the DLC (Obama ran from the DLC...a smart move). For the ideologues in the DLC, I say we replace them during primary runs. They are no good to us. Even with a majority in the Senate, the DLC will make sure the Republicans win by a few votes every time.

Also take note that 6 of our Democratic Senators are WORSE than Leiberman. Why do we not talk about them more? We should.

That DLC moniker appears to be dragging those senators down to the bottom. LOL!

yes and all six have an excuse as they represent relatively conservative 'red' states while that miserable heap of excrement Leiberman unfortunately represents the progressive voting blue state of Connecticut. He has no excuse.

Your major point has some validity, tarring all DLC members based on DLC policies and actions is a bit broad, but only a bit. So I refer to 'them' collectively as DLC type New Democrats, or f*ing assholes, whichever appellation fits my current degree of outrage.

The fact remains that Nader's criticism is not wrong: both parties are seriously corrupted by the corporate establishment.

All six of those Senators below Lieberman come from red states and all of them are vulnerable the second that the GOP finds a good challenger and pours millions of dollars of national money into that race.

Lieberman has one of the safest seats in the Senate.

The left just is not hardwired that way and never will be.

It's time we put Gingrich's 10 year old "revolution" and Ronald Reagan's 30 year old "revolution" to an end.

The only way to do that is to significantly diminish the influence of the DLC, while pushing forward progressive candidates and policy that represent the FDR/JFK/LBJ Democratic Party policies. (domestically speaking)

supported by the DLC leadership - it's not the end or the beginning of DLC policy, although it does in my opinion just about sums up what the DLC policies are about - which is quite similar to the Neo Conservative policies - that's quite important for democrats to understand. There isn't substantive disagreement on Foreign Policy matters between Neo Conservatives and Neo Liberals broadly speaking.

Yes, the devils in the details but to what effect?

They both believe in world dominance, economic and geo-political hegemony most especially in the middle east.

They both believe in government secrecy, domestic spying and the stripping away of civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism", a self created bogeyman.

The task before us is to closely examine the origins of each of these "movements", and their philosophical differences, but more importantly the policies pushed for and implemented as an outcome of each respective philosophies through representation vis a vis elected officials and respective institutions, delineating the differences and their similarities.

I appreciate your effort in initiating this project.

I will like to take issue with you on the reason why the DLC is vilified here in DU. It is not just the iraq war issue - although one cannot deny that is a big part of it. DLC has on many other issues, taken stances that are contrary to the traditional principles of the democratic party even in the face of evidence that such stance is hurting major segments of the party - i.e. NAFTA. DLC, from some of the group's proclamations, seem to be anti union in most respect. It will be a more helpful situation if the DLC has tabled ideas of how to rebuild and improve union/business relationship/interaction in ways that will be beneficial to both. Instead DLC seem to be more interested fighting to throw out from the party, democrats that don't buy into their ways, opinions, and methods. Rather than find ways to solve problems that affect the majority of the party constituencies, DLC is more interested in policies that favor big money/corporations. Yes Iraq is the issue of prominence as at the moment and that is why it so pronounced in our discussions but it is not the only reason DLC is vehemently opposed by some of us - including yours truly.

I used it for convenience because it's the only Senate vote where I have every Senator's vote committed to memory (other than the super easy one, USA Patriot Act).

If you go down the list, NAFTA, CAFTA, Bankruptcy Bill, etc. you will most likely find that while DLCers tend to be on the wrong side of the issue, there are exceptions.

Not what faction they belong to is how I see it. I'm not for throwing anybody out of the tent, but for bringing more inside. Thanks.

boogie man if we are forced to examine the actual record of Democrats?!

:P

Recommended.

Membership in the DLC is only ONE indicator. Many sign up just for the Corporate Support.
By itself, that is enough to arouse suspicion.

BTW: As the OP mentions, Joe Biden is NOT an "official" member of the DLC.
Joe Biden already has his own Corporate Sponsors that have bought his vote. He doesn't need to borrow Corporate Sponsors from the DLC. However, he IS a "Little Darling" of the DLC. He is featured prominently by the DLC on their website. Go to their website and SEARCH his name if you are not prone to violent nausea.
http://www.dlc.org/

WOW! What happened to the old DLC website? (NDOL -New Democrats Online)

Has the DLC shed its skin AGAIN like other reptiles?

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM
for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

"NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA----Stephanie Tubbs-Jones

overlooked.

Regarding the DLC search engine - one can search for Russ Feingold's name, or Paul Wellstone or any number of more liberal Democrats and find articles about them as well. And, as we all know Clinton was DLC and he was a great President. I did not agree with him on ALL issues, but he was one of the best Presidents we've had in decades IMHO.

Also, one fifth of the members of the CBC are also members of the DLC.

However, we can be grateful that Dean is changing the DNC and how the Party collects money, but various special interest groups will continue to make political contributions. Some on the right would argue that Union money should be eliminated from the list of groups that can contribute to politicians. If we eliminate the DLC's ability to represent a portion of Democrats we would have to eliminate PDA and their influence, or 21st Century Democrats, NARAL and other liberal interest groups. We need to allow for differences in order to be a force to be reckoned with.

check out this patronizing quote from one of DLC "progressive" blogs:


http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

"Perhaps the most profound criticism of President Bush was his failure to pursue a politics of national unity in the aftermath of 9/11. Instead, he stuck with the Rovian model of bitter partisan polarization. Unfortunately, now that the President's numbers are plummeting along with the popularity of the war, some Democrats are pursuing their own highly polarized game plan by accusing the President of employing lies to bring us to war. Some who previously supported the war are kneeling at the altar of the anti-war left begging for forgiveness and joining the call for a precipitous pull-out. "

another dlc blog piece of propaganda bullshite:

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

Coalition of the Adults


The Moose praises Senator Lieberman's moral clarity.

In a little over two weeks, Iraqis will go to the polls and exercise their democratic rights. That is a moment to celebrate. It is also a time to stand with Iraqi democrats who are risking their lives to create a better life for themselves and future generations. It is a liberal moment that should have the support of all progressives.

Yet, at this critical juncture, some Democrats are calling for immediate withdrawal or the euphemistic "redeployment". And the Administration is capitulating to political pressure by sending ambiguous signals of their own about future American support.

Fortunately, today there was a welcome moment of clarity from a Democratic Senator. Joe Lieberman writes in today's Wall Street Journal,

(snip)

Is this some sort of "news flash?"

;)

Am I arguing that the DLC is a good group? No, read my post again.

If I had to guess I would say that Al From wanted Joe Lieberman to win the nomination in 2004. That being said it was pretty apparent from early on that Lieberman's "Joementum" just wasn't doing the trick.

From then decided to settle for just beating Howard Dean and not getting his number one pick. I don't think that beating Howard Dean was even a matter of ideology for From. From feared a Democratic party where Howard Dean was in charge because Dean simply did not like the DLC.

Enter Kerry and Edwards. Kerry and Edwards needed money for their primary campaigns, but From also needed them to beat Howard Dean. If you look at what Kerry and Edwards campaigned on and how they vote, you can see why From would MUCH rather have Joementum than Kerry or Edwards. But From needed Kerry and Edwards to beat Dean and thus they got DLC support and money even if they didn't tow the DLC policy line 100%.

I also look at it this way...

A Joementum administration would be staffed from top to bottom with Al From types.

A Kerry or Edwards administration would have a few Al From types in lower positions mostly to appease some people who inevitably did them a favor along the campaign trail.

A Howard Dean administration probably wouldn't let Al From inside the white house.

Again, my point is that while Kerry might be a bit more receptive to the DLC than Howard Dean is, people like Kerry are different than Al From, Evan Bayh, and Joementum. Al From and Joementum categorize the antiwar movement as the "fringe wacko left". Not only would you never hear those words come out of Kerry's mouth, but Kerry is just as if not more willing to listen to that "fringe wacko left" as he is willing to listen to people like Al From.

where have I seen that?



The complaints about the DLC are hardly new. In fact, the complaints about them have remained constant for the past 20 years. Some in our party find the DLC unpalatable, and seem to hate the DLC worse than the RNC.

and anyone who thinks that it's issues and not affilliation just has to look at the Republican Party.

There are moderate Republicans... those not Neo-con. Look who ended up running the Party. Look whose platform and issues ran this country into the ground. That same insidiousness is happening to the Democratic Party. Personally, I don't give a flying fig about voting records or issues, ALL DLC HAS TO BE STOPPED. Period.

Why? It's not just the way a DLC-er votes, or the issues he or she supports, it's the Corporate money and influence this organization abets, and obeys. It is the people it ignores. It is the social agenda of classism, of rich against poor. It is about who will be cared for, educated and fought for by this Party. It is about what wars will be fought. It will be about colluding with the Republicans when it is in the interestes of big business to do so.

You are just kidding yourself if you think there is such a thing as a "good" DLC-er, almost as much as if you think there are "good" Republicans (there aren't... staying silent and voting with their Party makes them all monsters.)

Just my opinion, but, you are all being lured onto the rocks right now by the siren call of Democratic Party naivity about just how big the tent has to be before it lets in the wrong influences in the name of political correctness.

TC