Fringe Democrats gather here.

This thread is for supporters of the DLC who are a fringe minority of only 13% of DU'ers. This statistic can be seen in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2305500

Tell us DLC plans to
(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;
(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;
(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;
(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;
(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;
(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";
(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;
(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;
(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;
(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

:popcorn:

Recommended!

TC

You might want to shy away from making the popcorn until they actually show up.

...never a good idea to show -that- much weakness of the policy front.

I'm interested in seeing some answers as well.

Recommended.

One of them just came into the thread below in typical attack mode while evading every single issue.

Well, if I were a supporter of the DLC (and currently I'm not a supporter of any faction, tho' see below), you'd either have an answer to your question or I'd be experiencing serious embarassment for supporting a faction that has no answers.

Based on this thread, the DLC needs to find itself some responsible spokespeople for DU. Those who stepped forward didn't bother to try and sell the DLC position. It was "our way or be disenfranchised voting for a third party".

And the DLC figures it has votes on the Left to throw away? Apparently.

That's not a winning strategy, that's an attempt to either gain power of the party, or retain it, election be damned.

I suppose if it pays the bills that's reason enough, but its not enough to win elections.

Here in Canada we do not run away from labels like "liberal, left, or socialist". And I see nothing on your list that shouldn't be accomplished.

I'm still open-minded to listening to the DLC to see what they propose (this crop of supporters may not have been the most articulate spokespeople here), but their refusal to join the debate with fellow Democrats in a spirit of cooperation and consensus-building demonstrates a lack of a quality I look for in a party (or faction) seeking my vote.

Using election blackmail to say "vote for us or else the republicans win" is not a convincing argument. If there's no difference between "us" and "them", what difference could it make who gets elected?

My advice: continue to organize the Democrats, Don. Seek consensus, common ground. Speak forthrightly and with candor. Remain calm in the face of opposition. Have confidence in your positions and your process. Rely on facts, leave the mud to the other guys.

Take the high road, Don. It's -always- worked for me.

:toast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2311497

I found the results interesting: All proDLC posters got angry, but only after many posts did any admit that there is no motivation for a dlc candidate to address progressive issues.

That means it hits a raw nerve -- so, they KNOW they have nothing to offer progressives, but they continue to tell us we HAVE to support their candidate.

I see the usual loud people in there attacking with ad hominems and absolutely no content. Ask some serious questions like mine or yours and no answers are forthcoming. Wow. That's alot like what conservatives do. What a tactic.

the lynchpin holding up their bid for DLC (which is in fact a minority) to run the rest of the party as elitists is predicated on the requirement that no question their right to do so.

like I said, I didn't intend to, but obviously asking what happens POST election is a raw nerve. Apparently, we're not supposed to ask for assurances that we will be represented in some fashion after delivering votes.

my uncle once said that when the other person gets to name calling, they've got no leg to stand on in the argument, and they hope to bully you out of realizing it.

That sure as shit is convincing evidence, all righty (snicker)....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2311497

then why are you here?

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.... for saying in a cogent way what most of us here already knew. Not only are the DLC incapable of winning an election with their turd-way bullshit, even if they won they'd be useless.

Lord deliver us from lukewarm lackluster insipid yet ambitious senators who will not step aside and allow a leader to emerge.

I was told I was fringe by one full-time operative type because I considered George McGovern and Bernie Sanders personal heroes.

but instead mainstream Democrat.

Check out this poll:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2147050

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy, but most places won't elect somebody who describes themselves as a socialist.

He is very popular across America. What you say about most people describing themselves as socialist is probably true, but Sanders is charismatic, too. Charisma and track record play a part in elections, too, not just labels and ideology. Do you really think Sanders is not popular in the mainstream Dem Party?

Or even any of the other blue states. Sanders is no doubt a great and charismatic guy, but Vermont is also not exactly representative of all the other states that we compete in.

by landslides. When he appears on FOX New he get inundated with fan mail from people who like what he has to say.

I don't think he is that out of the mainstream.

I don't see them getting a chance.

If there was actual election reform and publically funded elections in the US, they would be.

But the corporatocracy has taken care of that.

and a few others... ;)

To paraphrase: If they can't dazzle us with facts, they will attempt to baffle us with bullshit.

Just another day at the THE-DLC-ISN'T-REALLY-OUT-TO-SCREW-THE-LITTLE-GUY-REALLY-HONEST-I-PROMISE CAFE.

TC

I'm SERIES!!11111

I'm sure that the DLC wishes that they had one tenth of the power that the anti-DLC movement here on DU attributes to them. If you lived in the same bubble that the more paranoid members here do, then you'd think that the DLC was a combination of Satan and the Borg rather than a marginally influential front organization for a small group of moderate to conservative Dems.

reasonable questions with reasonable answers, maybe it could be more interesting.

:shrug:

And FLAGS TO PROTECT!

Priorities, people!

Next time you get handed a little flag at a parade, take a look at the little tag.
Made in Taiwan.

I cannot fathom what all the nonsense about burning Taiwanese flags is all about, but anyway yeah, the fact that 84K Americans die per year due to lack of health care does not register as a priority.

Kicking their Republican opponents in the polls everywhere else...

Name the current DLC members running for re-election this year that are in serious danger...I can narrow it down for you, at least in the Senate...that number is 0.

If there any in the House I would like to hear about it.

Not to mention if you subscribe to the notion that the last two elections were stolen a DLC member has won The last 4 Presidential elctions.

Doesn't sound fringe to me!

We've all heard the "we're the only saviours on a white horse that can win elections" spiel ad nauseum.
How about addressing the points in the original post?

thanks.

It would take quite a bit of time answering every one of those...

But as to #1

I would say the fact that nearly every member of the DLC, including Lieberman voted against cloture today speaks for their views on the Patriot Act.

Both were DLC.

And 1 refused to vote. That would be Dodd from my state, CT. I have been communicating with him through letters. He is very mistaken and has outdated information. I can scan the latest letter at a later date so you can see it.

That means that 83% of DLC voted against cloture.

100% of non-DLC voted against cloture.

DLC gave in to pressure from the civil rights groups and progressives.

You didn't really answer the question, though. So the DLC's plan is what? to follow the progressive movement against the Patriot Act except for 17% of its members?

Is that what you are saying?

P.S. Thanks for trying to answer. This is a decent start. I hope you continue to be involved in this conversation.

The broad brush that most have regarding the DLC should be revised.

Secondly, I think this question starts from a false assumption. These members don't vote this way because they are DLC, or the DLC told them to. They were already moderate and were attracted to a centrist Democratic organization. Certainly equating DLC members with Republicans, as many here do, is dishonest as even the most conservative of them - Nelson and Lieberman - still vote with the rest of the Democrats in the Senate north of 60% of the time (overall).

Your question also assumes a level of control over its members the DLC does not possess. There is not litmus test or loyalty oath members agree to when they join. The DLC's plan is whatever its members say it is. There is no edict from DLC central telling members what position they must take. In this case, clearly these members believe there were not enough protections in this bill to warrant its passage, and they voted against it. You might also take a look at many of the issue papers they publish (you may already have), criticisms of Bush far outnumber those of fellow Democrats.

They call them "Republican Lite."

60% is Republican Lite. Right?

This is a little divergence, though, isn't it? What are the plans to deal with the issues in the op? To follow non-DLC'ers like the 100% who voted against cloture on reauthorization of the Patriot Act?

There is no "plan" from the DLC. There is no well formulated edict that members are to follow. The DLC is a forum for looking at new ways at looking at issues, usually more moderate. Look at their website, there is not one issue paper that I have been able to find laying out such a plan for the Patriot Act. They tend to look at issues more broadly . If you look in depth you will different authors on the same topic disagreeing with each other.

As to the first point...yes I see some calling them Republican lite...

I also see

DLC=NeoCon

Hillary=Demopublican

and other such equivelencies.

And of course most of the DLC voting records are north of 80% if you dig into them..I gave you the two most conservative.

There is no plan from the DLC? Then perhaps you could explain why they supported NAFTA, Welfare reform, etc etc in the first place?

They have a plan, yes. The plan is not to revoke their endorsed legislation.

they ADVANCED these horrible, evil doctrines based on policies THEY drafted themselves but did not seek out input or even discussion (prior to advancing) vis a vis the public fora, i.e. townhall meetings, conference WITH progressive community representatives and/or elected officials.

instead, their pursuit of advancing these policies were done in an obfuscated manner and end run around open debate and input from those outside of their cabal.

I've been nothing but polite...of course when the DU DLC Haters club gets push back on their mantra they have to resort to name calling and foul language...

I can't stop it, but I don't have to respond to it...

when he called me a ratfucker. That was very rude. BS is definitely not that rude.

I think you should address the content anyway.

I am calling you on your BS.

It is BS. So, address my response to you.

As I was not rude to you...

I'm not the language police...but I don't respond to foul language directed at me. I prefer civil conversation, and if you won't provide it I'm sure there will be others who are willing.

Just answer the questions then.

"democRAT" FRism.
"RAT-fucker"

go figure? and its why that disruptive jerk is on ignore.

reactionary - and now we have permission to call him the Right Wing Fringe..

and was still allowed to continue?

ok...

hmm. i wonder how much money one must be able to contribute in order to be given carte blanche in busting rules that should apply to everyone equally?

typical dlc big donor shite..

So I guess it was a lot.

but absolutely every non DLC democrat voted against cloture.

However, I'm giddy from the vote enough I'm not going to nail you for the DLC traitors.
I'm going to congratulate you for the ones who voted correctly.

The broad brush that many apply to the DLC should be revised

It certainly seems like the Dems pulled it off.

I am crossing my fingers that it will not come to a reauthorization vote, though, before Dec 31st. With 2 DLC defecting and 1 not voting, they have the numbers for a pass, if it comes to it. If those DLC did not defect, they would not have the numbers for reauthorization. See what I mean?

As I tried to explain on another thread last week, these polls are SO unscientific. The questions are often biased and even when they aren't, you can't make statements like "only 13% of DU'ers feel..." You can only say that only 13% of those who respond to the polls. There are 80,000+ members on DU - unless you sent the poll to all 80,000+, you don't have a clear representation of DU WHATSOEVER!! There are MANY DU'ers who rarely or never post on this site. If you have the same 40 or 100 or even 200 people posting and voting most the time, you're data is skewed. You can find a trend among them, but to say that you are analyzing the site's membership as a whole is ABSURD.

I do marketing research - I know from what I speak. These polls are JUST FOR FUN - they prove NOTHING either way!! I'm so tired of people representing them as the final word and authority!!!!

Though i don't think we're really "fringe", since polls show that most Americans are in favor of such 'socialistic' things as universal healthcare.

Yesterday a DU thread linked to a Freerepublic thread about trolling at DU. Here is an interesting post I saw from FR.

-----
To: Cato_The_Younger
But it is so much fun to help them destroy themselves! I only have a few posts, but so far I have been really honest and many DUmmies agree with me.

Paraphrasing:
"I'd rather vote for a third party then some DINO"
"If Hillary runs I am NOT voting for her"
"We need to make sure none of these DINOs get elected"
"Lieberman blows"



85 posted on 12/11/2005 7:57:10 AM PST by LarryOz
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies | Report Abuse >
-----

What is so hard for pro-DLCers to answer about those questions?

Mocking posts with no substance are so much easier to write for the brain-dead, brain-washed mccarthyite republican-lite faction.

Oh yeah and the final "..." for the win!!!

or just talking about how you read Free Republic?

:D

therefor dems should conclude they must do the opposite.

Such transparent deception, they must really be thinking we're stupid. Either that or they're desperate.

why do you care what freepers think?

who gives a holy shite about anything they concerned with - they're a bunch of psychos. they all need to be put on a heavy dose of lithium afaic, for life.

...and then tell us why the OP asked fringe Democrats what the DLC plans were. :shrug:

post election issues.

Don't make me have to separate you two.

over at the freerepublic site?

How about you stop trying to exhume McCarthy ?

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

I am a member of DU & did not know of this poll. Of course I have now voted, but how many other DU members missed this poll?

ON EDIT: So there is no misunderstanding this is their credo.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

I for one do not have a problem with it.

I can't find a list and I'm curious to know which ones are DLC members?

Thanks

onenote

However, I have it stored in a spreadsheet for rollcall analysis. Here is the list from months ago:

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

It seems to me that you can't simply treat all of these Senators as if they have identical agendas just because they're part of the DLC. An earlier post noted that 100 percent of the non DLC's voted against cloture on the Patriot Act extension, while only 83 percent of the DLC'ers opposed cloture. But non DLC'ers and DLC'ers split votes in many ways. Two of the listed DLCers (Conrad and Stabenow) voted against the Iraq War Resolution, while at least four non-DLCers (Biden, Carnahan, Rockefeller, and Schumer) voted for it. And four repubs (not counting Frist) voted against cloture on the Patriot Act extension -- but that hardly makes "progressive" does it?

My point is that folks seem to be hung up on labels. I don't give a rat's ass whether or not a Democrat is a member of the DLC or not. I care about how they vote. So I'm glad that Conrad voted against the IWR and disappointed that Schumer voted for it. But since they're not running against each other, it doesn't much matter to me which one is more "progressive" ... what I concern myself with is whether the Democrat in a race is more progressive than the repub. And in every election I've ever voted in, the answer has been yes, including elections involving DLCers.

onenote

Senate:
The thing is that half the DLC'ers are DiNOs based on voting record. The other half are good based on voting record.

The non-DLC in the Senate is just about all good based on voting record.

House is different. DLC is not as bad there. Blue Dogs are much worse.

I've always said these things. And I have always talked about specific legislation. The pro-DLC side tries to label me with a broad brush on the other hand.

Here are some of my posts on the subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2303592

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1971055

"We believe that economic growth generated in the private sector is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that government's role is to promote growth and to equip Americans with the tools they need to prosper in the New Economy."

This is classic trickle down economics.

Is this why you have no problem with NAFTA, CAFTA, Bankruptcy Bill, and Welfare "reform," too?

And refuse to answer the question of what the DLC will do about these things?

Hows that for an answer. Until the day whoever gets some control back in our Congress, this will be the answer to both "factions" of the party.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you like NAFTA, CAFTA, Bankruptcy bill, Welfare reform?

Do you like the DLC for voting for these things?

Do you like the trickle down economics mentioned in the DLC credo?

So I guess we will call it a stalemate.

Yes, I did. Are there any outstanding questions you would like answered?

waiting... and waiting... is because most of those "fringe Democrats" have said to themselves "Kiss my shiny metal ass."

You're not exactly posting with a sincere desire to know, but instead with an air of badgering and ridicule and flamebait.

As such I think I'd have a similar reaction.

What do you think about the policies?

If you are not hear to answer, then your post is just plain off-topic.

and ask with hostility.

I'm talking about your post in general, even if not answering your question.

Just in case you were wondering why you're still waiting... and waiting...

That was in response to wyldwolf who started a thread calling progressives fringe.

wyldwolf and Benchley both came here and both refused to answer the questions.

Infighting.

I was right. It wasn't a sincere request.

All y'all are getting on my nerves.

The content of the thread still stands. If you have something to say about the content address it.

Otherwise, you are hijacking this thread.

If you know what's good for ya.

Or Mexico.

Florida would be nice also.

Someplace warm.

(chik, chik) NOW.

...you think this 'strategy' will work in your favour?

What happens to a party that takes a significant portion of its base for granted, election after election?

oops.

:blush:


Wrong topic.

:wow:


Or is it?

:shrug:


:woohoo:


;)

Is NOT wooing a few percent of swing voters when those can be faked and stolen away at will. A close election victory will not exist for most Dems. They need a runaway, enthusiastic, breakaway margin which is something the leadership is almost disciplined NOT to seek. No, the means to victory does not mean having a massive warchest, no controversy in a safe blue area and wowing people with your issue statements. It means rousing the electorate and attacking the pretext of defeat, not "wisely" creeping back to parity in campaigning and pretending all is fair in war and politics.

As such it means not treating the left as a swing group faction, something to take for granted or fob off with a few bones and less politely than Republicans. It means going for the populist gold which is never going to fall into their laps ever again.

In the end victorious Dems will be judged by the margins of their victory and the enthusiastic depth, not the money spent in those elections. The status of just being there will not be enough in a bigger crowd of elected Dems. HOW one survived the fraud of the last two decades and fought it will begin to be rank the DLC types and the worst aspects of their ideological beliefs back into obscurity. Now is not the time to punish Bush enablers. If there was a pure group of viable alternatives able to hack through the fraud...but that is a fantasy. Going one better than a majority Dem government will be a logical next step if the DLC STILL has not learned anything by 2008 and it would be natural to have more sane parties form than the doddering people's party versus criminal tyranny.

like some kinda radical and my views have changed but little.

So, yeah, count me in your 'fringe'

...and it isn't that different in Canada, tho' fortunately we have a healthy left-wing party that took up the slack the Liberals created when they veered right.

I suspect most of our generation of Lefties are feeling outside the mainstream these days.

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

You haven't asked any questions about DLC positions. You asked only what the DLC would do concerning certain issues that are universal and not unique to the DLC.

You see the difference, no?

Typically the concern is over benchmark DLC policies like welfare reform and free trade policies. However, Don1 asks of the DLC what he should be asking of the DNC. No hope in vanquishing his demons but the DLC does not have enough sway in the House and Senate to achieve all he seeks.

...it isn't a matter of whether the DLC can presently respond to these issues, but rather:

-if the DLC attains sufficient power what will it do to resolve these issues?-

A valid question in my opinion.

1. He's asking people who are not elected officials nor are they officers or members of the DLC. How would they possibly know what the DLC would do?

2. He's asking people to do his research for him. If the DLC does have policy positions on these issues, he should research their website for his answers instead of demanding people either find the answers for him or "surrender."

3. If he's the progressive he contends he is, why is he not explaining PDA's or DFA's intentions on these issues instead of demanding that people who are in line idealogically with the DLC explain theirs? I can only think of one answer to this - he feels the DLC will win and the counterparts in the progressive wing will lose and is looking to the DLC for leadership on the issues that concern him.

1. If people are going to support the DLC, shouldn't they know what the DLC stands for and what it's going to do?

2. I don't think it's a mistake to challenge people to see if they know why they support a faction. If demagoguery is afoot, what better way to find that out than to quiz them about their knowledge of their faction's policy positions?

People who offer support for a faction should be able to provide information about why that faction is preferable to others.

3. You seem to be faulting him for his choice of topic. I see no fault in his approach. he asks viable and worthwhile questions. They can or cannot be answered. Refusing to answer does not do the DLC credit. Arguing over whether the questions should even be asked does not demonstrate a desire to tackle these issues.

The fact that so much effort has been made to -avoid- answering the questions and so many personal challenges made instead goes a long way towards suggesting the DLC can't or won't resolve these issues.

And the issues -do- need resolution.

I don't score points for people who run away and/or avoid issues.

I am perfectly willing to listen to any reasonable response that can be brought to the OP's questions. I am really curious and would love to know what those responses would be. (I might even take Benchley off ignore, for a bit, if a non-attack type answer were forthcoming.)

For example,

restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

Has he even demonstrated that these things have occurred?

filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

The Democrats are the minority party and the minority leader isn't DLC. This question doesn't cover what the DLC would do, but rather asks why doesn't the DLC do it - which they're not in a position to do.

start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

So what constitutes "voting more?" Chris Bowers at MyDD researched voting trends in Congress and found that The 39 DLC members in the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 76.6% of the time on the eight important, party differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. The 164 non-Republican and non-DLC members of the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 82.8% of the time on the eight important, party-differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. So is 76.6% too little and 82.8% just right?

I guess I could continue with each point but maybe you get my point. His questions were asked, not because he had a genuine interest in the DLC's position on these, but rather because he thinks he knows what they are and wants to see if anyone else does.

"Has he even demonstrated that these things have occurred?"

That is not to the topic of this discussion. If it is the DLC position that things have -not- happened, let it make it's case. That's what I see in the OP. On the other hand, if the DLC agrees in whole or part with this claim, how does the DLC propose to deal with it. The question does not require the respondent to agree with the premise in order to provide a useful answer.

"This question doesn't cover what the DLC would do, but rather asks why doesn't the DLC do it - which they're not in a position to do."

And doesn't that go towards a question of leadership and influence?

"So is 76.6% too little and 82.8% just right?"

If 6.2% is the difference between passing and failing the Patriot Act, or authorizing yet another war in the ME, would it matter to you? And rather than stats on eight cherry-picked issues, what of -all- votes?

"I guess I could continue with each point but maybe you get my point. His questions were asked, not because he had a genuine interest in the DLC's position on these, but rather because he thinks he knows what they are and wants to see if anyone else does."

So you pass up an opportunity to educate those who are interested? I don't see this earning points for the DLC.

Here are the questions from the OP you've yet to answer. I hope you'll attempt it:


"Tell us DLC plans to
(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;
(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;
(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;
(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;
(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;
(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";
(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;
(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;
(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;
(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations."

Just askin'

...In the OP he's asked for DLC "plans" to cope with these problems. Presumably "plans" require people to take "positions".

These are issues that the DLC endorsed, not progressive Democrats. That's the point.

i can't be seen in fringe.

it's out for fashion -- but great in that eclectic home furnishing thing.

like you, I would really like some reasonable ones and not the usual attack and run mode.

Since I recently said that Kerry is making some interesting comments (regarding Bush getting impeached if Dems take control in 2006), and he was looking better as a possible candidate, I'll take a crack at defining the DLC's new platform. Let me state for the record that I don't support HC, for reasons other than being DLC, and I still make regular contributions to PDA.

1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem).

2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries.

4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair.

5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies.

6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence.

7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages).

8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients.

9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court.

10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!

11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)

(This post probably has nothing to do with the reality of the DLC, but at least I got it off my chest)

...whether people agree or disagree with your answers, I want to thank you for making the effort. This is a much more productive approach and I hope those who respond will give you your due for that.

:toast:

(edit: bit too early for me to do the analysis thing, but I will later today)

very telling...

but then i do have a person or two on ignore because i have... a suspicious nature, let's say. so i might have missed a previous one.

either way, i call for a round of applause for AntiFascist for being brave enough to state thoughts and convictions. there really should be no fear of the debate of thoughts, ideas, facts, and opinions, if one is truly honest and convinced of their positions. so i applaud this, even if i may disagree with a few points and their reasonings; i appreciate conviction and backbone.

:applause: :applause: :patriot:

and please don't be afraid to debate and argue any points as much as you want. I was trying to give a pro-business, yet still Democratic, point of view.

...I'll get to your points soon as I can (first cup of tea...still too early) :-)

"(1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act" - OP

"1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem)." - AF

I'm sure with a name like "AntiFascist" you don't need reminding of how close that logic parallels the logic that justified the Enabling Acts of Nazi Germany. Furthermore you are tempting those in power to make it permanent. Indeed, Bushco argues for a permanent installation of the Patriot Act... a foot in the door towards abridging your constitutional rights in the name of 'public safety'.

You say "Capitalism works best in a truly free society". Does this mean suspending the laws that prevent price fixing through the creation of cartels and monopolies? Does this include suspending labour laws that establish minimum standards for work hours and safety? I've always found that "capitalism" works best in RW totalitarian states, where the maximum profit is earned with the least amount of investment, supported by the state machinery. These are the states with the maximum amount of corporate corruption (corporations bribing governments for favourable regulations).


"(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;" - OP

"2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - AF

"level playing field" - the question is who sets the standard for that field: first-world nations or third world nations? Do we use the standard of living for Zimbabwe, Poland, North Korea, America, etc as the benchmark for defining "level playing field"?

"This is the ultimate goal of free trade." - I thought the ultimate goal was to pay the lowest wage while charging the highest price, thus maximizing profits to be paid to stock-holders and thus encourage more investment and greater financial power for the company. Free trade makes it much easier to exploit cheap labour markets abroad, and then ship the goods back to NA where they're sold at high NA prices.

"The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China." - I agree that this is one of the problems. But how many of these countries have passed laws preventing companies from paying their workers there as much as workers would get here? That companies don't do this voluntarily demonstrates free trade is not about creating a "level playing field" but is about exploiting depressed labour markets.

"Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries." - well first off what you propose here would not fit any definition of "level playing field" that I've heard of. What you are describing could be better accomplished by increasing corporate taxes and redistributing the wealth to individuals paying income tax and through increases in social funding such as retirement plans, medical support, welfare.

But I don't think you're addressing a fundamental aspect of free trade: it removes jobs from one place and places them elsewhere. By outsourcing jobs from America, American workers are thrown out of work and into competition with each other for fewer jobs. American standards of living are dropping to compete with third world labour markets. With more American workers out of work or working for lower wages, who buys the products these companies are trying to sell? This is how the Depression got started: productivity outstripped demand to such an extent that demand could not support the marketplace.

Unless the consumer is protected from the effects of outsourcing there will be a dwindling market for the products being made.

Meanwhile, you have increasing costs associated with unemployment and lower standards of living. Local economies are impacted and local investment dwindles. This affects infrastructure, cascading into tourism.

Essentially, outsourcing depresses the American labour market, forcing it towards third world status where it will once again be an attractive choice for business. But as long as business has it's pick of labour markets, and there are markets costing less than the American market, why would business continue to invest in America?


"(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;" - OP

"4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair." - AF

Personally I think you two should keep talking about this.

Combine Pro Bono with Greed and litigation -can- get frivolous. On the other hand, the poorest who relies on Pro Bono to obtain justice from a hack deserves his/her day in court.

I think if you can both acknowledge this little Gordian Knot then you'll both be in a better position to find a way to untie it.


"(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;" - OP

"5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies." - AF

I admit that sounds like a reasonable approach. I'd ask about small business start-up loans but that doesn't seem to be within the jurisdiction covered by the OP's question.


"(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here; - OP

"6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence." - AF

I would think that defending your allies would provoke your allies' enemies would be a given, AF. You can't do one without the other. perhaps you can clear that up.

As for military bases, we've seen how they do democracy in Egypt. I wasn't impressed. How do you determine the will of a majority of people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or several other non-democratic states? And what kind of majority? 50%+1? What about when the local opposition is violent?

I think this question awaits resolution.


"(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform"" - OP

"7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages)." - AF

You realize that the money planned for future war is money you don't have coming in through taxes? And with ongoing and increasing outsourcing, you're not likely to have those revenues again, as those people will be out of work, contributing to the problem being described in this question.

Outsourcing = Declining tax income and increasing social assistance costs

I think this question also remains unresolved. This isn't sustainable unless you're also going to deal with the revenue side.


"(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;" - OP

"8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients." - AF

See my comments for 7, above.


"(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;" - OP

"9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court." - AF

Actually, that doesn't exactly answer the question, but I think you're saying the filibuster should be saved for the SCOTUS appointment(s).

Personally, I wouldn't bet that you have more than one filibuster. I think Frist will strip you of it after you use it that one time. It can be a difficult decision to use your one and only filibuster: Is this as bad as it gets, or will Mr. Lunatic Dictator actually come up with something worse later?

I think this is another one of those questions where the two of you would benefit from further discussion.


"(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;" - OP

"10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!" - AF

Agreement :-)


"(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations." - OP

"11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)" - AF

Would you like to name the companies? That would be a start.

And thanks AF. I look forward to your response.

I had to get some sleep myself, but am awake now.

1.) My statement partly reflected the hope, which I see below may be confirmed, that DLC senators will see the error of neocon ways and eventually rollback the entire Patriot Act once Al-Qaida is under control. I firmly believe that Al-Qaida is a very serious threat mainly because it is supported by universal fascist forces, and its not limited to "Islamo-fascism" as they would like us to believe. There are dark, mafia-like forces spread across all 3 major religions.

And let me say this: the radical right wing may be counting on our emotional reaction to the news that Bush illegally allowed the NSA to spy on us. Why? Because the NSA may be digging up quite a bit of dirt on the administration itself. What do you think may be ultimately driving the Plame investigation?

As for my comment that capitalism works best in a free society, what I meant was that people are more likely to be much more productive when they don't feel oppressed. Certainly I would be spending less time blogging myself. I don't believe that monopolies and cartels are the best thing for capitalism. In the case of energy resources I would support government regulation, especially after what we saw happen in Caleephoneeeia. Corporate welfare is also not conducive to good business, it only makes management lazy. Satisfied employees are the best thing for business. Read "Raving Fans" and apply it to the internal customers, your employees.

More in a moment...

As soemone else wrote, 106 posts until someone tried. Generally speaking your answers do not address the future mechanisms of how the DLC will address the issues listed. Instead, there are apologetic justifications of past policy endorsements by the DLC. For example, you do not say that the DLC will endorse policy to remove NAFTA and CAFTA, but on behalf of DLC you say that NAFTA and CAFTA are good things.

I have addressed all your specific points below. Again, thank you for providing answers.

Since I recently said that Kerry is making some interesting comments (regarding Bush getting impeached if Dems take control in 2006), and he was looking better as a possible candidate, I'll take a crack at defining the DLC's new platform. Let me state for the record that I don't support HC, for reasons other than being DLC, and I still make regular contributions to PDA.

Let me state some things for the record, too. I do not believe that all DLC'ers are DiNOs. I have said this before and have listed about half their number in the Senate which I consider DiNOs based on voting record. Neither Kerry nor Clinton are on that list. I am a member of the Connecticut Bill of Rights Defense Committee. I have reviewed the text of the Patriot Act and further researched other fascist tendencies of this administration. The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and I will do everything legally in my power to stop it, including writing counter legislation myself and lobbying. I am a non-combat veteran, a Reservist, and I consider this Administration's justifications of torture and openly disregarding the Geneva Conventions to be something new that we should fear. I also make regular contributions to PDA and am a member of the Connecticut Progressive Democrats. Living in Connecticut, I consider it part of my personal responsibility to pressure Lieberman not to follow in the fascist footsteps of El Presidente.

1.) The Patriot Act is only a temporary measure to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists within the U.S., and the financial supporters of terrorism. There may be some disagreement as to when it should be fazed out, but there are no long-term plans to permanently disable civil rights. Capitalism works best in a truly free society. Also keep in mind that we want to bring ALL criminals to justice (ahem).

Much of the Patriot Act was and is permanent. Only the specific provisions set to sunset were "temporary." Even these parts might continue. We need to see what happens from now to Dec 31st before making the claim that those provisions are temporary. But the whole thing temporary? No, it's not. Just pieces.

The Senate did not have the votes yesterday for cloture as you know. However, 2 DLC'ers voted for cloture and 1 abstained. Non-DLC'ers all voted No, against cloture. Therefore, 17% of the DLC Senate supported cloture. 0% of the non-DLC Senate dems supported cloture. Additionally, those 2.5 DLC'ers switching sides gives a majority Senate (52-47) for reauthorization of the Patriot Act later. Again, we need to watch what happens, but they might just screw us again.

Where did the 2001 bill come from? Interestingly, it was not Congress that wrote it. So, the claim that we need "to help ensure that we are doing everything possible to eliminate the presence of active terrorists" is a bit unjustified. As a democracy, WE didn't do it. Our representatives did not write the legislation nor did they understand it. Do you know who wrote it? A Vietnamese national reporting directly to Ashcroft in the DOJ. I hope you just did a doubletake, reading that. It was right after 9/11 and there was extreme pressure to get it passed without being able to comprehend it.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and no single Congress has the authority to undo the Constitution, with the exception of Article V of the Constitution which provides for amendments. They needed to properly amend the Fourth Amendment by Article V, so they needed 3/4 of the states to ratify that change plus additionally 2/3 of the House plus additionally 2/3 of the Senate. They had no such authority and no such numbers for this change, yet still somehow they legislated it...

And now 3 out of 18 Senate members of the DLC do not actively oppose it. So, getting back to the original question. "What is the DLC plan to give us back our civil liberties taken away by the Patriot Act?" The DLC has no plan, since 17% of them supported cloture. The non-DLC Dems do have a plan and they acted against the Patriot Act along with a couple of Republicans who defected on behalf of our civil rights.


2.) and 3.) The world will be a much more secure place if all nations operate on a level playing field. This is the ultimate goal of free trade. The problem is not the presence of unions within the U.S., the problem is a lack of unions and lack of human rights in nations such as China. Since we cannot legislate how foreign countries treat their citizens, we must come up with creative solutions to the problems caused by outsourcing. I propose that a system of tax credits and perhaps even government subsidies be provided to companies for every job that is kept in America and for companies who successfully negotiate union demands. No less than 85% of subsidies must be passed on directly in the form of union employee salaries.

"Free trade" and NAFTA/CAFTA are two different concepts. A level playing field is nice, but corporations are never about level playing fields. They are about "winning" and money hoarding and power hoarding, regardless of who it scews over. The problem with NAFTA is that it is indirectly responsible for the decline of union power in the US. And the DLC has not been an active force in stopping this problem for the last several years.

I do not necessarily oppose your suggestions, but think about them for a moment. You have replaced negative consequences with positive reinforcement using capital that we do not even have. Furthermore, the DLC would be all for corporate subsidies, since they have a form of "trickle down economics" in their Credo. But they as a single organization would not be for negotiating "union demands." Other pro-labor organizations within the Democratic Party might be for meeting union demands, but not the DLC.

You at least tried to come up with a plan. It is not totally consistent with the DLC. The DLC did not come up with such a plan and one can see why.


4.) While healthcare remains privatized, there needs to be a standardized system of legislated health care contract points. Insurance companies will suffer severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers. This should not infringe on insurance companies' profitability if they play fair.

Since the DLC believes in trickle down economics, they would never be for "severe penalties when violating contracts with their customers." That's the point. They cannot have a plan on behalf of citizens due to their pro-corporate bias.


5.) Federal laws should be enacted limiting the amount of credit offered to individuals based on their current debt and income. Once these are in place, the bankrupcy laws will be lifted. This is the sane approach to keeping banks from getting into trouble due to customer bankrupcies.

It has already been the policy of banks to offer credit "to individuals based on their current debt and income." No federal legislation is necessary to add bureaucracy and enact what the free market already worked out properly. Furthermore, this does not address the real problem with the Bankruptcy bill. The real problem is that banks are already favored in our economic system against citizens. They become much more empowered to abuse us of our rights under this legislation. Making it look like there is a citizen problem here is exactly what GOP Orrin Hatch did by calling disadvantaged citizens tricked by the credit card industry scams "deadbeats."

Most of the time when a citizen declares bankruptcy it is not due to that person being a "deadbeat." It is because they had a medical emergency with extreme costs. Here is Feingold on the Bankruptcy bill:
"What is most disheartening is that so many Senators sent here to represent their constituents, to exercise their independent judgment for the good of their States and the country, have been willing to blindly follow instructions from the shadowy coalition of groups that are behind this bill--mainly the credit card industry--and vote down even the most reasonable of amendments. It is just sad when there is no debate on amendments, no discussion, no negotiation, just an edict from outside of the Senate, and the 'no' votes follow every time."

Did the DLC go along with Feingold? No. Here is a record of their votes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1969653

They were more than twice as likely to go along with Hatch. It is because they are pro-corporate like it says in their Credo. So, do they have a plan to remove the legislation that they helped to enact? No.


6.) We must do what we can to DEFEND our allies in the Middle East, but not provoke our allies' enemies. Military bases should only be placed in countries where the majority of people desire our presence.

I agree with you. There should be a referendum of the people in Iraq to see if we should be there. This is similar to what Kucinich (not in the DLC) said. It is also similar to a criticism from Nader. However, this is not a DLC stance. The DLC believes in presenting a strong aura on defense and national security.

One can see this from their votes on Iraq. Here is how the Senate voted on an Iraq War exit plan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2252142

As you can see, the DLC does not have a plan as an organization. However, the non-DLC does have a plan.


7.) Part of the money planned for future war in the Middle East should instead be allocated to supporting the unemployed, and providing the able-bodied with jobs (including jobs in construction where there may actually be shortages).

Unfortunately, it is part of the DLC agenda to present a strong front on national defense. And it was part of the DLC agenda to enact Welfare "reform" in the first place. They will not divert defense money, but I agree that they might be in favor of some of the economic plans you suggest if it came to a vote. Now, where's the plan, though? Where did they say this?

Does anyone say it? Yes, progressive organizations, but not the DLC as an organization. They do not have this plan.


8.) A portion of the funds normally spent on defense should instead be used to subsidize emergency room and intensive care for uninsured patients.

They will not take away defense funds and they will not stand against the health care industry as a group fighting in unison, due to funding and their third way message. They do not have this plan, but I think it is a good one. Good for you for coming up with it and you should lobby for it.


9.) There should be a healthy (as in SANE) balance between liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, the DLC as a single entity refuses to filibuster such nominees. Lieberman said Roberts was "in the ballpark" for example. Here I show how the DLC was almost twice as likely to confirm Roberts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2124708

They do not have a plan.


10.) Not only is this good for democracy but its also good for business!

What is good for democracy? Clear Channel gobbling up all the little guys and helping to turn radio into a conservative force for corporations and corruption?

Or did you mean that my criticism of the Telecom act was good? If so, do you know who supported the Telecom act of 1996? (that was the point...)


11.) (If people would learn how to use the power to boycott the companies that have influence over us - us being the DLC, then we would pay attention to this demand.)

People are boycotting corporations. See buyblue.org for example.

...after a weird Private Message from Don1 that linked me to a deleted post (Guess you got a touch to personal or broke a cardinal rule, huh?)

1) restore civil rights taken away by the Patriot Act;

Senate Democrats, including all members of the DLC, voted down key civil rights infringing elements of the Patriot Act friday. The Demonstrates, of course, that DLC senators are serious about rolling back the patriot act. Let's go to an elected official who also hold leadership positions in the DLC:

Speaking in the spring of 1994, Clinton said, "re-electing President Bush will mean a loss of freedoms and "create an America we won't recognize," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is telling potential Democratic donors.

In an e-mail appeal distributed by the Democratic National Committee to help Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, the former first lady said "the stakes in this election are incredibly high."

"If they get their way, you and I will be living in an America governed not by our hopes, but by our fears," Clinton wrote. "We'll be living in an America where we see our freedoms diminished when they ought to be embraced, our rights restricted when they ought to be strengthened."

But in regards to having a "plan" to restore civil rights, neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change.

(2) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through NAFTA;
(3) restore union power taken away by empowering global corporations through CAFTA;

Labor unions in Canada and the United States have opposed NAFTA though Unions in Canada have recently removed objections to the agreement from their platforms.

Drawing upon the traditional Democratic policies of Free Trade, the DLC did indeed support NAFTA and CAFTA (along with other non-DLC Democrats) however the jury was still out on NAFTA's economic impact several years in, according to a study researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles undertook. Said to be the most comprehensive study ever undetaken on the subject, it concluded that "the impact on trade-related employment during the first three years after NAFTA is estimated to be, at the very least, a near zero net impact, and more likely, a moderately positive number."

Despite arguments from supporters of the North American Free Trade Agreement that the pact would bring big employment gains to the United States and warnings from opponents that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, the accord's net impact so far has been slight, the study found.

Still, the study did not directly address the politically sensitive question of whether better-paying jobs were being lost to Mexico, which has been the chief concern of Unions. Consequently, the DLC and Unions have had a thawing of late, with the DLC hosting a breakfast with union representatives in November - a meeting both sides found to be "productive."

When I couple this with the DLC's economic policies of living wages and family friendly tax reform, I am confident that the DLC is now more sympathetic to the positions of Unions.

But in regards to having a "plan," neither the DLC (nor the DNC or PDA for that matter) have a plan other than winning elections and using the powers of congress to effect change. Stating "we'll get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA" isn't a plan because such action requires details.

(4) restore citizens' economic rights to lawsuits against medical insurance that legislation took away;

The DLC's plan is to to create state-administered specialty courts (similar to those that judge workers' compensation claims) whose primary goal would be to quickly and fairly provide consistent compensation for economic and non-economic losses caused by medical errors. The broader goal of the system would be to build up and publicly report a medically sound body of law on standards of care, while holding providers accountable to those standards. Health courts would replace the current system's reliance on dueling testimony by paid experts with court-appointed neutral experts, and would assure consistency by a set schedule of benefits, applied by specialty judges.

Health courts could simultaneously benefit individual patients, and all patients, present and future. As Udell and Kendall note: "Patients have the most to lose under the current system. Without clear signals from the courts about the steps doctors should take to prevent injuries, it should come as no surprise that between 48,000 and 98,000 patients die from medical mistakes in hospitals each year. Patients are also losing access to doctors in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics, particularly in states where malpractice insurance premiums are rising the fastest."

While health courts would be administered by the states, Udell and Kendall argue that Congress needs to jump-start the new system. "Congress should provide start-up funding for states to create health courts, and it should set federal guidelines to ensure that health courts are similar from state to state in their designs and procedures, in the schedules of benefits they use, and in the standards of medical practice they recognize," they write.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=138&contentid=253182
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=111&subsecid=138&contentid=253178

(5) restore citizens' economic rights by eliminating the law enacted by the Bankruptcy bill;

The New Democrat philosophy on this issue was worded this way:



(6) get us out of Iraq so we can do nation building here;

From The DLC's Ed Kilgore:

1) Publicly announce the United States is abandoning any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq to make it absolutely clear our presence is temporary.

2) Publicly announce benchmarks that will trigger withdrawal of American troops, including approval of a constitution and election of a permanent government; specific levels of trained Iraqi troops and other security forces; and renunciation of demands by major Iraqi communities that are incompatible with a stable and pluralistic regime (e.g., Kurdish right to secede, Sunni Arab privileges in a strong central government, Iranian-style Islamic Republic).

3) Initiate direct negotiations with insurgents.

4) Renounce any public or private-sector U.S. designs for control of Iraqi natural resources

5) Launch an internationalized reconstruction effort which explicitly renounces U.S. exclusive privileges, with special attention to assistance from Sunni Arab countries

The goal would be to leave Iraq with a half-decent chance of maintaining a sustainable government without civil war, foreign domination, or a permament base of operations and recruitment for al Qaeda. The main strategy would be to convince, through carrots and sticks, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a to step back from their maximalist demands, while creating trans-communal political and security institutions. The philosophy would be to dramatically invest Iraqis with complete responsibility for their common future. And while they would not provide a guaranteed, fixed date for final U.S. withdrawal, the benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control.

(7) restore economic justice to children whose non-working mothers and fathers can only get AFDC for a limited time thanks to Welfare "Reform";

Welfare reform is here to stay and it is a concept I believe in.

As Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief...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."

I'm not even as hardlined about it as FDR. I do believe the Federal Government does have a role in welfare, but not to the point of lifelong dependency.

Bobby Kennedy said welfare should be a "hand up not a hand out."

(8) keep 84,000 Americans from dying every year due to a lack of health care;

The DLC are big proponents of Healthcare reform:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=111

(9) filibuster al least 1 of the crazies that Mr. Lunatic Dictator keeps nominating;

Again, that is something the Democrats have to have the votes on.

(10) restore objectivity to news media by revoking the TeleCommunications Act of 1996 so that smaller, independent news media groups can have power, too;

Bill Clinton says he rejects signing this bill. I regret him signing it, too. I've seen no plan from anyone to overturn it.

(11) start voting more with the majority of Democrats by voting for the people's interests instead of corporations.

Even the non-DLC Democrats don't vote with the majority of Democrats on these issues.

:crazy:

But then again, maybe it isn't considering...

...otherwise give more thought to your contributions.

Some of us are trying to have a serious discussion.

I found his comments useful. I now know what the bizarre private message was about and I know in the future that the OP will resort to "calling out."

I hope you don't mind, I am saving this for future reference.

...chores are calling, so I don't have the time right now. But I'll be back with questions and comments.

Thanks again.

on dlc membership, voting patterns, and election success. debating/election tactics could be a thread of it's own. the neocons from the fox school of debate that populate all these threads here are amazing and disgusting, imho.
but they make a lot of assertions about the practicality of their viewpoint, and the electoral imperatives of it. i would like to see how their candidates do in the primaries, in the generals, and i would like to get as objective as possible a look at the way they conduct themselves.
i think that rahm emmanuel, a charter member of the dlc, and now the gatekeeper for the dem congressional candidates, is using some very nasty tactics in the 6th district in illinois. i think that it would be good to have these things cataloged, so that people could get out and work in the primaries for progressives that are under attack. let's feed the grassroots if we can.

on DLC voting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1971055
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/30/132626/843
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2303592
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2124708

I have to repeat this, too, so my point does not get mischaracterized. Half the DLC in the Senate votes badly. The other half is not too bad. Blue Dogs in the House are worse than DLC in the House.

On Rahm Emmanuel...there are 4 states (not just Illinois) where this co-optation has taken place. At least three of the four have been mentioned in DU threads. I do not have links handy, but you should be able to search on DU for them. I think maybe Minnesota and New Hampshire were two of the others.

as a big dlc basher, i want them to be judged by their votes and results. and tactics. one by one, in the open. i agree that a broad brush paints a blurry picture.
do you think we can do this fairly, in research, or is that bashing dems and frowned upon?

this has turned into a flamewar. In addition, it's gone way off topic- unless the topic was a primer on how to engage in personal attacks!