''The D.L.C. has saved the Democratic Party once, and we're bound to do it again,''

The words in the subject line were said in 2003 by Al From, a leader of the DLC. They had a conference of their group, with no presidential candidates invited.



Centrist Democrats Warn Party Not to Present Itself as 'Far Left'

Here is more about what was said. They made it clear that Howard Dean was a concern, but that they feared the entire Democratic field was rejecting their policies.



Here is more on the founding, which reiterates what we have talked about before here.



Take in the full meaning of that. They blamed the labor unions and "special interests" (hmmm..wonder which ones they could be)...for losing the White House. That is a ridiculous statement, and a very arrogant one.

There is a lot more at the link, but it is Select and in the archives.

There has been a lot of discussion here about the Democratic Leadership Council, the DLC. I am one who finds the leaders of the group are the ones I will write about and critique. There has been discussion this week especially with Harold Ford trying to reach out at TPM Cafe. It is good he is trying. I wrote this though, because I don't think any of them understand the depth of what has gone on.

Perhaps it is good the discussion is going on. Maybe the realization will come that you can't go around insulting and putting down the very people you need for your party to succeed.

I don't think Ford and others in the DLC realize there are many issues left unhealed.

It is time to reach out, but it will take both sides. I honestly believe Governor Dean in his role as DNC chairman is trying to bridge that gap the best he can. I and others give him lots of wiggle space on stances at times because he must satisfy those who are very diverse.

Al From and others need to realize that they were 100% wrong when they made fun of us about being anti-Iraq-war. But From as recently as November made reference to bending knee to "noisy activists."

That is not going to play any longer.

and told them not one cent of my contribution was to be used by a pro Iraqi war Dem.

Things are better alittle with the dems in control of congress. It just feels better. If the DLC was allowed to rise again, with our party just taken off the critical list and getting stronger, the Democratic party would become DOA. We must reject the DLC candidates.

You spend so much time obsessing about the DLC, I wonder if you even realize the GOP is the opposition.

IMG]

Actually it has only been a month or so since activists were attacked again.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1227

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3192666


Though I don't completely agree with him, I wouldn't call From's comments in your link an "attack", but, then again, I'm not in the business of manufacturing fake outrage, like you are.

Is it anything like a bullshit detector?

of the dlcer hillaryhawk.

the dlc is the opposition, too?

There is a reason why Harold Ford was left behind in the Democratic Wave last year.

Could you imagine if Ford was in the Senate now? He'd be jumping at the chance to assert his "independence" and "political courage" by fully funding Bush's war just as fast as a vote could be held.

Ford, a black man, ALMOST beat his GOP opponent in a very red southern state. That was a remarkable feat and not something to kick to the curb like it was nothing. You can disagree with his politics without summarily dismissing what actually transpired.

pro-big business campaign of the 7 and he lost.

The DLC's only claim to fame is Bill Clinton in '92.
From the time of their inception they have strived to violate Harry Truman's axiom and attempt to make the Democratic Party like the republikkan party -- When Democrats act like republikkans, voters will inevitably choose the real thing over the copy.
The DLC demonized the left from it's inception and marginalized it's staunchest supporters.
They belittled those who opposed scrubs economic, domestic, foreign and military policies as being too loud and too divisive.

Their political genius since Clinton's election has been to loose us the House and the Senate, lose governor's races, state legislative races etc.

When some groups within the Party abandoned their meek, apologetic tactices we did very well -- 2006.

The DLC is a millstone.

I absolutely agree with matching the candidates to their particular states, and Ford's politics aside, he came damn close to winning. That was the sum total of my point.

The DLC's politics are not my politics; that's not what I am commenting on. Quite frankly, I truly believe in the big tent notion and don't feel threatened by another/different POV within the party. I'm simply not interested in this epic struggle between the DLC and the left; I don't subscribe to anyone advocating muscling out another faction.

Both men ran a much more populist campaign than Ford - and both men won.

Not only that, we won House races in Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona and nearly Wyoming, of all places. We didn't run DLCers there; for the most part our '06 winners were quite populist in their campaigns.

It's not an "epic struggle" so much as the DLC has decided that they alone should govern the Democratic party, to hell with the base. And their views are so far right that it seems like I'm reading off the GOP website. Ford even wants to now privatize SS and Medicare!

Read the posts of the DLC defenders here - they give away much more than you'd think. They want the DLC to run the party unilaterally, and will admit to this position if pressed.

Unless we want more pro-war, pro-Homeland Security, pro-big business, anti-civil liberties candidates who will lose elections, we would do well to fight this power grab.

This reminds me of what people call "class warfare". The rich will whine and complain that the poor are trying to bleed them dry of money, when in reality we see that given enough power, the rich will cause the middle-class to become poor and the poor to become destitute.

Similarly, both "class warfare" and the "power struggle" are projective terms used by the elite and powerful to lie about everyone else who opposes them. The poor did not start "class warfare", that was brought upon by the rabid rich Republicans. Similarly, the Democratic base did not start a "power struggle", instead we were shouted down and silenced for most of the past 6 years.

"I don't subscribe to anyone advocating muscling out another faction."

By your own admission, there is no reason for you to like the DLC at all. Thank heavens the DLC wasn't in control of the 2006 elections, or we'd be looking at a Republican congress.

Who ran as much of a conservative campaign as Ford, in a much bluer state.

The argument that Ford lost because he wasn't running left enough seems like BS to me, but I guess we will never know. Lieberman's big victory (thanks to 1/3rd of all Dems who voted for him instead of Lamont) would lead me to believe that certain states and districts are more likely to elect moderate Dems than progressive ones.

If CT couldn't elect Lamont, I doubt TN would.

Further, look who narrow the Webb and Tester wins were. Allen and Burns are total scumbags, and they still got a HUGE chunk of the vote.

Since I'm from Connecticut, I maintain connections with many of my friends from back home, some of whom were Lamont election workers.

From what they told me (and other posts I read from Lamont's workers), most of CT is solidly against the war and despises Lieberman's support for it. The only reason he got as much support is because he presented himself as the savior of the Groton sub base, which employs many people downstate. Many voters that were encountered said things like "I hate the war, and I don't even like Lieberman, but I'm voting for him because he kept my job in Groton" or something like that.

The support for Lieberman was not based on the issues. And as I've suggested in other threads, most first-time and newly Democratic voters are not likely to approve of the DLC's mantra which puts corporations first and people second.

I mean, we won Senate seats in Virginia and Montana, of all places, running populist candidates with blue-collar appeal. If that isn't proof enough, I don't know what is - former Reagan Democrats and the working poor are not going to vote for somebody who appears more comfortable with CEOs than he does with them.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I encounter many DUers who more or less think the more progressive a candidate is, the better they will do in an election, wether it is in Nebraska or Massachussettes.

But again, isn't scarey that Tester BARELY beat Burns? Jesus, Tester seems like the perfect candidate for MT, and Burns is about as much of a corporate crook as you can get.

For example, my family in Michigan used to be HUGE fans of George Romney. My grandmother had her wedding reception in his house, they went to the same LDS church, my dad worked for his campaigns, etc.

Well, my dad has since moved away, as have many of my relatives, and recently I went back home for my uncle's funeral (he got prostate cancer).

My cousin made a joke about my uncle's favorite blue chair, except the ironic thing was "we're all Republicans here". This was part of his eulogy.

My dad didn't vote Dem until 2002, my other cousin just last year voted Dem for the first time (for Granholm), and the rest of them are still dyed-in-the-wool Republicans.

This is why it took so long for the south to become Republican, after the Democrats had already started supporting civil rights. Particularly when family is involved, together and close-knit, they tend to vote as a bloc.

By "populist", I mean economically liberal. Concern for working class and poor, that kind of thing. "Progressive" I would see as meaning liberal on all issues, though not necessarily with the intensity that populism conveys.

I think populist candidates (like Gore tried to be in 2000) with varying stances on social issues are our best hope for the future of the party. For example, Tester and Webb strongly support the right to bear arms, Casey's pro-life, Whitehouse prosecuted three-strikes cases. On social issues, they are varying degrees of "progressive". But they're all populists.

called DLC "strategy" - and look who Clinton was running against, too...

and, Clinton didn't get 50% of the vote, either - none of the others did by any margin, but Clinton didn't either...

were in our local headquarters working like hell to try to get him elected. Many of the African Americans that I drove to the polls didn't think he'd change things very
much, but they were going to vote. They would have preferred a different candidate (John Lewis, John Conyers were mentioned a lot) but they nor I had that choice.

the savior of the republikkan party.

Seriously that just dosen't make sense. If the Democrats don't govern from one side(which is the left) and if the GOP don't govern from one other side(which is the right) then there is truely will be no difference between the two parties, proving everything Nader said.

The far left and labor unions isn't whats ruining the party it's the DLC with there corporate and center-right views, they must be stopped and defeated before they totally bankrupt and destroy the party for corporate america.

We're that way.

But I "get" what you said, and I agree 100%!

and I agree.

Close the thread, we're done.

:bounce: :party: :toast: :applause:

We should expect as much from a group whose chairman wants privatized Social Security and Medicare accounts.

With "friends" like these, who needs the Republicans?

This comment is by Mark Penn, a main advisor to the Hillary Clinton campaign.



We would have been far more credible by standing up for what was right. I wonder what those 600,000 plus dead Iraqis would have thought about that statement. Or the over 3000 of our dead.

More about their upset with Dean and with his supporters:



Just look around you, DLC leaders, we were no dotcom bust. We are still around and active.

Thanks for the links and for your work on the DLC, madfloridian.

You all come back often. Stay on the DLC as it keeps us informed. Yes, we Dean folk are still hear and understand what was lost when Howard went down. We are the party of the people. We should not ever forget that.

:hi:

....first the DLC, then the GOP....keep up the good work, madfloridian....

stupid misbegotten bushits' War On IRaq. That's just smart and morally just.

The fucking dlcers are so got damn empty of brains and moral fiber it's pathetic.

A real election-winner for us from 1994 to 2004. The perfect way to make Democrats look tough on crime without subscribing to the repressive law-and-order tactics of the GOP/prison-industrial complex.

:sarcasm:

People who are consistantly WRONG on a subject should shut their mouths on that subject. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and their numerous shills were and continue to be wrong on Iraq, so they should shut their traps. And the DLC can't get Democrats elected, so they also keep their mouths shut.

the DLC would've been dead long ago. It cracks me up how they like to point to Bill as their doing but it's vice versa.

Julie

When I think of how I have felt because of the way they attacked those of us who opposed the Iraq war, when I think of the shock it was to hear myself described by a Democratic group as "fringe"....then I realize they have no base in reality. They have an agenda, and we are not part of it.

crimes of office RELENTLESSLY pounding on him for his entire term and breaking the trust of the American people?

If there had been no uncovering of IranContra, BCCI, or Iraqgate revelations by persistent Democrats Bush1 would have had a landslide and this nation would be in its second decade of New World Order.

....

on any Democratic candidate in 2003 and 2004 who would be in the way of their longterm agenda.

From historian Doug Brinkley in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

>>>>>

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered (unable) to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."

Perot got 19% of the vote in '92 and I think about 9% in 1996...either time Clinton would lost. Clinton never got 50% or more of the vote, as i recall.
The DLC has NEVER EVER WON AN ELECTION. No Democratic Party win has been on the basis of "centrist" (meaning corporation party lite) principles.....
NO NO NO TO THE DLC : End the DLC. We' need a truly left, anit-impreialism/de-militarization, domestic reindustrialization, mixed-economy Democratic Party. Public enterprise as the first choice solution. Steeply progressive taxation on the personal incomes above the salary of the President, with redistribution of wealth and income an explicit policy.
REBUILD THE MIDDLE-CLASSS
SPEND OUR TAX DOLLARS HERE AT HOME, IN WAYS THAT BENEFIT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

has been debunked numerous times.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

YOUR reference even states that!

How much "near"er can you get?

Perot withdrew in June for a couple of months, and during that time numerous Bush-Clinton polls were conducted.

Not a single poll put Bush Sr. even within the margin of error of Clinton's numbers, much less ahead. The idea that Perot helped Clinton win is total bullshit, and a right-wing myth.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

No claims to the contrary will make your lies so...

And the only reason he got less than 50% of the votes is because Perot changed his mind (again) and re-entered the race.

By the way, unfairly accusing DUers of lying is against the rules.

If these guys succeed in turning the Democratic Party into half-cooked, Diet Republicans, we WILL lose!

If we act like Republicans, we'll get out-Republicaned by the Republicans, and on top of losing, we'll have sold so much of our soul we won't be able to sleep at night.

Stand up, make the real Democratic Party's voice heard, and we can't lose. Get wishy-washy and we'll get eaten alive.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone that acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican every time."

Another from him that is quite relevant today.

"I wonder how far Moses would have gone if he'd taken a poll in Egypt?
What would Jesus Christ have preached if he'd had taken a poll in Israel?
Where would the Reformation have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll?
It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts.
It is right and wrong and leadership--- men with fortitude and honesty, and a belief in the right that makes epochs in the history of the world".

:puke:

-Hoot

He was in on the scam from the beginning.

Will Marshall is/was.

Don't know about From.

perhaps my source was wrong. I will research it some more.

Wittman used to work for Christian Coalition and was a campaign advisor to John McCain in 2000. Wittman is now an avowed DLCer.

Al From has the misnamed Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which is the DLC's version of the neocon PNAC.

REGRESSIVE.

There is no far left. They are mimicking the RW talking points to the letter to castigate our own grass roots. Unlike the GOP the purpose is LESS to secure power than to safeguard the business interests. Plus, they are that plain stupid.

Let us take in all the elements of this monstrosity.

Politically attacking their own party.
Labeling activists, populists and any competition at all to the DLC or corporate interests as "far left". Taking arrogant credit for "salvation" of party.
Assuming anything liberal at all dooms the party.
Defining the center and ALL other terms as it strictly matches GOP interests alone.
Having no mirror but a lot of self admiration.

It is clear that very many in the party, right left or whatever, understand things about the DLC as clearly as the GOP does. The GOP considers them their patsies, So they have so they have remained and so they have made gains primarily for the GOP, first at the ballot box then in sweet surrender in "bi-partisan" follies. The left is constantly affirmed by those out of touch with reality for selfish interests.

Save us anymore and we'll all be dead or under tyranny with a GOP label. There is NO hope at all for that the DLC will replace or partner with the discredited RW hacks. And they are lost in delusions to the contrary where even RW crazies have a firmer grip on reality.

Once more, who exactly is the "DLC problem"? First of all the advisers and functionaries who zealously spout this same tripe after every election, win or lose. Second comes the grateful and duped office holders beholden to the golden flow, the safe haven of centrist inaction, hiding under all the money flags and thinking to undercut the GOP. Third comes a legion of office holders who bought into the DLC as a positive fundraising and expertise group even when they go too far at times. ALL share delusion to some extent and drink the poisoned Kool-Aid. Many think their political fortunes at the least are affected by the DLC and its philosophy.

It is their own members they are trying to convince as evidenced by this "bunker, who's in a bunker?"
mentality. They can't even appreciate how they are helping the GOP in this endeavor.

And why now? Because Obama can do it without them and the big donor artery even as he shares some of their talking points.

Before we talk about what agenda is "left-leaning" and harmful to votes let's insist we get real about who is actually harming the party and purging some of the losers(at this point, certain overpaid advisers) with extreme prejudice. They themselves have brought about their own fears in trying to perpetuate themselves.

Don't agree with their politics, don't necessarily like the DLC. Doesn't mean I think they're all bad. But not a big fan of Harold Ford Jr. Though I'll be the first to admit he did well in TN. And I laughed when some suggested he should be DNC chairman instead of Howard Dean. Dean is creating success for our party. Ford is where he belongs, the DLC!!

Even if they win elections they will never advance a legislative agenda that will significantly change America. They will always hesitate from going "to far" in fear of losing the next election. They will never, ever change America for the better.

:rofl:

She pulls old quotes to manufacture outrage.

I'm beginning to see that.

:eyes: So it's ok because those are old quotes....

Has Our Lord And Savior Al From changed his beautiful mind about those quotes? I doubt it.

the issue isn't that the quotes are defensible. It's that the OP seems to spend an inordinate amount of time digging up ancient stories just to show how horribly her hero, Dr. Dean, is treated.

Politics ain't canasta - Dean's a big boy and can handle himself just fine. Being in a state of perpetual outrage because of what people in politics say is a laughable way to live.

If these people think anyone in Congress is "far left", they need to rework their understanding of the term.

The Democratic Party is in absolutely no "danger" of being taken over by the far left - we're too busy splintering into near-indistinguishable flavors of Leninist.

An exaggerated sense of self-importance, and living inside a world of their own making.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thanks for your work on this issue. The threats from within the Democratic Party are more insidious than threats from the Republican Party. The Democratic Party leadership should have NEVER opened the gates and pulled in that big wooden horse full of Corporate Cash (DLC).

The hecklers above CAN NOT attack the accuracy of your compilations, so they have resorted to some rather childish and embarrassing retorts.
Direct quotes from DLC leadership or the DLC website ARE relevant regardless of the age, especially if the quotes concern the philosophy or goals of the DLC.

Keep up the good work. :patriot:

Bob
A REAL Democrat

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.

Thanks!

Check out the spelling. Pretty clever, though, I gotta admit. lol

DU on acid

Now where in the world is wyldwoIf trying to lead us?

He's not as insulting.

:rofl:

I guess some people have no idea what the REAL "far left" is like.

It was really surprising. But it worked very well, and it stuck. Everything they ever starting pushing against him and his supporters worked very well.

who doesn't have a "preferential option for the corporations and the military-industrial complex."

They look down on the Democratic base much as their corporate sponsors look down on people that work for a paycheck.

I'll bet good money that the answer is as laughably wrong as Giuliani's answer as.