Reply #121: Thank you for answering. [View All]

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.