Don't like the DLC? Blame the GOP!

I'm reading Michael Moore's new book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" I generally love the book, but Moore makes what I consider to be a common, serious mistake. He includes Democrats in criticisms about corporate influence in government. That's one of those tricky ideas that is not completely wrong, but might as well be.

For example, Moore says "When you went into the voting booth, you voted for their Republican (and Democratic) candidates just like {the corporations} asked you to..."

Sorry, Mike, but it's just wrong-headed to imply any sort of corruption equivalence between Republicans and Democrats. For practical purposes all of the corpo-corruption in our government is entirely the fault of Republicans. The Democrats -- even the DLCers -- are just doing what they have to do to cope in the world the corpos and their GOP "property" have forced us all into.

That argument is obvious and is meritorious enough to be considered true for practical purposes. It is true for purposes of deciding on action. The counter-arguments (that some Dems should not whore themselves out, yada yada) are not mere quibbles, and I'm not discounting them. I'm just saying that they are false for practical purposes.

It is ineffective, black-and-white, Bushist-style thinking to equate Republicans and Dems. It turns useful information (that Dems are vastly more concerned with fair play and human interests) into pure noise.

So lay off the DLC. Remember who the enemy really is.

As soon as they stop telling me to shut up and take whatever candidate they think is best for me.

Unlike the RNC who tells minions of their party what to think and they fall in lockstep with them, the DLC can tell me what to think but I don't have to listen to them. In fact in this case I don't! Go Dean! And even better, Dean/Clark!!

I was never in the anti-DLC camp until they let the idiots Frome and Penn try to torpedo a legitimate Democratic nominee. That showed me that their interests were more about maintaining their clout rather than what's best for the party.

So, screw 'em. This year they can fall in line, I'm tired of following them off the cliff every election cycle.

The DLC was formed because "certain people" thought the dem party was too far to the left. "They" would fix that by providingd the dems with contacts to the corporate big money. When the dems were hooked on the corporate money they would then be unable to turn down requests from the corps in fear of losing all that 'easy' money.

The DLC is a creation of the RNC, in effect if not in fact. In my view anything they say can be attributed to KKKarl Rove.

I remember those elections, and a lot more before them for that matter. The DLC was formed because they were tired of losing by huge margins. The DLC candidates have won three elections, 92,96, and 00. Of course we know what happened to 00 but the DLC candidate did get more votes. If that ballot (Admitted, a Dem error.) hadn't confused some people then the rest of the mess wouldn't have happened. The DLC has a lot better track record of winning elections than the radicals.

McGovern would have beaten Nixon if it weren't for that fiasco with Eaglton. Not only that but the Democratic Party was in utter chaos after the convention in Chicago.

In '84 Mondale lost because he was going up against a popular incumbent and was a bland character.

If there were a DLC back in '72 they probably would have pushed a pro-Vietnam War candidate and probably would have lost to Nixon too. The people didn't vote for McGovern because he was too liberal, they didn't vote for him because his VP candidate got electroshock therapy (check the polls - he was leading Nixon before all this came out). THEN he turned his back on the Democratic Party after stating he would keep Eagleton. THAT turned off the voters, not the fact he was a liberal.

In '84 Mondale lost because he didn't convey a clear message for the country. He was boring and the nation found it too hard to cozy up to him. Plus, as stated above, Reagan was popular and well liked. So a DLC candidate would have lost too in '84.

In '88 Dukakis lost because he again was a boring ass character. Didn't help any the GOP ran smear campaigns against him - which a lot of people bought. The fact of the matter? It isn't whether or not a candidate is liberal. It's whether or not they're likeable. Why do you think Gore had such a hard time in 2000? He should have RAPED Bush in the election. It shouldn't have even been close, but it was. Gore not only was the VP to a popular president (Clinton was polling in the 60s around November 2000) but he had the workings of a prospering nation. But he was boring and didn't capitalize on ANY of the past 8 years.

When Dean wins the presidency in 2004 it'll show the DLC that their right of center politics won't cut it. Why do you think the DLC candidates are doing so badly right now? It's because people would rather support a REAL Republican than support a de facto Republican.

Goldwater lost dramatically in 64

McGovern & Mondale not only lost. THEY LOST 49 STATES. It was a huge loss.

Look at McGovern's platform. A promise of a $1,000 check to every person in the U.S.? Eleminate 1/3 of the military, during a war? Nixon was already under fire from Watergate. Normally something like that should have sunk a candidate, but McGovern was so far left that Nixon was still able to win.

Mondale? HE LOST 49 STATES!!!!! That wasn't just a loss, it was a disaster, a rout, an utter humiliation. He promised to raise taxes on everybody. Hard to get people to vote for that. Also he was tainted as Carter's VP, and Carter's economy was so bad that few wanted that back. For those who weren't around then Carter had about 17% inflation rate,interest rates were over 20%, and 9% unemployment. Compared to that, both Bush economies look good. Economists had to invent a new word for Carter's economy - stagflation. Stagnation + Inflation

The DLC is a little bit left of center, of course more to the right than the average poster here. They are definately to the left of W. And they have won 3 elections, although the DLC did take big defeats in 94 & 02.

Gore should have won in a landslide. The country was at peace and the economy was good. Normally the party in power stays in power under those conditions. And look, the DLC regained both houses of congress in 92, and gained seats in 00. Gore was simply a bad candidate.

The far left has yet to produce a national victory.

No, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Democrat who doesn't like losing, and a realist, and the record is quite clear - extremes lose unless there are very special circumstances. (Carter's presidency was such a special circumstance. Normally Reagan could not have won, and would have repeated Goldwater's defeat, but America wanted to fire Carter so badly they were willing to take anybody.) The DLC has produced winners.

My favorite is CLark. I think he can beat Bush.

I've been to their website a couple times and they have changed their website from a moderate website to a moderat to conservative website.

At least they don't deny they are conservatives.

However, they talk to us as if we have to listen to them unapoligetically. They don't represent my views.

They put up a post saying "Trade is Good". Screw that.

They are also always praising Liberman ALL THE TIME. However, it is about time the left took back the party.

Also, they mentioned Clark once, but it was nothing really to be concerned about.

One thing I also noticed is that they have no rural policy. They only go for the major population centers really.

"That argument is obvious and is meritorious enough to be considered true for practical purposes."

It's not obvious to me, despite your unsubstantited assertion that it is. In fact, what I've observed is that that argument is frequently used by some democrats as an excuse to justify their cozy relationships with coprorate donors.

There are of course exceptions. One could even argue that there are more exceptions among dems than republicans, but in my experience, Moore's characterization has been quite true enough for all practical purposes.

It's just a destructive over-simplification to imply any important similarity between Dems and Republicans when it comes to corporate corruption. We Dems really need to start "walking the razors edge" and understanding one another. We keep going off the deep end on either side.

I notice that Moore is now using things like parentheses when chiding the Dems on their cozy relationships with corporate donors (to use your phrase). Moore knows the score too, IMO.

I like Dems having cozy corporate relationships when it comes to keeping people employed, business in our state, etc. I don't like the kind of relationships that let corporations run roughshod over people, however. Would you argue with having a Dem Senator from your state arguing that a business in your state was unfairly shut out of some of the contracting business that Halliburton, for example, has bought from the corrupt Republicans (at pennies on your tax dollar)?

Dem "conservatives" (even Lieberman, whom I don't support, has lots of solid liberal viewpoints) are much closer to the true, reasonably good meaning of conservative. They are not the enemy. For practical purposes, if you needed to make a decision between one party and the other (and thanks to Bush, you do), the decision is obvious.

I can't say whether Moore was addressing corruption, as you put it, although the quote you provided seems to be more about the dems who are simply funded by corporations.

But, since you brought it up, no, I don't like Dems having cozy coprorate relationships. Let me give you a good real-world example of why, in my state, certain democratic state legislatures turned out to be no better than their republican counterparts with their cozy relationships.

A well-known company wanted to expand into my community. The benefit was to be jobs. Although two-thirds of the jobs were to be part-time, non-union, no-skill jobs, any jobs in an area that sorely needs them was seen as a plus. However, there were problems.

The new facility was going to impact thousands of families with noise, air and water pollution. Where these types of facilities have opened in the past, it is well-documented that thousands of people have had their lives disrupted. In our case, it is likely to be worse as the area around the facility is highly urbanized.

Additionally, the facility was to be built at the headwaters of our munipal water supply. It would require that 325 acres of wetlands and 3 miles of streams (again, all at the headwaters of our already strained water supply) be filled in or covered. The streams in question have already been classified as impaired because of pollution by the EPA. A study by the projects sponsors, no less, found that the project would add an additional 26% annual pollution to the remaining streams of our water supply.

No, those are the facts. So what did our dem legislators do? They lavished taxpayer money on the company to encourage them to locate in my community. In an attempt to spur economic deveopment in another part of the state, the legislator had previously spent $300M to build just such a facility. But the new tenant wanted to be in my community. The other boondogle still sits vastly under-utilized.

When the new tenant pointed out that the incentives package could be made more favorable to them, our state legislature stumpbled over themselves to be accomodating. Without a care at all for the environmental questions, they rushed to change the incentives legislation to remove minority purchasing requirements, to remove the wage standard so that part time jobs that pay below the average wage could be counted in the incetives calculation, and to remove the requirement that jobs provide health insurance.

Who was leading the way? Democratic legislators. The sponsor of the changes to the incentives law, it turns out, is married to a man who works for the company's lobbying firm. $40,000 dollars of her last campaign was funded by that firm. And in a clear violation of state law, a lobbyist for the company, from that firm, wrote the changes to the law.

Additionally, while campaign finance reports showed state lawmakers having received campaign contributions from these lobbyists, the lobbiests' financial reports showed year after year of ZERO expenditures. In fact, some of them just quit filinf financial reports all together even though it was clear from other records that they were making campaign contributions.

As I mentioned previously, I went to the capitol as changes to the incentives law were being considered. I spoke about the cozy relationship with the lobbying firm and the sponsor of the bill. I spoke about how the massive environmental consequences had been given no consideration. I spoke about how it was unconcionable that minority hiring and wage standards were to be stripped from the law. I spoke about how lobbyists had obviously been spending money on their efforts, yet their legally mandated records were a sham.

Ans what happened? The senators got all puffed up with righteous indignation at this uppity consituent who would dare question their good intentions. Instead of offering to look further into the lobbying shinanigans or the environmental consequences, they voted to pass the bill and $80M in taxpayer money went out the door to a highly profitable company. This from a dem controlled state legislature.

So, no, I don't think the average citizens benefit when dems have a cozy relationship with companies. I think it's corrupting influence and I think the citizens get shafted because of it.

I don't like it when Dems are in charge and have the clear conflicts of interest you describe. My point is primarily that the corrupt, bought-and-paid-for relationship Republicans have with corporations corrupts the whole process.

They have kicked out all of the stops, and the whole economic machine looks to me like it is starting to get out of control. Indeed, that's what they want, no control. A complete predatory free-for-all would suit them fine.

Most Dems, DLC or not, would disapprove of the conflict you describe. It's the sort of thing that would make a good newspaper story.

"Would you argue with having a Dem Senator from your state arguing that a business in your state was unfairly shut out of some of the contracting business that Halliburton, for example, has bought from the corrupt Republicans (at pennies on your tax dollar)?"

Aside form the fact that, implied in your scenario is the notion that there are repub corporations and dem corporations, I think that any fair-minded, independent thinking representative could argue for the home-state companies without having to be in their back pockets.

This critique is lame rationalization because at its essence it argues that Republicans forced Democrats to do it. Invoking "practicality" without explanation is a vague support designed to deflect rebuttals.

Calling it practical doesn't make it practical, and Democrats weren't (and shouldn't be) forced into doing anything by Republicans. That is implicit in the theory of a distinct political party.

The whole problem with a lot of good ideas is that they seem lame. It's a problem. Cognitive dissonance, etc.

But it's no rationalization, and it's not lame. It's true.

The "force" exerted by corporate interests on our politics cannot be ignored. It affects everyone, Republican and Dem alike. It is like gravity in one sense. It's pervasive, it exists, and it is a given. There is no deciding whether you like it or not. It is there.

The main reason corpo corruption is a given, IMO, is that Republicans have willingly let it become the factor it has become. They have perfected and legalized a quid pro quo scheme that simply distorts the entire political spectrum. Dems can't avoid it.

The only way out of the trap is for people to think their way out of it. That's where practicality comes in. You have to decide how to get out of the trap from among your available choices. You can't choose a means of escape that is not available.

Take the rock climber who cut off his own hand for example to save his own life. He was being practical. He could have decided to wait for a helicopter or the blue fairy. Then he would be dead right now.

That's part of my point. It is mainly a plea to think about what makes you uncomfortable about the DLC and try to "grok" it. The Republicans are to blame, really. That's my conclusion. Dump them. Eliminate the quid pro quo scam they have turned our government into and watch the DLC turn into a bunch of pussycats.

There is little question that Republicans are more poisonous, more slavishly devoted to mercantilism, more deeply in bed with corporations, and first to the trough.

It does not follow that Democrats needed to do the same. The trap of which you speak was not a naturalistic inevitability; it was a choice.

You make an effective argument for the DLC. I have been a strong proponent for DLC in the past but it appears especially since Bush has been president many DLC in Congress and Senate are moving farther right.

Examples: When the Enron scandal broke, The Dems had a perfect opening to go after Corporate Corruption. As soon as the Media said you take donations from Enron too. The Dems folded. A simple chart
illustrating how the Dems part is peanuts compared to GOP. and explaining this is our system and we cnnot unilaterally disarm.
Then hammer home the corruption business. They held a few symbolic hearings and could not wait to get them over with. By doing this the appearance is there--they are in the pocket of Corporations.

2. When PresidentClinton tried to institute SEC Reform which might have prevented the Enron, Worldcom type scandals, some DLCers joined GOP to override President Clinton. Pres. Clinton is a DLCer but he was willing to go against the Corporations when he felt they were in the wrong.

3, The last taxcut is another time. We all know that even the polls indicaed this taxcut was not popular--people did not want it.
Yet, when 4 Republicans defected from Bush Camp--guess what 3 DlCers hopped past the center and went far right and bvoted with Bush to pass it.

This not to bash it is to explain why people are conflicted re DLC.
There are times you should stick with the party line to promote a principle. They are appearing to lose sight of this. I could go on with examples but these thre on different topics shoulld make my point.