The DLC....don't fireball me please....

This is just a question - I'm not supporting the DLC nor am I criticizing it.

I'm wondering if those out there who are so adamantly against or for the DLC would mind sharing the reason why with me? I know some about the DLC but I honestly don't know enough about it to form my own opinion yet and that's where you would come in. I see a LOT of anti-DLC sentiment on DU and am just wondering what reasons people have for disliking it so much. I also see some, but not as much, support for it and am wondering why those people do support it.

If you're so inclined to help out with info, it will be greatly appreciated! Thanks!!!

The elitist, good ol-boy power mad populists....

www.dlc.org

For the record, I agree with some DLC policies -- you can't be liberal and disagree with everything they stand for; some of it's downright progressive.
But for the most part, I agree that the DLC takes the wrongheaded view that pulling to the right will mean success for Democrats -- particularly on economic and foreign policy issues.

That abandons everything the party has ever stood for.

Funny you didn't give the link to that website...

http://www.dlc.org/

So what's so condemning? Is it this?

"Democrats should steer a course between two extremes. On one side are those in such a rush to end the war that they don't recognize the grave consequences of an immediate withdrawal. That is the wrong course for America, and the wrong course for our party.
At the same time, Democrats should reject President Bush's habitual tendency to frame the Iraq question as a test of nerve. It is also a test of skill -- a test the administration has badly flunked."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253638

This?
"Rght now officials from around the world are meeting in Montreal for a new round of negotiations on common measures to address global climate change. Yet the world's largest economy and most powerful nation will be represented only by "observers," thanks to the Bush administration's go-it-alone attitude on this issue. You don't have to like the Kyoto Protocol signed by the Montreal attendees to understand America has to get involved in the broader effort towards addressing this challenge.
But there's growing pressure in Congress, even among Republicans, to get serious about climate change. A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate has now agreed that human-induced climate change is real and that "mandatorysteps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere." On June 22, 2005, the Senate went on Record for the first time in support of mandatory limits on greenhouse gases by a vote of 53-44. And just yesterday, a bipartisan group of 24 Senators urged the administration to get off the sidelines and back in the game on meaningful international efforts to curb emissions that are heating up the world's oceans and wreaking potential havoc with the planet's climate. "

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253644

How about this?
"For years, in its work around the nation, the Democratic Leadership Councilhas brought leaders together to help them share ideas and improve their communities. This Playbook is a prime example. We've gone straight to thebig challenges facing our nation and sought out the very best public policy solutions that are actually working to address those issues. They are transformative, fresh initiatives and bold reforms, proven and successful on the state and local levels. Think of this as a menu of field-tested policy innovations, pioneered by fellow New Democrats from around the country.
To use the Playbook, simply flip through the general issues tabs (Budget; Education; E-Government & E-Commerce; Environment, Energy, & Transportation; Health Care; Homeland Security & Crime; Politics; Social, Family, & Housing Policy and State Economic Development). In each section, you'll find individual "Plays" that include a description of a problem and a short summary of an innovative New Democrat-style solution. You'll also find links to further background material and contact information for people with expertise in the area, so you can ask for advice on how to make the policy idea work in your state or local community. And this entire Playbook is also available on the Web at DLC.org where you can view eachplay individually or download the entire book.
There are thousands of New Democrats in cities and towns across the nation, each with unique experiences and innovative ideas to solve problems. Please share them. To email us your comments, simply click"Contact Us" on the bottom of any DLC.org page. Your feedback will help us create a diverse and dynamic exchange of ideas."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250192&subid=900006&kaid=139

But for the opposite reason

Many interesting position papers...many with very good suggestions for how Democrats can frame their stands on issues. Particularly interesting are the sections on gun control policy.

They are trying to win by moving ever further right...and abandoning US, their natural base.

I'm sorry...I'm really not trying to be stupid, just trying to figure this all out. Thanks!!!

Hillary's whole stupid flag-burning bullshit. She's doing it to placate the right wingers.

And the DLC constantly keeps moving to the right on many, many issues, to placate the right-wingers, all the while abandoning US...their natural base...and ignoring the civil rights, liberties, worker rights, environmental issues that WE care about.

Basically, they are completely abandoning everything Democrats once stood for, in the attempt to "out-Reagan" Reagan.

when the Republicans trot out the flag burning amendment.

a bill very like this one passed in 1991 - only 4 Democrats voted against it - Bush Sr. wanted a constitutional amendment.

the bill was struck down by the Supreme Court. This one will be too.

it's smart politics, not appeasement.

Somebody gets it!

They want to stay in Iraq, for example.

They believe in the sort of neoliberal free trade policies that gave us NAFTA, the FTAA, the WTO, etc.

In that sense, the DLC stinks.

For the record, though, the DLC's Hyde Park Declaration (it's statement of what DLCers believe) is pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-civil liberties, etc.

Unfortunately, the DLC tends to ignore those domestic and social policy issues where they could be an ally to real progressives, in favor of harping about those issues where they agree with Republicans. The idea is to show that they can bridge the divide where others can't. Unfortunately, the DLC's positions often concede too much to those who do not agree with progressive ideals.

OK, I was thinking maybe something like that but didn't know. Their website for example sounds ok (haven't read the whole thing yet) so I figured there had to be something I was missing! Thank you for the info!!

I mean, it says right there on their Web site that they're for staying in Iraq "until the job is done" and that they're for "free" trade. They just put a positive spin on these things.

good on corporation issues. Very good.

On social issues, they'd really rather be rid of most of the Democratic base: women, minorities, gays, labor, the poor, strongly and adamantly liberal membes of the party, etc. The DLC speaks derisively of these groups as "special interest groups" or "identity groups" (a term that originated with Republicans) that drag the party down and they've made no bones about wanting to be rid of them.

When viewing their website, you have to be very careful and it helps to actually know something about social equality so you can determine what's so bad about their ideas. Not ALL their ideas, probably (tho I can't say I can recall any that thrilled me), but a good many.

As an example, I think the DLC favors class-based as opposed to race-based programs of aid and assistance. That would be a racist's heaven. It "disappears" the whole problem of racism, and if you can't notice racial disparities you won't talk about them, and you certainly can't address them.

But again, their actual positions are often very cleverly camouflaged so they "sound" reasonable if not downright really GOOD.

have to support the war, have to pander to corporate donors over citizen's needs in order to build a big enough warchest to win.

If they stopped there, I'd simply disagree with them, but still be glad to have them around.

but no, they don't stop there.

They PUBLICLY attack progressive democrats like Dean and others, calling them extreme leftists and attacking them with the exact same rhetoric the republicans use to do so.
That's strike number one. Its one thing for us on this board to criticize the DLC, its another to intentionally have press conferences and releases specifically to shoot down progressive dems in the national media.

Strike number two is that they aren't content to simply be right-leaning dems under the big tent: they insist on chiding, insulting and swiftboating progressive dems as fanatics, "hopelessly liberal", etc.

STrike three is that they are elitist, and even though they themselves admit they are in the minority in the democratic party, they set themselves up as kingmakers who get to choose the frontrunning candidates, all of which are "centrist" (their term, in actuality they are rightwing) or beholden to corporate interests.
They demand progressive dems abandon issues they care about, and become republican lite. They do this with various unsavory tactics:
1. They use implied extortion: "you'll never win any elections without us and our right leaning ways"
2. They accuse you of attacking them, after they just attacked you...very similar to republicans. In other words, they are free to call progressives "left leaning fringe extremists" and imply no one can take our issues seriously. But if you then point out you would not vote for someone who supports this illegal war, they accuse you of causing a division in the party.
3. When pressed, they never really ever say what THEIR platform is, just tell you yours wont' get anyone elected, and they are the only ones to guarantee election victory. But they don't really tell you how they intend to guarantee that. Oh, you'll get some blather about how a DLC candidate is better than a republican in the same seat, but in my opinion, if they talk like a republican and vote like a republican, its the same thing anyhow.

My experience is that the DLC spends a great deal of effort attempting to marginalize progressive dem's issues and pretend that the DLC is NOT a minority. They are apologists for wrong voting by lieberman and Clinton, and if you dare to question if their votes are a good way to go, they accuse you of being a traitor to the party and attempting to drive a wedge...which is just projection, because THEY are the ones trying to reshape the party into something it isn't.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that out - I really do appreciate it! And, it helps clarify things for me!!

but I stand by them.

And they have a habit of shoving THEIR candidate choice down our throats and then telling us we don't have a choice but to support that candidate.

I look at their info and they say they are against tax cuts for the rich, support health care for all, support science, etc. But, I hear a lot of people who support your sentiment that they are the opposite of a prog. dem. so I'm just honestly confused! :shrug:

Everytime something happens that makes us think that perhaps the Republicans will finally be caught up in the very filth they shit out, they manage to grasp the situation and turn the shit into honey for themselves and satisfaction for their supporters.

While reading an article entitled: Framing Katrina at www.rockridgeinstitute.com I gained insight into how the neocons and conservatives take the negative and turn it into the positive for themselves.

Here are the vital arguments that ALL Democrats need to arm themselves with.

Ask yourself why you don't hear these arguments coming back loud and strong from the DLC:

<snip>:

...progressives for the most part don’t understand deep framing -- framing at the level of values and principles. Progressives are trying to win but they are fighting on the wrong battlefield altogether. They are telling truths -- lots of them, of all kinds. A buckshot load of truths, mostly aimed at Bush.

Bush lacked leadership.

Bush was told in advance and didn’t respond in time.

Bush had sent the National Guard to Iraq when its ranks were needed at home.

Bush loaded the Federal Emergency Management Agency with incompetent political hacks like Michael Brown.

Bush took money from levee reconstruction and used it for the war and to render tax cuts.

Bush failed to preserve the wetlands that would have mitigated the storm surge, reversing Clinton policy.

Bush has refused to address global warming, which contributes to the frequency and severity of hurricanes.

These truths might temporarily tarnish the Bush administration, perhaps making his ratings go down a few points for a while. But without the power of deep frames to hold them together and back them up, these truths will disappear from the public debate and they will fail to advance the broader truth: that Katrina proves the failure of conservatism.

What have we learned that can help progressives frame the discussion going forward?

Government is not the problem. Conservative government is the problem. The Bush administration’s actions have only reinforced the need for smart government that protects the public good, not an anti-government ideology that puts private interests above common needs. Relentless budget cuts and misplaced policy priorities left vital government response capabilities uncoordinated, stripped of critical funding, and in the hands of political novices. These were the results of deliberate decisions by our nation’s conservative leaders following the failed principle that less government is always better. When America needed its officials to step up to the challenge of a massive disaster, conservative government let us down.

Conservatives claim to be the promoters of a strong defense, but ended up delivering only weakness and uncertainty. For years, conservatives have championed their supposed strength and resolve, but then withered in the face of a calamitous national event. They have failed to protect our nation and prepare it for adversity. Four years after 9-11, the nation’s Army is severely overstretched and under-recruited. The nation -- and our National Guard and Reserves who are supposed to help us here at home -- is bogged down in Iraq. Terrorist networks are growing across the globe. Chemical plants remain unguarded. And our newly created Department of Homeland Security can’t handle the aftermath of a hurricane. Even leading conservatives are voicing concerns about what would happen to our people if the nation were to suffer a biological or chemical attack in the current security environment. This is not what the country thinks of as a strong defense.

Taking care of the wealthy first does nothing to ensure shared sacrifice and mutual responsibility for America’s future. For the first time in history, a wartime president and his allies in Congress have sacrificed the nation's well-being to their ideology by asking nothing from those that have prospered so much from the collective work of all Americans. After cutting taxes for the wealthy after 9-11 and before the war in Iraq, conservatives now have the audacity to claim that Katrina should actually speed up the move to repeal the estate tax for millionaires. The culmination of 30 years of conservative dreams and proposals has produced little more than a destabilized economy racked by corruption and misplaced priorities that favor the needs of the few over the national interest.

To help Americans think about values, progressives must place these truths in the larger context. We must use them to demonstrate the strength of progressive philosophy compared with the failings of conservatism. We must communicate these truths as part of a positive, values-based vision of government and society, not just to prevent another Katrina tragedy but to stop the conservative juggernaut in its tracks and save our nation from the far greater disaster of conservatism itself.

What should progressives say?

The tragedy of Katrina was a matter of values and principles. The heart of progressive values is straightforward and clear: empathy (caring about and for people), responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy), and fairness (providing opportunities for all and a level playing field from which to start). These values translate into a simple proposition: The common wealth of all Americans should be used for the common good and betterment of all Americans. In short, promoting the common good so that we can all benefit -- and focusing on the public interest rather than narrow individual gain -- is the central role of government. These are not just progressive values. They are America’s values.

Katrina shines a light not only on the failure of conservative values but especially on their fundamentally un-American character. Since the days of the colonies, when the commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia were formed, Americans have pooled their common wealth for individual aspirations.

Today’s right-wing conservative values are just plain un-American in this context. This is a country where people pull together in the face of disaster. They don’t just tell one another to sink or swim. Sink-or-swim conservatism is not in the American tradition, or the American heart. Empathy, mutual responsibility, fairness, and community -- all progressive values -- are part of this heritage. As Katrina showed, Americans hold a deep sense of shared fate and want an effective government that represents these values, does its job, and serves the people valiantly. Americans want to act responsibly and contribute. Katrina proved it. Those are the central progressive values. Americans have them.

It is time for progressives at all levels -- from our political leaders and policy-makers to our public intellectuals to our activists to ordinary Americans who care about their country -- to articulate our values, fundamental American values, and repeat them proudly and consistently. The truth is that conservative values have failed America and are threatening the well-being of our nation.

America is, and has always been, a progressive country. We care. We act responsibly. We want a level playing field for all to succeed, and a sense of national community.

That is what makes us progressives.

These are the deep truths that need to be told starting now. There can be no delay. Conservatives from the administration to Congress to think tanks to FOX News are busy framing Katrina their way. Once it is framed, it is hard to reframe. Now is the time to speak out.

George Lakoff, the Goldman Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute and the author of Moral Politics and Don’t Think of an Elephant. John Halpin is a senior adviser at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

more at www.rockridgeinstitute.com

this was during the 2004 primaries - can't remember right now if it was just before or after "Super Tuesday" - where the issue of the war and Kerry's position was not clear - and we were asking not only for clarity, but for him to make a clear and difinitive stand on it, if he expected our support.

So Clinton issues this edict - and we were all supposed to just accept it or stay home and don't bother going to the polls.

But here's my overview: Their policies and positions on the issues are Pro-Corporate, anti-poor, minorities, women, small farmers... anti you and me. They feel and speak contempt for the Democratic Party's base (Left-leaning liberals), and because they support Corporate America, Corporate America supports them with LOTS of $$$$ (Clinton, Warner, Bayh are raking in huge $$$ now for 2008. It's all because the Corporate entities are making sure a DLC candidate wins the primaries, and the Republican trick of having the money to out-gun and out-spend all your opponents is what they want to see happen here) Because of this support, the Corporate interests will always come first with them. They are essentially a new form of Republican bent on taking over this Party.

But, don't take my word for it. Read their website. It will most likely surprise you, and it should make you scared and angry, too.

TC

I've just perused it so far and it looked ok, but I haven't gone in-depth yet, which is the important part! The proof is in the details, not the headlines. Thank you for your post!!

If this doesn't persuade you they're up to no good, perhaps nothing will:

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print

Doctor Dean made me better.

I don't see a helluva lot wrong with most of what I find on their website....nor do I see a lot that's right wing.

And I DO find most of the claims made by those seeking to demonize them either rooted in ignorance or deliberately mendacious.

For example, elsewhere there's a thread claiming that the DLC deliberately held an event on the same weekend in Aspen, Colorado that the DNC held its event in Phoenix in order to sabotage the party. The thread hints that the DLC is hiding the proceedings and demands that unless the group discloses "what it was up to" they be expelled from the party!

But the plain facts are:
The DLC event was always scheduled for that weekend. The DNC event was scheduled for September and had to be moved to the that weekend due to Hurricane Katrina.
The DLC event was a workshop for elected officials and candidates; the DNC event a meeting of grassroots organizers. There was no overlap in attendees or aims, beyond getting Demcrats elected in 2006.
Far from hiding the proceedings, the DLC has a press release about it on its website. Moreover, it routinely posts transcripts of their conference proceedings on its website for interested parties.

And by the way, the DLC bashers in that thread try absurdly to link the DLC to Judith Miller and Scooter Libby on the basis of the word "aspen"....

Yes, I saw that thread too and that's one of the ones that made me ask this question - I live in Phoenix and know that the DNC meeting was a last-minute reschedule, so it made me wonder why people hate the DLC so much that they'd automatically assume something sneaky or subversive. It just seems to be such a hot button topic that I had to wonder what made it so! I missed the link between the Aspen Institute and Judy & Scooter...that must make the AI so proud. Lordy.

Thank you for your posts - this has all been informative and helpful. I know I have more research to do myself but getting others' opinions too has been very insightful!! Who knows, maybe I'm just a conservative liberal (I think they do exist, don't they?)! LOL

...every Democratic loss since the '94 midterm elections, even though that has been completely debunked.

IMHO, the Dems didn't need any help with that - they did it so well on their own!

..the American people had grown tired of the status quo of the last 40 years or so that the Democrats held power up until 1994. It's been also shown that the DLC actually postponed the "Republican revolution" of 1994 by eight years or so.

http://www.liberalresurgent.com/dlcmyth1.html

I was thinking more of the Pres. elections in '00 and '04 - I really think we could have ran better races.

That's an interesting point - thanks for the link. I hadn't heard that before.

control of the national agenda.

so, please. Ronald Reagan and the democratic party boot lickers of RR was the status quo.

give me a fucking break with this bogus bs.

The Democrats had controlled the House for over 40 years and the Senate for most of that time.

So YOU give us all a fucking break and read some history books.

AND the SCOTUS, or the Justice Department, or the Pentagon.

you do your own gd homework.

..but just for the record.

Of the 60 years or so leading up to 1994, the Democrats controlled the White House half the time, meaning the Justice Dept was also in the hand of the Democrats, and the US Supreme Court was thought to be pretty liberal until the Reagan/Bush appointeed. But, of course, the Justice Dept. and the Supreme Court are not elected, and since the topic was voting out the status quo, the two entities are not even relevent.

See? You're wrong again. Perhaps you should quit relying on what you HOPE is true and actually learn something.

stands for "Republican"

From the Wikipedia entry on the DLC:

"It is the opinion of the DLC that left-wing positions are not politically viable, citing the defeated Presidential campaigns of Senator George McGovern in 1972 and Vice-President Walter Mondale in 1984. The DLC claims that it “seeks to define and galvanize popular support for a new public philosophy built on progressive ideals, mainstream values, and innovative, non-bureaucratic, market-based solutions.”

In terms of concrete policies, the DLC's centrism is illustrated by the Welfare Reform Act, President Clinton's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the creation of AmeriCorps. Currently, the DLC supports expanded health insurance via tax credits for the uninsured and opposes plans for single-payer universal health care. The DLC would like to address the education crisis with universal access to preschool, charter schools, and school choice (but not school vouchers), and supports the No Child Left Behind Act. The DLC supports both NAFTA and CAFTA."

-snip-

"The DLC also gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. Despite the DLC's centrist pretences, the organization spared no criticism of anti-war voices. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal, because of his anti-war stance. The DLC has dismissed other war critics such as filmmaker Michael Moore as "Anti-American" and members of the "loony left"<1>. Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

-snip-

"...critics believe the DLC has essentially become an influential corporate and right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Among the DLC's leadership are individuals with impressive right-of-center credentials, such as Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the DLC and the former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and Will Marshall, a cosigner of a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) endorsing not only the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, but also a foreign policy that has much in common with the neoconservative world-view. Finally, progressive detractors of the DLC note that the DLC receives funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation as well as from corporate oil giants, military contractors, and a large number of Fortune 500 companies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council


From 'Republicans' Favorite Democrats' by Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect,' July 2002:

"...take the DLC on trade. Senate Democrats, long a pushover for the corporate version of free trade, recently showed some moxie by passing the Dayton-Craig amendment, making any trade deal that guts antidumping protections subject to floor amendment. The Democrats' skepticism about Bush's plan to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the entire continent was deepened by abominations such as NAFTA's Chapter 11, which allows corporations to challenge states' health, safety, and environmental regulations as inconsistent with free commerce.

The DLC was outraged. The New Democrats want their Republican president to have an absolutely free hand to negotiate this pro-corporate hemispheric trade deal. Said the DLC statement of the Dayton-Craig amendment: "It is critical that this 'gutting' provision be dropped in the House-Senate conference committee."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html


"Regarding foreign policy, the DLC proposes a “third way­between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left.” The DLC labels its stance on foreign policy “progressive internationalism,” which it defines as “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” Following this logic, the group proclaims: “We therefore support the bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values. The way to keep America safe and strong is not to impose our will on others or pursue a narrow, selfish nationalism that betrays our best values, but to lead the world toward political and economic freedom.” When the DLC gets to the specifics of foreign policy, such as supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there seems to be little separating its progressive internationalism from the “neo-imperial” foreign policy of the Bush administration and its neoconservative advisers."
(several linked articles at this site page.)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php

Very interesting reading. Very!

I've got some good homework here to do, which I appreciate! Thank you for taking the time to post it!!!!

It's not ilke they're particularly shy about putting stuff up on their website....

And FYI, wikipedia is worthless as a reference for anything.

You'd already provided links and samples from the DLC site to this thread, so I didn't have to!

I might add that it was very thoughtful of you to do so, and most appreciated!

If I may differ on Wikipedia -- THAT depends on whether the info posted in a Wikipedia entry is true or not! Now, if it isn't true that, say, Mr. Wittmann was previously associated with the Christian Coalition, you be sure and let us know, right here on this thread!

intead of seeing for yourself. Ho-kay.

And wikipedia is worthless as a reference source because any bozo can put in a "fact".

"The site is a wiki, which means that anyone can edit entries simply by clicking on the edit this page link."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

"Mr. Wittmann was previously associated with the Christian Coalition"
So was David Brock. What does that say to you about his website, Media Matters?

http://mediamatters.org/

"Facts are MEANINGLESS - they can be used to prove ANYTHING!" - Homer Simpson.

Sure -- We should ONLY consult DLC press releases to find out what the DLC is up to.

PLEASE go ahead and demonstrate that all that info in the Wikipedia entry is false, Mr. B. Take your time, I'm patient.

If it seems to you that a "reference work" that any dimwit can edit is reliable, I sure as hell wouldn't want to waste time trying to change your mind.

wish you had any.

Only dimwits with computer access

I love people who switch sides (well, as long as they switch to our side - we don't need Zell Millers). Isn't that what we all want really - wouldn't it be great to make them "see the light" so to speak? But, if he hasn't changed his ideas, then that's another story.

That's the first question to be resolved.

I like people who change sides, too. I like David Brock a whole lot. I think the 'Media Matters for America' site is one of the best resources Democrats have today, to keep abreast of all the lies and weaseling spewed up by the corporate propaganda industry which we call the 'MSM.' I'll glad he's on our side.

I like Arianna Huffington a lot too. And Kevin Phillips, though he hasn't become a Democrat, he's just ceased to be a Republican, and now devotes his talents to telling the truth about the destructive course this country is on.

Looking at these people provides an important lesson -- it really does. We should hope for more conversions, rather than condemning everybody on the other side. Some people deserve condemnation, but when there's a glimmer of conscience, there's hope.

I wish that Lee Atwater himself had lived to come over to our side, because the actions he took when he learned that he was terminally ill, apologizing for much of what he'd engaged in as a Republican operative, show that he knew in his heart that he was doing something very wrong. Besides, he had good taste in music (James Brown, Stax Records, Southern soul in general).

David Brock wrote a book about his conversion away from rightwing politics and the tactics of the Republicans and the corporate propaganda industry, titled 'Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative' (2002). Though he was never an official of the Christian Coalition like Mr. Wittmann of the DLC, as Mr. B. wrongly alleges above, he worked for the sleazy rightwing 'American Spectator' magazine, and engaged in smear campaigns at the side of the likes of R. Emmett Tyrell, Ted Olsen, and John Podhoretz. His book, as you may know, details the workings of the anti-Clinton movement which not only pitched smears, but participated in the organized effort to topple him from office through the Lewinsky scandal and the phony Whitewater investigation.

Mr. Wittmann, to my knowledge, has not written a similar book, or made public statements of regret concerning his association with the Christian Coalition -- so it's not clear that he's a 'convert' to another view at all. It could be that he sees no conflict between the philosophies of the two groups -- just as DLC honcho Wil Marshall, in his case very clearly, does not see a conflict between his association with PNAC and with the DLC, since he engaged in both at the same time, and because his missives which come to us through the DLC display the very same ideological bent - though in his work with the DLC he uses the term "PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONALISM" rather than "NEO-CONSERVATISM."

It's clear, in fact, that the two terms mean precisely the same thing.

Or, I should say if the DLC is what I was hoping it would be there would be a conflict. If there's no conflict then that tells me a lot about the DLC. Does that make sense??

I need to look a little bit into Wittmann. If he hasn't "changed teams" then that's an issue for me right there!

Nice post!!!

"Mr. Wittmann, to my knowledge, has not written a similar book, or made public statements of regret concerning his association with the Christian Coalition"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252914

"DLC honcho Wil Marshall, in his case very clearly, does not see a conflict between his association with PNAC and with the DLC, since he engaged in both at the same time"
Really? Let's see some back-up for that.

""PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONALISM" rather than "NEO-CONSERVATISM."
It's clear, in fact, that the two terms mean precisely the same thing."

Not clear to me.

..or, more precisely, "Wilsonian liberal internationalism."

I would suggest before the McGovernites on DU attempt any further history lessons, they read up on the real history of the Democratic Party and see just how DLC-like is has been since Woodrow Wilson.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0842023941/qid=1134000644/sr=8-7/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i7_xgl14/002-5189748-5071218?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375507426/qid=1134000775/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-5189748-5071218?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/070061009X/qid=1134001024/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5189748-5071218?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Just started reading it myself. Should be required reading for all Dems.

Have bookmarked the other two to pick them up - thanks!

They don't want to hear any ideas that are centrist, and they don't want to compromise in the slightest. Then they wail aloud that nobody listens to them for some reason...and invent silly conspiracy theories to explain their own ineffectiveness.

And for the record, many on the left openly express contempt and hatred for America and Americans; and for my money, that does a lot more damage to the Democrats than anything the DLC does.

I agree - radical thinking/kool-aid drinking on either side doesn't help. And, it doesn't represent the majority and that's a key in a democracy. That's why I wanted to find out some facts and see what other directions I might be pointed in - first, to make up my own mind about the DLC and secondly, to make sure it's not an overdose of kool-aid (either to support or criticize the DLC).

I don't agree with the DLC on every issue and think they could sometimes make points a lot more forcefully....but they're far from the spawn of Satan.

MrBenchley argues for traditional conservatism (without being upfront and honest about it) because now that "center" has been shifted squarely in the center of traditional Republican conservatism, forcing the Republican electorate to now be dominated by the extremists - evangelicals and extreme libertarians.

that is where the DLC is -on foreign policy positions, on domestic policy positions - meshed against traditional conservatism it is nearly identitical.

just put things in it's appropriate perspective, will you please?

get out of the way.

It's telling that you both have to misrepresent my position and the DLC's position, and imply I'm being dishonest.

"just put things in it's appropriate perspective,"
Happy to. You have no idea where the center is, and no idea how to reach it...and since you can only speak to the extreme left and want to insist that everybody else does too, you're a detriment to the Democratic party.

again, please be specific.

You reject the center yourself....so if you want to cast doubt that you appeal to the left, dont let me stop you.

credibility here, mr.

in the "Middle" of the "Traditional Republican Party" sphere of politics.

this has been very well articulated and illustrated over and over again on this forum in terms of domestic and foreign policies. The policies are what matter, (not the rhetoric). Those policies bare little resemblance to FDR/LBJ domestic objectives and certainly does not advance the cause of anti-imperialistic foreign policy objectives.

You MrBenchley are certainly aware of these articles, a plethora have been posted here over several months, but apparently it's a bit too inconvenient to your agenda?

Instead of arguing on the princples or points you might disagree with and discussing those,(policy issues) you go straight to the Al From play book - throw around remarks like "extremists" or "fraud" etc, and that's it.

It's a waste of my time, so you Mr B will have to have the last say, as you insist.

You wanted an excuse to give a speech....and now you're pouting because I won't play along.

"throw around remarks like "extremists" or "fraud""
Can't think of a better word than "fraud" to describe the claims you made elsewhere about the DLC conference.

It's the hubris. A political action committee is attempting to co-opt the Dem leadership, or at least to undermine it. They demonize progressives calling them "extremists". They do absolutely nothing constructive. Theirs is a rhetoric of division, not cohesion.

Note that I have no problems with people in the Dem party expousing any particular political view. Dems are welcome to be pro-Iraq war (Clinton, Lieberman, Schumer). Dems are welcome to be anti-choice. I don't have to support them, but I fully recognize that the Dem tent must be a large one for us to win. It's always been that way and it likely will always be that way. Dems of different beliefs and political ideology have always been welcome. I'd fight hard to maintain that welcome.

But when a PAC comes into existance whose sole purpose seems to be the ideological purification of the party I have to draw the line. Just as I would not have the Dem party be a purely liberal party I would not have it be a purely conservative party. Anyway, we already have a conservative party, the Repugs. If the DLC PAC wants ideological purity they can go ahead and join with the Repugs. Then, they will have everything they seemingly want.

Thank you!

but they've not changed with the times, they've not learned from experience and they've lost their ability to come up with new or innovative ideas, most likely due to corporate control. The worst part is that, instead of learning from experience and accepting the failure of their political strategies, they just attack Dems and try to block any progress or innovation from others.

...bent on destroying liberalism, like the Cato Institute and think tanks supported by the likes of the Koch brothers.

To take large sums of money from the very people bent on destroying the party you're allegedly aligned with is, at best, woefully short-sighted, and at worst a collaboration.

There was a great piece called "How the DLC does it" in, I think, the American Prospect, that lays this all out. It'll probably be linked to this thread, but if not, Google can find it fast. I think the author was Dreyfuss?

I'll look for the article. Thank you!

that the CATO Institute funds the DLC. I've never seen CATO do anything but suck up money so it can produce right wing propaganda.

Here's the piece you're referring to, and it points out only that the DLC got dough from the Koch's....

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Thanks for the link. And if I do find something on CATO, I'll let you know!

that the DLC has managed to wangle some bucks away from Cato from one of their sugar daddies.

...is often isn't based on fact, and when it is the person who is talking about it can never really explain why the problem they have with the DLC is really any different that what other Democrats do.

I recall a thread in particular (and I have it bookmarked) where the poster was condemning DLC members for taking money from this and that corporation. Then it was pointed out that non-DLC, more progressive Dems were also taking money from this and that corporation.

It really should break down to this: Issue by issue, is what the DLC does any different than what other Dems have always done.

I don't see facts here most of the time and I wanted to know what they were. If they are out there, then I want to know them so I can see what the DLC is all about. And, if there isn't anything to back up the rhetoric, then that says a lot to me as well. I see a lot of unsubstantiated claims on DU on hot button topics like the DLC - I'd read through the threads to try to learn something and come up with very little. That's why I finally just posted this thread - I figure some may think I'm "slow" because I don't know enough about the DLC, but so be it. I just want to learn about it, good and bad!

"I recall a thread in particular (and I have it bookmarked) where the poster was condemning DLC members for taking money from this and that corporation. Then it was pointed out that non-DLC, more progressive Dems were also taking money from this and that corporation."

Since you claim to be such a stickler for facts, you should made a point of presenting facts in your own posts. If you're going to refer to such an instance as you describe above, you should state what "more progressive Dems" were mentioned and who "this and that corporation" is.

It's interesting, though, that you use the word "progressive" to describe "non-DLC" Democrats. The DLC has tried to appropriate the word "progressive" to describe their own reactionary, corporatist, imperialist, Republicanizing agenda. Of course, informed Democrats know better. So, congratulations.

Interesting you would try to make a play on words, too.

My mistake was trying to be polite and using the term "more progressive" and not "leftwing."

By the way, it is the leftwing who are the reactionary - take your reply here as an example.

And, I didn't say or imply that the same corporations were donating money to both the DLC and "leftwing reactionary McGovernite whiney" types. But they are.

But you want to see the thread?

Here ya' go!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1481121

Several points in it:

Barbara Boxer's and Russ Fiengold's donors are interesting, as are Howard Dean's, who took money from Murdock's Newscorp.

But if you really want to get into the "meat" of this conflict, take me up on the challenge I give to all anti-DLCers, based on their own arguments:

1. Point out how the policies backed by the DLC are different than those of pre-McGovern Democrats. Give examples.

2. Point out how the DLC is "guilty" of anything the more leftwing of the party isn't guilty of. First, you must show from a historical perspective that what you think the DLC is doing is, indeed, wrong, (or in conflict with "traditional Democratic values") and that non-DLC Democrats (past and present) have never done it.

Be specific. I've done my research so I'll give you time to sort this all out.

everyone.

No one is fighting. For that alone I'm compelled to vote it for greatest. But that's not the only reason, It's also got some good info.

I think you set and moderated the tone very well, AZBlue. :thumbsup:

And, thank you to everyone who posted!! I really do appreciate all the input and info - I gots me some homework to do!

I talked to the aides of two New Democrats today about their saying Howard Dean did not speak for them. I asked them what part of what he said did they not agree with. I also called a candidate for office to ask the same. One had a lot taken out of context, but it turns out he did say he did not agree with Dean...he believed that we had to win. I told the campaign person we couldn't. She said she was torn.

Two of them won't answer to anyone on the topic, even constituents. The congressperson will back to constituents later with some kind of answer.

Very simple question...what part do you disagree with?

Guess what Harold Ford said on Ed Schultz apparently. A friend just emailed me this quote as they know I don't listen.

He apparently said:
"He's wrong. Governor Chairman Dean has a right to his opinion. I have a right to distance myself from him."

I wish some one would ask him what part of what Dean said does he disagree with? They will not answer. They will not. The war was pushed by the DLC, and they are not about to let us leave.

That is my gripe, they are not rooted in reality.

From the context., I would guerss you are talking about Howard Dean's incredibly inept statement in San Antonio. My guess is that most Democrats would not want to talk about it and prefer to pretend it never happened.

"Very simple question...what part do you disagree with? "
Can't speak for either Democrat you called...but by saying that the war cannot be won, Dean's also saying Democrats have no plan to win the war. And if we announce do not have an answer, why would we expect anyone to vote for us?

It's an incredibly clumsy and idiotic statement, especially coming in a week when Clark wrote what I think is a pretty good op/ed outlining a way out of the mess.

Copnsidering Dean's own spokespeople are doing damage control today, I doubt that any democrat avoiding the issue is any sort of sinister ocnspiracy.

"The war was pushed by the DLC"
Not so.

"and they are not about to let us leave"
Even John Murtha doesn't believe we should "cut and run."

In fact many here are damning him for wanting the troops there two years.

The "cut and run" was related to what YOU said, not what Dean said. That's why I carefullly pasted what you said before my response.

So how is Dean's two years "letting us leave" in a way that the DLC is not?

And all the little New Dems are saying "he doesn't speak for me" "he speaks for himself" "I will distance from him."

They are still pretending we can stay there and win. It is a lie. The New Dems on the whole, barring my Bob Graham...wanted this war in the worst way and they got it that way.

Some are owning up to it, some are not. They will have to live with their consciences, because more and more people are becoming very angry.

I would rather see a man tell the truth and get hammered than to see one like Ford or Tauscher running from it....without even knowing what he said. They are acting cowardly.

"And all the little New Dems are saying "he doesn't speak for me" "he speaks for himself" "I will distance from him.""
Hell, everybody who's smart is doing that....Dean's own spokesperson put out a damage control statement saying how we can win.....

"Responding to Mehlman's broadside, Dean spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Republicans were "cherry-picking" Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."
"We can only win if the Iraqi people are able to play a greater role in peacekeeping, and we can only win if the president gives an honest assessment of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq," Finney said. "Staying the course and paying for good headlines are not a strategy. It's merely a bad excuse for not having a plan.""

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/

"They are still pretending we can stay there and win. It is a lie."
Wes Clark put out an excellent op/ed earlier this week outlining a plan for success that certianly can be characterized as a win. Are you saying HE is lying?

And by the way, if we cannot win, why bother to stay there two years? Do you think Dean just wants two more years of casualties for nothing?

http://securingamerica.com/articles/wapo/2005-08-26

"Ford or Tauscher running from it....without even knowing what he said."
Now how do you know they don't know what he said?

"They are acting cowardly."
Actually I suspect they're just being polite and loyal to the Democratic party, rather than say publicly that Dean sounds like a goddamn idiot AGAIN.

Then I know there is more at stake than just out to get that crazy Dean..

I think that those who are pretending we are going to win anything at all are being lying and deceitful.

There is nothing to win, there will be no victory.

We got sold out, and most of the ones who did it won't own up to it.

I think that there is a great fear that Dean's speaking out and starting folks talking...will backfire. BUT it won't backfire on him, it will backfire on those who are forgetting who took them to the party. When a group has done real harm to our country, and they continue to lie and spin...they need to be called out.

You can make fun of us, make fun of Howard Dean, call him whatever...talk down to everyone here. It just does not matter anymore, Benchley. People are awakening to the truth.

The New Dems are deliberately attacking him and deliberately twisting what he said...you are doing the same thing over and over and getting the same result. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You are not winning hearts and minds because you not saying real things.

"I think that those who are pretending we are going to win anything at all are being lying and deceitful. "
So you think Clark is being lying and deceitful. Okay.

"There is nothing to win, there will be no victory."
So why bother to stay for two more years? Why bother to vote for the Democrats? Seriously, when somebody says "why should I vote for the Democrats" do you reply, "we have no answers. It's hopeless"?

"When a group has done real harm to our country, and they continue to lie and spin..."
Geeze, that IS rich coming from the person who deliberately misrepresented the DLC conference earlier in order to allege a phony conspiracy theory.

"The New Dems are deliberately attacking him and deliberately twisting what he said..."
Jeeze, before you were complaining that they said "Dean does not speak for me" and would not explain that to you...but now you're claiming they attacked him and twisted what he said.

Nearby as Dean suggested and Murtha said. We have created danger for all of Europe and the Middle East by our actions. We have murdered and maimed and destroyed...even their antiquities there in the cradle of civilization. Only in years to come will we really know just what horrible things we have done.

There is nothing to win, and everything to lose. We have to get out the best way we can with the least harm.

I have not read Clark's plan you mention, but there is nothing to win. I don't know why you brought him into the conversation. What I am saying has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with why they want Howard to shut and sit down and quit rocking the boat.

I just read an article at the Aspen Institute where Lieberman said he did not want anymore looking into things that went on in 2003. Why the hell not, Joe?

Benchley, when a person is making an argument based on nothing at all, it shows. When conscience and regard for truth are the basis, it shows as well.

and yet you want to pass judgement on it and tell us what's wrong with it.

Just as you wanted to pretend there was some sinister conspiracy behind the DLC's conference, although that turned out to be a lie.

Just as you demanded the DLC should be expelled for hiding what goes on at their gatherings, although transcripts are on their website.

"I just read an article at the Aspen Institute where Lieberman said he did not want anymore looking into things that went on in 2003. Why the hell not, Joe? "
Wonder why you couldn't provide a link to that article? Was it because if you did, and anyone were to click on it, they would find Joe explaining "why the hell not" in plain language?

""I don't want to see us digging around anymore for who did what in 2003," said Lieberman, stating that continued partisan finger pointing is damaging the public support that is needed to complete the efforts in Iraq and finally bring US troops home."

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.1184451/k.7247/Senators_John_Warner_and_Joe_Lieberman_Call_for_Bipartisan_US_Foreign_Policy.htm

"Benchley, when a person is making an argument based on nothing at all, it shows."
Wow. Does it EVER.

You are bringing in so many things to the argument that you are losing track of the fact that the war is a lie, and we are not winning.

without reading it....

.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

The New Democrats, who helped bring about this shift, have surged in power and influence. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), have blossomed into a $7-million-a-year operation. The New Democrat Network (NDN), which provides funds to dozens of certified co-thinkers in federal, state, and local races, raised nearly $6 million last year. Twenty U.S. senators and 70 members of the House of Representatives have formally affiliated themselves with New Democrat caucuses, and hundreds of state and local elected officials are signing on. The three men who've dominated the last three presidential tickets, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Lieberman, the DLC's most recent chairman, are all quintessential New Democrats. So are many of the party's rising stars, such as Senator John Edwards of North Carolina; Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, the DLC's new chairman; and Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Though the DLC offers a nominal $50 membership to anyone interested, its mass base is minuscule. "There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman. And with a nonexistent grass-roots presence, the DLC is generally unknown except to practitioners of "inside baseball" politics. Yet the affiliation of scores of members of Congress has enabled the DLC to establish alliances with Fortune 500 corporate supporters, particularly along the so-called K Street corridor of Washington-based lobbyists and in high-tech enclaves such as California's Silicon Valley.

Once, the Reverend Jesse Jackson disparaged the DLC as "Democrats for the Leisure Class." But no one should underestimate the DLC's role in remaking the Democratic Party. Disciplined and single-minded, working tirelessly to forge alliances between individual Democratic elected officials and business groups, zealously promoting the political fortunes of their stars, and publishing a dizzying array of white papers and policy proposals, the DLC has given strategic coherence to what otherwise would have remained an inchoate tendency within the party. It has become a forum within which like-minded pro-business Democrats can share ideas, endorse one another, and commiserate about the persistence of the Old Guard. "We're a party that's going through a transition from one ideology to another," says NDN's Rosenberg. "It was 40 years between the creation of the National Review and Newt Gingrich's takeover of Congress in 1994. We're only 16 years into this. Are we challenging old ways and leaders who've been around for a while? Are we being contentious? Yes."

Of course, it is easier to be contentious when you are well financed. And the DLC message of pro-market moderation is just what organized business wants to hear. From its modest beginnings--with a start-up budget of just $400,000 in its first year, cobbled together at fundraisers starring Robb, former President Jimmy Carter, and K Street Democratic eminence Bob Strauss--the DLC patiently cultivated wealthy individuals and corporate backers. By 1990 the combined DLC-PPI operation boasted revenues of $2.2 million, a big chunk of which came from a single source, New York hedge fund operator Michael Steinhardt, who pledged $500,000 a year for three years. (Steinhardt, whose actual donations came to half that in the end, was named chairman of the newly formed PPI's board of trustees, before falling out with the DLC in the mid-1990s.)

One by one, Fortune 500 corporate backers saw the DLC as a good investment. By 1990 major firms like AT&T and Philip Morris were important donors. Indeed, according to Reinventing Democrats, Kenneth S. Baer's history of the DLC, Al From used the organization's fundraising prowess as blandishment to attract an ambitious young Arkansas governor to replace Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia as DLC chairman. Drawing heavily on internal memos written by From, Bruce Reed, and other DLCers, Baer says that the DLC offered Clinton not only a national platform for his presidential aspirations but "entree into the Washington and New York fundraising communities." Early in the 1992 primaries, writes Baer, "financially, Clinton's key Wall Street support was almost exclusively DLC-based," especially at firms like New York's Goldman, Sachs.

much more...

Think about the Democrats who are for the war still. They are now saying Dean does not speak for them...again. Most of them are New Dems. They mostly support the war. I would like to know why, but I get no answers...not from my Bill Nelson..not from our Jim Davis who is running for Governor.

I will bet if you asked Harold Ford face to face about the war...you would get the answer we have to win.

Well, we can't win. So ding ding ding...wrong answers.

How is a person defined as "for the war?" If they don't support immediate and complete withdrawal of all troops?

I'm curious because I'd probably be defined as "for the war" then. I think this invasion - it's not really a war, so let's call it what it is - is just so wrong. I think those who planned it should be brought up on war crimes. However, I don't think we should just leave tomorrow. We created this hell for the Iraqis and we have a responsibility to end it. I want an international combination of forces there to re-establish their electricity, food, water, gas, etc. I want this group to figure out what the Iraqis really want and let them have it - if it's democracy, theocracy, dictatorship, if that's what they really want, it's their call in my opinion. (Who says this country should even stay together as one? It was created arbitrarily by the British, not by the Iraqi people, so maybe it should break up. I digress.) I don't want another single American or Iraqi killed over there. I'm not sure how to get this all done since I have no power and no one listens to me, but there's got to be a way. So, long story short, if I don't support leaving tomorrow, am I "for the war?" I'm just curious.

In fact he says keep some troops nearby, gradual withdrawal..just get the Reserves and Guards out now.

I define being for it as wanting it to keep on to "win." Whatever "win" is.

We can't win...we have lost already.

It's a fix-the-mess situation. I mean, who would they define as the enemy? Supposedly the enemy was Saddam, but he's in jail. Terrorists? Well, yes, they are bad. Then again, we created the Iraqi terrorists after we got there, so they can't be the enemy we went in to defeat. Yeah, win's not really a word that should be used in reference to Iraq.

Thanks for the clarification!

Your toilet breaks, and you can't fix it. You're standing in the gushing water, you call neighborhood plumber Howard Dean, and he announces "The toilet can't be fixed."

Is that an answer? Are you likely to hire him?

No, we cannot win militarily, although there is still a window where are military presence there can put pressure on the newly elected government to be more inclusive of the Sunnis and their interests.

No, there will be no "complete victory" in Iraq. There is still a chance for something short of a complete loss, though. Calling it doing what we can (as long as the newly elected government doesn't ask us to leave) to make the best of a bad situation, mitigating our losses, whatever. There are still better options than full-scale withdrawl at present.

Most importantly, there are bigger issues that stretch beyond the borders of Iraq. Iran, currently ruled by a fanatic seeking nuclear weapons, would like nothing better than to spread influence even more deeply into Iraq and dominate the Middle East. There are a myriad of issues to take into consideration, and there are no easy answers.

If you are wanting to the get the feel, let's use Simon Rosenberg's own words on why they were founded. From 2002:



From the same article, this section points outhow they are not part of the Democratic Party was it was, that they did not intend to be. Note they are privately funded, and operating outside the party with no official sanction. They were going to rescue the Democrats from being who we are.



http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Thank you for posting this, it just about says it all.

It's all about being ideologically pure.

Let's all start thinking in terms of productivity and winning, and lose our souls.

Or a teenager. Or something. Fie!

;-)

They don't offer anything. Their whole existence is dependant on attacking other Dems for not being Republican enough.

DLC = Vote for us and shut your fucking face.

I just visited their website for the first time this evening (so don't accuse me of being "DLC!"), and read their Iraq commentary. I think they are mostly on the right track, although Clark does a better job with the specifics of how to make the best of a bad situation.

O.K...flame away.

It seems like a sensible approach.

Also the DLC seems to forget that Bush has a different standard for victory than the Democrats. First, he wants a PERMANENT US presence in Iraq for the forseeable future. Permanent bases are already being built for that purpose. Second, this isn't a "Post-Conflict" Iraq, it is an Iraq that is already in conflict, and will be in conflict for the forseeable future. I see no change in this in 2006, 2007, or 2010 until US troops leave. Also, I find the idea of our troops leaving with honor to be laughable at best. We have no honor, not even enough to gut ourselves, the United States isn't even in a position to demand Human Rights anymore. There is no good to come of this war, none, and nothing the United States will do will change that.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253638

DINO policies.

Al From sucks. DLC sucks. Hillary sucks, Bill Sucks, Lieberman sucks, Donna Brazille sucks.

If you want to know why the Democratic Party can't respond adequately to any challenge that the Conservatives throw down, just look to the DLC. They kill any effective response to the Republicans and they work diligently to make sure that few, if any Democrats are elected to office.

This is because the entire leadership of the DLC is owned by the neocons.

Read two pieces, in response to David Sirota's piece "Debunking Centrism," that shows how the left exaggerates and fabricates in their little war on the DLC:

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html

http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html

to spend a lot of time bitch-slapping folks that are supposed to be on my side. The DLC started centrist-progressive when Bill Clinton was large and in charge at the beginning, but now they're centrist-fascist and they'd rather make nice with BushCo than fight the bastards.

Not to worry your AZBlue mind, though. Their power was once perceived to be funding, but they are finding out the grassroots/internets folk collectively pack a punch when it comes to funding. In my view, they are just full of hot air and I don't pay much attention to them. Although they tend to make some DUers seize up pretty good from time to time.

"Although they tend to make some DUers seize up pretty good from time to time." Boy, don't they though!!

Thanks!!!