Is the DLC desperate or just stupid?

I've been thinking about this a lot today. I've read different disperate articles in the past two days from different web sites/sources (about different things) which all have one thing in common. The Washington Democrats (especially the DLC) seem to be on the offense about the war, the blogs and some of our more popular leaders (specifically Dean, Pelosi, Murtha and even Kerry).

Here are but a few examples:

- The Washington Post article, out yesterday, which blasted Dean on his comments regarding the winnability of the war. This one is clearly DLC inspired. I would not be at all surprised if they planted the story themselves. There have been a number of articles since January questioning Deans leadership at the DNC - published always in the Washington Post or in the Wall Street Journal - usually with the tag line: "Some Democrats disapprove of Dean's performance" or a variation of that. The "some" Democrats in question are always DC insider "strategists" or direct members of the DLC.

- The article, planted by the Democratic Whip in the House (also a DLCer), bragging about his availability to DC lobbyists, and his alleged success at securing a few donations.

- That same Democratic Whip (I forget his name off the top of my head) coming out so rapidly and forcefully to repudiate our own leader, Nancy Pelosi, when she called for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq.

- Joe Lieberman's rant early this week about how we should not "criticize Bush."

- The article, published last week by the DLC, written by that guy who used to be a Republican strategist and leader of the Christian Coalition, essentially saying that Democrats will always be viewed as "weak" on defense issues unless we support the war.

- And now, at the Drudge Report, there's this story about how the GOP are about to unleash a massive attack ad blitz charging Democrats with "raising the white flag" over Iraq. In the story, Drudge quotes a Democratic DC "strategist" who says, that "Dean, Kerry and Pelosi" have no one to blame but themselves for "pandering to the anti-war faction within the party."

And on... and on... and on...

It seems to be that there is a concentrated effort on the part on the part of the DC "insiders" to undermine those who oppose the war. In an article earlier this week, David Sirota speculated that the Democratic Whip was actually vying to oust Nancy Pelosi from her position as Democratic House Leader. Mary Matalin, wife of James Carville, was on "The Situation Room" today saying that she was confident that Dean would not last until the 2006 midterm elections.

So what's going on here? I remember around Labor Day, when Daily Kos promised that there would be a war for the heart of the Democratic Party. He was going to lead a crusade against the DLC. I remember others saying this would be a bad idea, because we needed to remain unified for the midterms. I remember Hillary Clinton calling for a truce within the party at a DLC conference (of all places). So he backed down. Yet, the ones who are always doing the dividing are the DLC and DC establishment themselves. You'll notice that when they are attacked, it's usually in response to something they've done or written. But, in this case anyway, it seems to me that they are going out of their way to divide the party and destroy those persons whom they disagree with.

A little like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So anyway, i've been thinking a lot about this today. And it occurred to me that the DLC are really in serious decline, and have been for a while. Consider this, in 1998, the peak year of the DLC and their influence: the President of the United States (Clinton), the leader in the House (Gepthart), the leader in the Senate (Daschle), the DNC chairman (McAuliff), the Prime Minister of Britain (Blair), and the leadership of the British Labor Party were all DLC (or a British variation of it with close ties to the DLC). Today, they have no one. Blair is barely tolerated in Britain and on his way out. And in America, not the party chairman. Not the leadership of either the House or the Senate. Nothing.

So do you think that they are desperate and are in their last death throws. You know the old saying, that an animal is more dangerous when it is wounded. Or do you think that they are stupid enough to believe that this is a successful strategy moving forward?

Give me some of your thoughts.

the wealthy elite. That certainly does not mean a Dem has to win the election it just means they have to define the limits of debate.

So the discussion, for example, is how best to get the private market to provide health care, not how best to provide health care for all (which most of us would think would be outside the private market).

No talk of living wages for all. No talk of withdrawing troops around the world and drawing down the Military budget.

The point i am making is that unlike what some folks think (probably not most here) the dlc does not promote this stuff to capture the votes of not-so-liberal america, it does this first and foremost for the corporate bosses.

No truce with corporate rule!

be both desperate and stupid?

Thanks for pointing that out jbnow.

but I agree with you...there has been a concerted effort to smear any Democrat who has begun talking seriously about bringing the troops home.

I saw Matalin's comment about Dean today and got a little sick to my stomach. There was some "Democratic Strategist" on Hardball (I think it was Hardball) yesterday totally reaming Pelosi, Dean and Murtha. He was also talking about how great Lieberman was. :puke:

I don't read Drudge, so the "Raise the White Flag" meme is new to me. This is just sick. They are going to play the "these colors don't run" and "Democrats are cowards" crap. I hope the American people have wised up enough to see through this bullshit.

and it's nearly as sealed off as the one Bush inhabits, and for the same reason: they are certain they are right and that they need no other input.

The result is that they're out of touch and have been for a very long time and will be for the foreseeable future.

Simply put, they're wrong, they've been proven wrong, but they won't stick their noses outside the Beltway long enough to figure it all out.

They aren't evil people, not to the depth that the Bush people are evil. What they may be is a group of reasonably decent Eisenhower Repuglicans who changed parties when they were disgusted by Nixon and promised a strategy to counter his.

They're just wrong.

the line has been drawn....

The Democratic Whip.

and I think they are positioning to get Lieberman in as DOD head...thinking that will improve their stance..

But it would go to show how out of touch and idiotic they are on strategy.

If Liberman became Defense Sect. (which I hope he does), we could nominate another Senator in CT and would win there (being a 'blue state' and all).

Then the number of DLCer's in Washington would decrease. Lieberman would go out with the rest of the Bush Administration in 2009, and we'd be free of him once and for all.

They are in the thick of this war being waged against the rank and file.

you have it right, about the stories being planted by the DLC in the paper of record. It's a well orchestrated campaign, and guess what? it's going on right here in this forum.

Just wait a little while, and you will see the DLC attack dogs nipping at your heals any minute for having the temerity to talk about this elephant in the room.

The DLC maybe a small cabal in terms of the size of the party, but they are most powerful, because they have all the wealth wage against us.

and in this country, it's not about good ideas, or good principles that wins the day, it's about who has the most $$$ to pay for the catapulting of the propaganda that is necessary to wage this war on us, the 'small guy'.

It's amazing how unrelenting they are in covering this board and how vociferous the tone of their response. I'm inclined to think they are paid shills, who else would have the time? On the other hand, it's an incredibly small ignore list that eliminates most of the bluster.

But the question is why?

The answer is because we are gaining ground. They stuck their head out on the war, and it turned out we were right and they were wrong. And this is supposed to be their strong suit (allegedly).

They need the war to go well, because otherwise they have nothing. All they'd be are "corporate" Democrats.

For instance, Dianne Feinstein vis a vis her husband's investment firm, with investments in Pentagon, and DoD contracts galore, billions of dollars invested -

Though not connected to Iraq, Madeline Albright has investments in a firm connected to one of the Stans countries around the Caspian Sea.

What is that old axiom? Follow the Money, that might lead you to the pro-war officials in Congress, some in the DP.

it's not about good ideas, or good principles that wins the day, it's about who has the most $$$ to pay for the catapulting of the propaganda that is necessary to wage this war on us, the 'small guy'.

The more I read, the more I paticipate in the party, the more I am convinced that you are right. They are a small cabal since CEOs and lobbyist only have one vote, and our numbers, not our needs, are the only thing that is important to them. Pro-choice corportists v Anti-choice corporatist. And what about our country?

Anyway, since I've not read this entire thread, I have no idea if their protectors and defenders have showed up here. Look, I'm an average person and I want a party that actually cares about me and people like me. The DLC is not that party. What they're doing coopting the Democratic Party leaves us nothing.

I believe that they are very strong because of money and the levers of power.

Pro-choice corporatists vs. Pro-life corporatists.

That's really what it all comes down to in the end.

That's the "choice" we are given every election.

They are both corporatism and as such they have been designed to feed the machine no matter which "party" is in power. The supreme party is corporatism. It doesn't matter if it is Hillary or if it is Bush. It's just that the GOP in power is easier to deal with for the corporatists because they don't have to pretend as much.

The DLCers will put out their token votes for things like the environment which the corporatists know they will win bit by bit, they control the pace; the corporatists put out their little votes for unions' but implement weak laws and weak amendments that never really take hold so the coporatists don't have to worry. It's been a game played forever. That way DLC lovers can quote Lieberman's record, or Hillary's record, or Feinstein's record, and they almost look like they give a shit...but somehow, the job never gets done...the corporations always win. You always lose. Imagine that!

When you're bought, you stay bought. Whether you are bought by a foreign country or by corporations.

Good post!

:toast:

Weak healthcare reforms that leave the muscle still in the hands of the insurance giants and credit card companies.

Like "Pithy Cherub" said..the "Corporatist Vampires don't have shadows...
The DLC keeps trying to cast a long pall and a shadow over Dean. Dean is bright sunshine also fatal to corporatist vampires!"

faction of the Dems as having been ordered by the folks who benefit financially from the war.

If the DLC can't rein in the "naysayers", I think they have been threatened with future political "donations" being cut off or reduced.

It's come too fast and furious and is way too organised.

But I dunno. I just know the DLC is full of shit (indeed--the stench is unbearable) and for the most part, untrustworthy.

I also suspect That they are also "failures" in the same way BushCo is: their failures always benefit someone financially.

DLC's been selling its board memberships to the highest corporate bidder, including Dow and Exxon, for years. How can anyone be surprised that DLC positions reflect corporate interests? DLC consists of corporations!

how much money he had raised and put the party in great shape. That braying jackass also said he told Dean to put in the 50 state grassroots organizing and that he appointed the commission on the primaries and he (McAwful) said it would absolutely not be changed. He was truly the epitome of Awful on a grandiose scale! Then he and the republican shook hands... Ya can't write stuff this putid, but you can watch it live on TV!

There it is a nutshell, Governor Dean has changed the power dynamic of levers that the elite Dems thought they controlled permanently. The funding sources are not the same (The People are Fantabulous!), the same candidates will not be able to plan on where the first primaries in traditional states will be held (the latest trauma inducing moment for the corporatist dems)and corporations and lobbyists are not the first people Dean calls on when he gets into the office of DNC Chairman!

Too bad for those dems that don't understand, as Patti Labelle would belt out, "A Change is Gone Come..." Keep on keepin' on Dean!

Because the DLC Dems is where the money comes from in our national elections by a large margin.

The power and money has definitely shifted! Go Dean!

... beacuse the party is being tossed down the river.

...the DLC.

Thanks for playing. Good night.

Corporations don't vote - the People do and the DLC values corporations over the People. Shedding no tears here.

The election of Dean to the DNC chair has shaken their entire sense of self.

McAuliff is a loser. Never won anything as DNC chair.

Dean has already outraised him.

???

Surely you know Tim Kaine is DLC.

Like, Dean is chair of the Democratic Party, which includes members of the DLC?
And the Democratic Party and Democratic issues did great in November. Duh?
The DLC is misguided to be sure ...

..in the elections a month ago?"

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I'm interpreting that statement as meaning the DLC is desperate because they didn't "kick ass in the elections a month ago."

But Tim Kaine, very DLC, won in November.

Whether they win or lose is less important. The DLC would gladly reduce the Democratic Party to ruins, as long as they control the rubble. Dean intends to take the party back to national power, but the DLC will not wield that power, if Dean succeeds, the party activists will, and it will be for the first time a truly democratic party.

When did they ever control the party?

Do you have a link of them bemoaning their loss of control of the party?

The DLC would gladly reduce the Democratic Party to ruins, as long as they control the rubble.

Actually, I never see DLC'ers exclaiming they won't vote for___________ or threatening to vote third party if they don't get their way. That would be your camp.

Sorry.

Thread # and direct quote.

than all the posts here put up by DLCers demanding that this or that progressive politican be purged from the party due to reasons of ideological purity...oh wait, there aren't any.

The closest you can find is the ONE thread calling for Howard Dean to be replaced...and that's for reasons of strategy, not ideology.

How are we supposed to win elections then? MY GOD DEAN WILL KILL US ALL

They have the best funded candidates because Corporate America wants to be first in the hearts of the person who sits in the Oval office and those who legislate.

They are positioning themselves for a "takeover" of this Party in 2008. If they get the ticket they want (Clinton/Warner, or Clinton/anyone DLC), they will have, in effect, taken pver this Party. Their agenda will be ours. Their position on the issues will be ours. And, classism, social justice and equality, and peace will take a back-seat to Corporate America's bottom line, and everlasting war. The Democratic Party will have been usurped totally.

It happened to the Republican Party in 1994, when Gingrich's Neo-Con Revolution took the RNC and made it "Reagan's Party". We all know where their social, economic, and philosphical exptremes took that Party -- and America. It's happening to the Democratic Party now. They are seeking to silence the leftist liberal base of this Party, just as the Neo-Cons did with those to the left of them as they took power.

If Clinton/Warner or Clinton/anyone DLC is the ticket, no matter who wins, not matter if there is massive voter fraud... whoever ends up winning that election will be a Republican in one form or another.

TC

but would prefer Gore/Harkin ... or Conyers/Levin (like that would happen)... far too far in the future for me to choose wh0 I would be likely to vote for. Heck my sights are much more on 06.

I think you are right--the DLC is positioning for 2008 and if Clinton wins the nomination it will be a bad sign--our only choice will be Repuglican or Repuglican.

DLC = :thumbsdown:

small group of dc based dem strategists that echo each other... suffer from "incestuous amplification" - a term coined by a witness to the bush cabinet and how they amplified their agreement to one another rather than posing critiques/alt views around which they could flush out different scenarios and thus more sound policy. In the DLC's case it isn't more sound policy - it is more sound strategy.

I think they are declining in power - which is only derived from those involved being hired as strategists for various campaigns. When specific strategists are less successful, their influence wanes. When they are successful - their stock climbs. Only the next campaign season (and who gets hired vs who doesn't) will suggest whether or not they are in their "death throes" as a power playing organizaiton, or whether they are regaining influence.