Last night was not good for the DLC

Tester beats Morrison

McNerney beats Filson to take on Pombo

Angelides beats Westly

And pretty soon Lamont will beat Lieberman!

Lieberman intends to go negative with a "Lamont, you big dummy!" campaign.

(just joking)

This is the big one! Honey, I'm comin' to join ya!

He's running negative ads bashing Lamont for some bad votes when he was an elected official. Something like school board.

I almost snorted lemonade all over my keyboard! Geez, I needed that, as I've been feeling depressed and oppressed today.

Dr Dean gets it. Plenty of voters get it. Somebody wake the DLC and give them new orders!

That's so funny. One win in twelve years and these people think they rule the universe.

And I can name an many more in 12 years. Remember the guy Kaine replaced? What was his name... uh... Mark Warner?

And wasn't Kilgore devoid of any ideas?

Yes he did. Yes he was.

And doesn't one of us actually live in Virginia?

Keep trying to pilot that DLC ship into shallow waters - we'll just ever so gradually change the crew and back it right on out into the ocean. I believe it is starting to head for deeper waters as we speak.

You won't even get wet. :)

P..S. Rahm Emanuel for dogcatcher!!

In 12 years, how many high profile DLC candidates have won their races?

A cadaver could have beaten Kilgore, but "it doesn't matter."

Classic.

Ooh, questions...

Here's one: In the last 30+ years, how many basketball teams have used the set shot?

None you say? But before that, everyone used it, and teams that could shoot it usually won.

I see, so as basketball evolved, and more and more teams found BETTER ways to play than using the set shot it eventually went away.

It took a while, though, didn't it?

Yes it did. Many teams still thought it was the way to go, but as they began to win fewer and fewer games they abandoned it.

Jon Tester has a hell of a jump shot, but his set shot stinks.

Thank goodness.

Somone states, "One win in twelve years and these people think they rule the universe."

How many DLC Democrats have won in 12 years?

Stay fixated on Kilgore, if you wish. If anyone could have beaten him, why didn't a "proooogreeeesssiiiive" get the nom and win?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

nt.

I honestly don't know. I suspect not, or at least not any of any credibility. The last progressive in statewide Va. politics was the great Lt. Gov. Henry Howell, who was hung out to dry in his candidacy for governor in a way progressives would never treat a DLCer.

I live in Virginia and have supported Tim Kaine for governor since I first heard about him back in 2001.

..someone says, "He's not REALLY DLC..." LOL!

So I guess you have a series of tests to determine what DLC members are really "DLC types?"

Maybe it's because he doesn't act like a DLCer.

the DLC does seem to have the inside tract for getting a presidency for us. From what I heard that's the only reason that Kerry joined the DLC even though he's probably the least active member

least active member or not, he's still a member.

Just saying.

TC

they got rid of their list on their website and even got rid of the list you could find on Wikipedia. It's almost like they don't want you to know who all their members are and I find that a bit snarky.

However, I do know that my other senator Tom Carper is DLC. And it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote against him. His voting record is almost identical to Bidens, which for someone from Delaware, is pretty respectful (as I've said many times Delaware is the Credit Card capital of AMerica. Biden & Carper are supporting the industry that have provided thousands of jobs, which in DE is practically half of the state)

"...I hate the DLC except for _________ because I like___________"

as well as other suspicious activities; however, I know what you mean!

We here at Velvet Revolution just made a killer new ad to take us Progressives into the November victories. Help us put this ad in as many newspapers and mgazines as possible by going to www.velvetrevolution.us and donating! Thanks!

:-)

Lisping Tim Kaine and his evil eyebrow...the future of our party. :thumbsdown:

Nice way to reinforce the false dichotomy of red/blue.

DO you think Bush fatigue had anything to do with his win?

From what I know...the margin of Republican/Democrat in VA isn't a huge deal.

Time Kaine's SOTU response was a SNOOOZE fest....he seemed effete, creepy, out of touch, and he was pandering to the right-wing religious wackos.

DO you think Bush fatigue had anything to do with his win?

No. Do you have any evidence to suggest it?

From what I know...the margin of Republican/Democrat in VA isn't a huge deal.

Then share with us what you know - actual figures and sources.

Time Kaine's SOTU response was a SNOOOZE fest....he seemed effete, creepy, out of touch, and he was pandering to the right-wing religious wackos.

Examples?

nt.

(The idea that Kaine, or any other Democrat, might win in Virginia because it isn't as conservative as it used to be should possibly be allowed to cross your mind at times.)

And as for the statement that "progressives can't organize", the Wellstone campaign, the McGovern and McCarthy primary campaigns, and many many others do at least severly discredit that theory.

But the reason that Kaine won is irrelevant. The statement was made that the DLC had not won anthing in 12 years. Surely you see the folly in THAT statement.

And McGovern and McCarthy ran great campaigns. Not.

McCarthy was unjustly deprived of the chance to lead the ticket in '68, despite the fact that he clearly would have run a stronger race than Humphrey, and McGovern was stabbed in the back by the people who went on to found the DLC(and some of his people, like a certain young Arkansan you were about to mention if I didn't, went on to abandon their principles and convictions and join them in a campaign for victory in name only).

?

It's not a GOP slam dunk there anymore.

in 1984, Reagan beat Mondale 62% TO 38% IN Virginia. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by only 54% to 45%. So yes, the state is swinging away from the GOP and edging bluer and bluer as the years go by, and is not an unmelting right-wing iceberg. If Kerry had run an effective or even a coherent campaign in 2004, the margin would have been even closer.

Taking House and Senate races into account, the state has swung more red in the last 2 decades. Ditto for mayors.

Were experienced by Democratic candidates running in the DLC mold. That's pretty much the only kind of Dems that have been nominated in VA since, well, basically since Appamatox. So, no, the idea that what's good in Va. Dem politics is DLC and what's bad is non-DLC simply doesn't hold up. Chuck Robb was as DLC as they come when HE lost to Allen.

In any case, the presidential returns do indicate an overall statewide trend at that level least.

And at least I gave you a statistic, so you can give that one a rest for awhile.

Meanwhile, I obviously hope Webb wins in the fall, but he has a lot of fences to mend with progressives and with Jewish voters, especially after some of his supporters depicted his Jewish opponent as a hook-nosed "job killer" in flyers handed out during the campaign. I mean jeez, wouldn't it have been enough to call the guy a liberal?

Before I start, I do want to remind you that for the point of our discussion, it doesn't matter what "mold" the Democrats were in. The races went GOP.

Most of those losses Dems had in House and Senate races were experienced by Democratic candidates running in the DLC mold.

If you know that, it shouldn't be a prohlem for you to name them.

So, no, the idea that what's good in Va. Dem politics is DLC and what's bad is non-DLC simply doesn't hold up.

That statement is completely irrelevant.

You're falling back on the old leftist myth the DLC Democrats lost the south and/or the Senate/House. I guess sometimes some of you forget who that routine works on and who it doesn't.

Sorry. There is NO validity to that myth.

and thus are automatically entitled to preference and dominance within the party, then it does matter.

Yes, Dems lost at those levels in Virginia. Yes, those losing Democrats were DLC. This rather belies the arguement that the DLC
had any particular magic formula in Virginia or the rest of the South.

In any case, "liberals" were not responsible for the Virginia defeats.

I'm arguing one thing - that Senate/House races in VA have gone GOP in the last several decades. Further, I'm calling your "theory" on the DLC Dems completely bogus.

Yes, Dems lost at those levels in Virginia.

Yes they did.

Yes, those losing Democrats were DLC.

Name them or provide a source.

Virginia being Virginia, we can assume that virtually anyone who won a Democratic nomination there was DLC or a DLC-type.
The only rationale that has ever existed for the DLC was the claim that DLC dems were always more electable than real Dems. In Virginia, which is also Al From's home state, this has mainly been discredited.

And yes, the DLC is largely responsible for the loss of Congress in 1994. It was DLC Democratic incumbents who blocked the Clinton health plan(making Clinton and the whole Congress look politically ineffective)and who gave aid and comfort to the religious right by helping the Pentagon continue the sensless ban on gays in the military, when the issue would have died if the DLC had only backed the administration on the issue.

It was the DLC that attacked the Democratic base(the poor, workers, progressive activists, women)as "special interests"(a term that REAL Democrats know should ONLY be applied to corporations)and who made millions of Democratic voters feel there was no reason to bother voting in the '94 election, since it was clear that Dems, at least DLC Dems, hated them as much as white Republican suburbanites do. And it was DLC candidates who blew open-seat Congressional races throughout the South by running to Clinton's right.

Liberals, progressives and populists, who were totally out in the cold under Clinton even though they'd done nothing to deserve such treatment, bear no responsibility whatsoever for the Massacre of '94.

And yes, the DLC is largely responsible for the loss of Congress in 1994.

False. Sources?

It was the DLC that attacked the Democratic base(the poor, workers, progressive activists, women)as "special interests

False. The DLC attacked the organizations the "represent them." Just as KOS does now. Only he calls them "single intererst."

Your entire post is nothing but a bunch of passed-down revisionist hooey completely unsourced. Show me sone links and some professional analysts who but into it.

Do a roll call on all the DLC Dems that did all this.

and not, by definition, leave those groups powerless? And there's nothing inherently evil about
those organizations either. If you are insisting that everyone who isn't a rich white man can
only be represented as a disconnected individual, you are saying that those constituencies must accept being reduced
to eternal powerlessness within the party.

And come on, Wyldwolf, you know perfectly well that Al From has basically established
such absolute control of the Virginia Dems that no one he disapproves of is allowed to get
a Democratic nomination for anything. I defy you to name a single non-DLC or non-DLC type Dem
whose been nominated for anything in Virginia politics since Henry Howell. The only African American
Virginia pols that have been let in the door are DLC Toms like Doug Wilder, who checked his conscience at the
statehouse door.

you sound like a fucking Republican.

What a cheap ass attack !

This thread is about solutions that help get democrats elected.

Even I will nominate this thread - thanks for posting it!

Dianne Feinstein 1,772,995 86.9

Martin Luther Church 105,820 5.1

Colleen Fernald 163,581 8.0

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/ussen/00.htm

Jane Harman 26,670 62.5

Marcy Winograd 16,024 37.5

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/3600.htm

Cruz Bustamante 1,350,095 70.4

John Kraft 569,405 29.6

http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/ins/00.htm

:)

Cruz Bustamante ran for Insurance Commissioner because he got his ass handed to him when he ran for Governor!

When they also ran for Governor

Bustamante got a major demotion because he made the brilliant no on recall yes on bustamante campaign. Jerry Brown also won yesterday. So, the lt governor is insurance comm, the insurence comm, is lt gov, a former governor is attorney general, the attorney general is treasurer, and the treasurer is governor. I'm saying is because they are all going to win. i know thats off topic but i find it kinda funny

Going from number 2 in the state to insurance Comm is quite pathetic. Meanwhile the current progressive insurance comm won for Lt Gov. I'll take that switch

What will John Kraft be doing next January?

The DLc's 100 to watch list hmmm lets see who is on it

Steve Westly and Rocky Delgadillo. They both had commercials across the state. Never saw anything from Kraft. Angelides asked to be taken off the member directory. If you condsider your guy going from the states 2nd man to Insurance Commissioner a victory go right ahead. But the liberal insurance commissioner now is going to be elected Lt Gov

come November. That's huge. The Gov will either be a straight up republican or a guy who demanded to be taken off the DLC's list.

Which is probably a good thing for voters like me!

Who had much more money than thier challengers.

;)

Her challenger to the left, Colleen Fernald, had no money and barely had a web page.

In 2000 Dianne received 95.5% of the Dem primary vote. This time around she slipped to 86.9, mostly on the basis of name recognition - not her DINO voting record. If she had had meaningful opposition from a known progressive she would have been forced to campaign and defend her sorry record.

He was backed by all of organized labor in Ca. That says a lot for me.

It didn't get much national media attention, but liberal Phil Hare beat out DINO John Sullivan yesterday to be the Democratic Nominee for Congress in the Illinois 17th. It was done by vote of the precinct committeemen to fill a vacancy. Phil Hare was an aide to the retiring Democrat, Lane Evans, and pledged to continue Evans' record of fighting for progressive issues. This is a big win for liberal Democrats.

To vote third party because their candidate isn't the nominee!

figures will just sit out, not donate money, not donate much time, and make little to no effort to help the liberal candidates, which is what they usually do. I would take moderate Democrats more seriously when they demand liberals support the party candidate if the moderates only did the same when a liberal is nominated. It isn't a two-way street with the conservative Dems.

Where a moderate Democrat who does not have the temerity to believe the DLC is evil has threatened to withold support from a liberal member of the party.

Show me evidence that the supposedly "conservative" wing (of which the most conservative is still much more liberal than the most liberal Republican), is witholding support from liberal nominees.

I could fill this screen with threads threatening to bolt the party, vote green, withold money from the DNC, DSCC DCCC, DLC and every other group remotely associated with the Democratic Party by liberal members who laughingly refer to themselves as the "base."

btw: I sent $100 to Jon Tester this morning!

And Lieberman threatening to run as an independent if he loses the primary is shallow. Don't get me wrong I would never vote green or anything like that. If westly got the nomination I would support him and if someone like Evan Bayh got it i would support him also. I think whenever a thread started when someone said they'll vote green i guarantee there are more liberals saying don't do it.

any threads about the DCCC and the DSCC? Have you not read any news about how they treat those who aren't their chosen moderates? How about Cegalis, two elections in a row. Do you know how little the party establishment did to help Wellstone get elected? I see it in my local party in every single election, and most areas with conservative/moderate party establishments experience the exact same thing. If you're too liberal, then you're passed off as unelectable and ignored. They did it to George McGovern and it has happened every year since, all over the country.

The DSCC and DCCC are there to get senators and congressman elected. It is not their job to financially support all candidates. They pick who they think is strongest and support the, in some cases it is a moderate, and in some cases (as in Ohio) it is the more liberal.

As to George McGovern I have no idea what you are talking about. George McGovern was an extremely liberal man (and American hero) representing one of the reddest states in the nation, and he got swept away in the 1980 Reagan landslide.

The Dscc and the DCCC get the money! And it was Jimmy Carter in 1980 McGovern was Nixon

The primary process is by definition a private process. Parties are free to choose the candidates they wish to run by any method they want to. That is why primaries are not required. Each party sets up the rules it wishes to use.

McGovern lost his Senate seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980...

He lost the Presidential race in 1972 by running possibly the most inept Presidential campaign of the 20th century.

Registered Democrats VOTE for who they feel in the Primary. The DCCC assists and funds.

They do not fund everyone running. The DSCC (The DCCC counterpart in the Senate), picked the more liberal candidate in Ohio...it is about winning. And I think COme November we are gonna be thanking them for the job they have done...

This despite the fact that McGovern traveled the country in the fall of '68 working had for Humphrey. McGovern did more to bring McCarthy and RFK voters back to Humphrey than anyone else, and he was owed the loyalty of the regulars for that. The Nixon landslide did not have to happen. The hacks made it happen.

And McGovern was proven right on the issues by history. Scoop Jackson, with his sickening love of the slaughter in Vietnam, would never have been able to say that.

.. their job to "get congressmen elected". BULLSHIT. It is their job, as they prove by their every action, to pick winners and losers BEFORE the primaries and the voters be damned.

And oh guess what, they almost always favor the "centrist" candidate.

These fuckers, along with the DLC, are what is wrong with the lame-ass can't get arrested even though Bush is circling the drain Democratic party.

He would go to DSCC fundraisers and refuse to take money from interest groups even if they wanted to give him money because of issues that he already supported before they had talked to him. He felt that no matter what it was all still legalized bribary. When he went to Washington to meet with DSCC John Breaux in 1990, Breaux tried to explain to him how to raise money the insider way, Paul just explained to him how he was going to win with a grassroots effort. Breaux just kept scratching his head

This was at least the case for his first two campaigns. I'm not sure about his third one.

you must be talking about show me one today.

oh OK

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1374367

What's worse in politics than taking a position and called on it, denying one takes the position.

This works if you stretch your definition of Conservatives to include the Democrats in Congress...

The DCCC is not an idealogical organization, they are devoted to getting Democrats elected to COngress...it is not their job to support liberal or conservative candidates, it is to support winning candidates.

.. if it crawled up their ass.

After years of watching the Dem party apparatus fuck up again and again, you have a lot of gall to suggest that these folks have any credibility at all.

It is sad anyone would have the "gall" to disagree with you...

:sarcasm:

However my statements are factual, and in fact the DCCC has done an excellent job this cycle in its recruitment efforts.

He is the liberal candidate for TX AG. This is the most powerful state wide elected office in TX. The "establishment" Democratic party is telling donors to send their money to DC. They refuse to help DVO. They want to continue their failed "Targeted Race Strategy". If you want to help elect The People's lawyer click this link.

< http://dvowhistlestop.blogspot.com/ >

Thanks for not showing solidarity with the GLBT movement today by switching your avatar.

Backstabber.

Or were you just uninformed? Just as bad. Bespeaks of your lack of curiosity about the political process to me.

I had not signed on to DU until this afternoon...

I am a longstanding MONTHLY contributor to the HRC...

Have the said avatar on my car in bumpersticker form in the heart of the red south!!!

Rather than engage in the childish name calling you seem to enjoy, I will change my avatar as you have so kindly informed me is what many are asking folks to do today.

Rather than display your ignorance, and your intolerance at those with whom you probably agree 90% of the time instead of the 100% insisted on around here, maybe just ask next time!

who is threatening to RUN as an independent if he isn't nominated.

And frankly I was talking about the DU community...

I am not a Lieberman fan, and would not cry over a Lamont victory...

However, I will take Lieberman over any Republican!

All the DLC DCCC etc. types want is money and help from us. When all we ask is help on things that really matter. Like why not call for an investigation of the election processes that stole the election. A zillion things need attention and all we get is pathetic excuses. How dare the DLCer's just sit there and let RFK wither in the wind all by himself. DLC doesn't respect us for our support. When all we ask is for them to act like they're on a team effort. They say no.

Like someone else said this is supposed to be a two-way street. The DLC is playing with fire here. My Ganny taught us that little boys that play with fire get burned.

When will we get co-operation and team work? Without that cooperation, progressives have no alternative that they must be neocomms, wither in or out of the closet.

They want us to be seen and not heard. The establishment Dems are deaf to us in the grassroots. Most won't even give Dean much space.

The issue of e-voting has to be tackled. Now. Like you say, letting RFK swing in the wind is telling. Dean is hitting the e-voting issue and I doubt he has much support from the rest.

I can only hope those who kiss up to the establishment will plead our case with them, or the party will wither.

Possibly one of the most important elections of the '06 cycle.

Could it be that they got their asses handed to them yesterday?

Has anyone mentioned Iowa? And how all of Vilsaks handpicked candidates were defeated?

I guess being the former Governor and current head of the DLC isn't worth what it once was.

in the pre-historic times with all the dinos.

We need to stop dividing the party and bring closer together. We need to accept DLC member as fellow democrats. Our party can be big enough for centrists and liberals.

night for all Democrats". You were wrong about your first sentence and you're wrong when you call the dlc "centrists".

New Deal Liberalism is going the way of the dinosaur. The third way is the only viable governing strategy for the 21st century. This is why democrats will continue to be the minority party. We need to realize that our policies have become antiquated. All of the hard left elements in this thread deny the fact that the country can benefit from centrist governing. You guys are making us look petty.

Petty and antiquated like dinos.

Progressives are out there telling the truth and that's all I need.

"accept us because you suck!"

Enjoy your stay...

That would be the Tony Blair that has continued privatizing all the assets that belonged to the working people of Britain as a result of the achievements of the earlier Labour governments.

The Tony Blair that is the world's leadaing blood-soaked militarist(after our beloved Dubya).

The Tony Blair who claims to be killing for "democracy" in Iraq yet has completely abolished internal democracy and free speech within his OWN party.

Still claim the Third Way is "centrist"?

Does any of the above sound "centrist" to you?

PRogressive Farmer from Montana!

n/t

Then we might actually have a chance of winning. We can rah-rah about impeachment all we want (and yes, there's probably a case for it), but the fact is the public doesn't want it. What does the public want? Moderation. Moderation is something the Democrats are perfectly positioned to claim (because of extremist idiots on the right like Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter, GW Bush, and the rest of the blow-hard crowd). But party activists are forcing the party to the left--which allows the Republicans to be closer to the center than they should be. I plan on voting DLC in the primary, and I hope others will join me.

We can either stand for moderation and prevent Bush from creating further havoc on the world, or we can take extremist stances that alienate the people (conservative independents, moderate Republicans) we need to win the election.

A liberal running against a moderate Republican in a solid blue state?

I'd like to see Democrats take over the Senate...which means I hope the Democrat beats the Republican (even the single good one, Chaffee). I wish he would've switched parties. But he didn't. His choice. If I lived there, I would vote for the Democratic nominee for Senate.

The Iraq war is incredibly unpopular but DLC leaders like Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman aren't taking a stance about what we can do about Iraq that is different form Bush's. "Sorry we shouldn't have voted for the war" isn't going to differ us from the Republicans in 2006 any better than it did in 2004.

We need to provide clear differences between us and the Republicans on foreign policy and we need to frame them so that we don't look weak on defense. We need to highlight all of the generals that have come out against this adminstarion's policy. We need articulate and courageous leaders like John Murtha to show that Democrats have some real balls and are willing to stand up to this administration.

I'll even give props to Joe Biden, who I don't usually agree with. He has proposed seperating Iraq into three different countries. It may not be the right proposal but it's sure as hell a drastic alternative to more of the same that some Democrats are proposing that we continue.

This isn't about left versus center, it's about having the balls to stand up and do the right thing even if it doesn't poll well. The DLC fails to do that time and again because their solution is "moderation" on everything.

John Edwards, John Kerry, and Al Gore--all war critics and all members of the DLC. If people would actually read the stuff the DLC puts out, they would find that the DLC for finding a reasonable way out of Iraq. I should note: the Democratic party lost a generation of elections because it messed up on how to reasonably leave Vietnam. In many ways, we are currently in Iraw because of that screw up 31 years ago. I, and lots of moderate and conservative Democrats. think we should get out of Iraq. But there's a right way and a wrong way. Meaured withdrawl, and aiding the Iraqis to establish some sembelance of order is what's needed in my mind.

Note: we don't get order by torturing people, massacring innocent people, and not understanding the culture of the middle east (my major problems with the administration).

But Phil Angelides is a DLC New Democrat tried and true.

And Jon Tester didn't bang his secretary. That's why he won. You "liberal activists" had nothing to do with it.

asked to be taken off the dlc's list. And because Tester didn't bang his secretary shows that the more liberal candidates do have better family values