DLC Dems Ticket - No different than Bush/Cheney

Here's a challenge for all the DLC folk who want to send their candidates to the WH in 2008.

How will your candidates be different than the current administration and the GOP?

I'm not interested in hearing how you will be so different from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party - tell us how your candidates will be different from the current administration?

And if they won't govern differently, why do you think the status quo is preferable for all Americans?

:)

:hi:

...that's what Ralph Nader implied about Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000.

That theory didn't pan out.

How are they different? If you believe they ARE different, then explain how.

...no attempt to privatize Social Security, heads of the Labor Dept., EPA, etc. who are more supportive of labor and the environment.

What about health care? So far, her health care agenda is pretty much the same thing the GOP is discussing - requiring people to buy health insurance.

I assume the same would be true of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Regarding health care, I'm not going to defend her proposals.

Clinton developed his own economic policy, which did NOT reflect the policies of the DLC, e.g. raising the wholesale gas tax and increasing income tax on the wealthy.

He also implemented the earned income tax credit - NOT something the DLC favored.

NT

She's very different from Bill, more conservative, more susceptible to pressure from big money interests.

Harold Ford - ‘I Caution Some in Our Party’

http://www.newsweek.com/id/65772

Ridiculous.

he adopted a few of their ideas, but ultimately crafted his own. He listened to everyone and up with solutions he thought best.

The current crop of DLC candidates are much more indebted to (financially) and aligned with the DLC. They're not smart enough or courageous enough to follow Big Dog's example.

that had nothing to do with bill clinton or his policies.

but it DID have a lot to do with the booming economy.


the only thing that MIGHT come marginally close to that kind of economic production would be an apollo-type program to make america energy self-sufficient and SLASH our greenhouse gas/carbon output...but i see that type of thing being much more likely to be considered with an Al Gore in charge.

and their policy ideas for improving the current situation.

We need to hear the DLC candidates of today tell us their policy plans for the future. Its a different world and a much different political environment.

Primary campaigns are for these kinds of discussions. I want to know what any DLC candidate plans to say if they end up running against the GOP candidate.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2199600&mesg_id=2199988

not entirely, of course. but government investment in research and technology was higher and his economic policies reduced the deficit.

They seem to take great joy in "telling their base of voters things they don't want to hear".

That must be the new DLC "meme" - win big and become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams by pissing off the Democratic base.

I want those from the DLC who are influencing the 2008 elections to tell us how their policies will be different from the GOP's.

We already know the policies of mainstream Dems that they hate.

In typical DLC fashion, they've spent all their time so far distancing themselves from the policies of Democrats.

But less than 30% of Americans think we're headed in the right direction.

Bush's job approval scores remain in the mid 20% range. It's obvious American voters want change in the next election.

So how will DLC Dem candidates' policies and legislative agenda be different than the current administration?

Voters want to know and so far, we haven't heard.

You promise, in a public post, that you will never post "nobody ever explains why the DLC is different from the Republican agenda" or any variant thereof ever again, and will refute similar such claims when (every day ) they are posted ever so originally by others on the far left. I'm tired of spending half an hour clearly articulating and demonstrating the difference in areas of policy, voting record and governance and then seeing the same crap the day after with all the same vapid me too defenses of this ridiculous canard.

is the DLC explaining how different it is from regular Democrats and all those "liberals".

There's precious little discussion spent on how they are different from Bush/Cheney.

Go ahead and explain how your legislative agenda is different from Bush and the GOP's and if different, why it will be better than the Democratic Party's agenda.

repetitions of this no difference bullshit.

who believe in and follow their policy agenda. They know who they are.

Seriously, if you can't tell the difference between a Hillary Clinton or a Barak Obama or a Joe Biden and all the repuke possibilities, I'm not even interested in trying to get you to understand those glaring differences.

and they're all voting to give Bush everything he asks for and they're campaign talk when it comes down to issues is not much different than the status quo, yes, its very hard to tell where they differ from the status quo.

I realize it makes them and their supporters uncomfortable to analyze the policy details and tell us how they differ from Bush, but if you truly want them to win, you're going to have to start making your case to the voters.

so that part of your argument is fatally flawed. I'd also contest that they're all voting to give bush everything he asks for.

And if I were to make my case to the voters in the primary, I'd simply ask them to review the records and words of all those running.

Furthermore, I believe that in the general election, any of the dems with the exception of Dennis, can win. Check out the new Pew poll/report for insight as to how that works.

I categorically reject your hypothesis and your "analysis" It's all based on a faulty foundation.

And the argument as to how these folks are different from their repuke counterparts has been made in this thread. You simply choose to ignore the realities of those arguments in order to stay perched on your hobbyhorse.

"they will nominate better judges to SCOTUS". Really? How does anyone know, show me a link.

We're entitled to some detailed policy analysis from the members of our own party who are asking us to vote for them.

Let's see it.

Expecting to be spoonfed is the attitude of a young child. There are numerous sites where you can find out about the candidates. I suggest you avail yourself of Project votesmart, the Senate website, THOMAS and various advocacy group websites like the ACLU, NARAL, and the Sierra Club.

Looks like you have your work cut out for you if you actually want to become informed. You better get cracking.

:hi:

and I'm asking this question simply because I already know the answer - the DLC Dems running for the WH in '08 are not engaging in this discussion. They're avoiding it like the plague.

Having had experience years ago in running campaigns that received advice from the DLC, I can explain the situation:

The DLC is still giving its candidates the same, stale advice they used back when GOP power was on the upswing in public opinion, not in decline as it is now. Their advice to Dems is: "run as closely as possible to the GOP candidate. Make every attempt to appear as close as possible to the GOP candidates on the issues to pick up "swing" voters. Ignore your base, they are going to turn out and vote for you no matter what because they will have no other choice. Don't talke about details of important issues, voters don't need to know about it. Just align your message as closely as possible to the GOP message."

That's why you don't hear them differentiating themselves on issues from Bush/Cheney and the GOP. They still believe its better to ignore their base and sound as much like Republicans as possible.

Problem is, its a strategy that never worked very well when conservative issues were gaining popularity and its failed miserably in the last two elections as the Bush administration and GOP in Congress have become very unpopular with voters. It will fail again this time around.

Dem voters in the upcoming primary are the ones who will choose our candidate for '08. This is a discussion we are entitled to have now. And we need to know if some of these Dem candidates still believe that "alienating their base won't hurt them" and that GOP lite positions on the issues will help them win in the general election. Its a flawed, outdated strategy that has been dressed up with a lot of campaign cash to make it look pretty.

as I already suggested. At least you're admitting it. That's a step.

And if you think that the dems failed in the 2006 election, you're in an up is down kind of place.

I'm sure they are getting advice from the DLC as well as from many other sources, and certainly to some degree, Clinton is running a traditional run to the middle general election primary campaign, but even she is making distinctions between what she would do and what the repukes would do- particularly on domestic issues.

And it'll be most amusing to see what you all have to say if the dems win- and every indication is that they will.

just say so. Personally attacking me when you don't want to answer a question is so...sad.

Come back when you have something to contribute.

I've said. I raised what I believe are perfectly valid points in my posts. You aren't really open to anything- you've stated that. You're simply playing rhetorical games. No, I don't mean that nastily, but simply as an observation.

I find what you're doing sad, but each to their own. Just don't post something that's clearly ax grinding and then expect that you won't be challenged. That's unrealistic.

and Bush/Cheney/GOP policies.

The positions they've developed in any detail (and they are few) and those promoted by the DLC are very, very similar to the GOP's.

Universal access to health care - everyone agrees the best way is to require everyone to purchase health insurance. Most voters would disagree with this position, since it does little to address people moving in and out of employment during a declining economy and does nothing to rein in the exploding cost of health care.

Foreign policy - DLC Dems & GOP are in agreement that we should stay in Iraq and also invade Iran. No one has proposed an idea of how they expect us to continue to pay for it or how to deal with its global impact.

Economy - Same as above..little in the way of details for a long term, comprehensive strategies for reducing the deficit, lowering inflation, balancing the budget, ensuring Americans can earn a living wage and have a secure retirement.

The voting public is seeking candidates who offer change and the opportunity to get our country back on track. A lot of rank and file Dems are assuming a lot of good details in DLC Dems policy positions that simply aren't there.

it's far to easy to blow that out of the water. All of the repuke candidates vehemently oppose Clinton's health care proposals. And all American would be covered under her proposal. In addition, part of the funding would come from raising taxes on wealthy Americans. She claims it would rein in health care costs.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Senator Edwards and Senator Obama's plans are very similar.

Foreign Policy. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Senator Edwarda have all said they plan to end the war in Iraq. From Clinton's website:

"Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

And really, you shouldn't claim to speak for "a lot of dems" or pronounce that you know what the dem electorate wants- hell half the time the dem elctorate doesn't know what it wants.

Like shooting fish in a barrel, and for someone who demands others post links, let me remind you, you're making claim after claim without any support or evidence, whatsover.
"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

If President Bush does not end the war, when Hillary Clinton is president, she will. Her three-step plan would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future. Hillary has been fighting every day in the Senate to force the president to change course. And today she described how she would bring the war to an end.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

Not a single repuke candidate plans for anything else in Iraq but a continuation of the bush "strategy".

Economy: All of the so-called DLC dems plan to roll back the bush tax cuts, retain the inheritance tax, all have plans for reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. The repukes will keep the tax cuts, work to privitize Social Security, end the inheritance tax, etc.

All the dems say they'll vigorously work on Climate Change. The repukes don't even believe in Climate Change.

Abortion. All the dems are pro-choice. With the exception of Ghouliani, none of the repukes are.

The Supreme Court: Need I say more?

I could go on, but you're not interested in facts, so it's pointless.

HRC has no timetable for her plan to withdraw from Iraq other than the first 60 days. Her actions in the Senate speak louder than her words as she voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iran.

She may, or may not take real action. We don't know, and its easy to say you'll do something without providing details.

Reliance on private health insurance companies to provide universal health care coverage - same as Mitt Romney's plan. Let taxpayers subsidize private insurance companies profits with no provisions for cost control, except for cutting taxes for insurance companies. Tax credits? Another 10 foot ladder down a 40 foot hole for people who can't afford private health insurance. What's the incentive for employers to buy health insurance when many of them get so many tax cuts already the government send them a check instead of billing them? What happens when someone gets sick and can't work or lose their job because of illness hence losing their ability to buy health insurance? Where is the plan that allows sick people who lose their job to still get coverage at no cost without having to impoverish themselves to qualify for Medicaid? Its health care reform for insurance companies, not reform for average Americans.

Economic reform? Nothing but a lot of happy talk there. Half measures like investing in tech research are great, but they aren't going to address inflation, unemployment or low wages. Strengthening retirement by requiring everyone to invest in a 401 k plan? Bush and the GOP have the same plan. Protecting Social Security? I don't see it anywhere in her plans. I also don't see anything about addressing inflation, lowering the national debt or eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Nothing about outsourcing or keeping good paying jobs in the US.

Supreme Court - IIRC, the DLC Dems have voted to approve Bush's appointments.

They've shown time and again they're afraid to support Democratic party ideals, how will things be any different once elected? They'll still be worried about what others will say at the DC cocktail parties. Their failure to fight for average Americans while in Congress has hurt their popularity among voters. They steadfastly resist fighting for policies now that people want, so why will they behave differently when elected?

Sorry, but the DLC Dems are too busy trying to look like Republicans and their chances of winning in 08 are diminished as a result.

I don't see how Hillary's appointments would be any different from a republican's. Show me a completely different platform and I will assume she will make better SC appointments. But I am still waiting. . .

but if you were even a little bit openminded you'd see that the difference is obvious, and easily detected by a review of votes, a history, and words over many years.

I suspect you've never even read her platform.

can't you give us some honest answers?

Nader was wrong.

and who gives a sh*t about Nader? This is a discussion about Democrats.

I don't see much difference except in degree.

sw

Let's talk about the candidates who are running in 2008, if you don't mind. To be honest, my perception is that Hillary is even more conservative than Bill.

Therefore I posted an answer about Bill Clinton. Do you have a problem with that?

it was convincing, it was hard for me to argue Clinton was any different from a republican, and I voted for Nader. But pretty quick after Bush took office I realized I was wrong.

you can list as many of these very good arguments as you like, which I agree with, for preferring a more progressive candidate. I'm likely voting for Kucinich myself.

But the argument that Clinton-like democrats are the same as republicans is a really really tough one to make after Nader.

or should I start a new thread to emphasize current issues in the 2008 election and leave this one for people to rehash the 1990's?

Come on, I've always thought DU'ers were policy folk, capable of having a detailed discussion about issues. Right?

the only difference between the state of things now and in 2000 is that the dems have moved to the left, and as Bernie Sanders has said, right wing extremism is in retreat instead of being ascendant.

DLC Dems running for '08 have policy positions today that are different than the GOP's. We can't assume they will govern the way Bill Clinton did in the 1990's.

compared to the republicans.

edit: and more important than their positions, the actual course of the war will be very different under a Bill Clinton-type democrat compared to a republican.

And by Bill Clinton-type democrat, I mean all the candidates except for Kucinich. I prefer Kucinich-type democrats, by the way.

There's no indication any of the DLC Dem candidates will govern like Bill Clinton. Edwards would be closest to the BC model and he's not a DLC Dem.

Three of them (Biden, H Clinton and Dodd) are currently serving in the Senate and their legislative records don't reflect Bill Clinton's policies.

and Biden and Dodd are DLC dems?

Just trying to get a handle on your definition of DLC dems.

but no, I would not consider Edwards a DLC Dem and Clinton, while aligned with the earlier version of DLC, ultimately rejected a lot of their policies.

and (what amount to) a blanket pardon for all the Iran/Contra/BCCI criminals in the Bush administration.
Thanks, Bill.


I gotta admit, the Big Dog WAS charming!

He didn't invade Iraq
He let the Republicans shut the government down rather than accept massive cuts in social programs
He pushed for universal healthcare
When universal healthcare didn't pass, he expaded coverage for children substantially
He got the Earned Income Tax Credit expanded which gave cash to poor, working families
He set aside vast swaths of the west to protect them from development
He reduced the deficit rather than taxes to assure funding for gov't programs
He did not imprison Americans taking away their habeas corpus rights
He did push to end a genocide in Yugoslavia
He pushed for peace between Israel and the Palestinians
He actually made Bin Laden a priority without subverting the constitution

And he did these things with a Republican congress.

Shall I go on?

Now any of our candidates, DLC or not, would have the same approach. Some may be more conservative than others, but despite that, they are nowhere near Bush/Cheney and it's irresponsible for you to suggest that they would do things the same.

As I mentioned in a previous post, DLC Dems today do NOT act like Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton didn't enact all DLC policies, he had the courage to develop new, progressive approaches as they fit best.

Todays DLC Dems are NOT like Bill Clinton, and he didn't hew to the DLC agenda.

he and Clinton are essentially cofounders of the DLC.

I think he is a quite good leader, despite my disagreements with the DLC. Remember, I prefer Kucinich-type democrats.

Here's one thing I disagreed with Gore about:

http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/395/395_02_GoreOnIraq.shtml

The Democrats’ warmonger in chief

February 22, 2002 | Page 2

NEVER ONE to miss out on an opportunity for a little warmongering, Democrat Al Gore jumped on the bash-Iraq bandwagon last week.

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York February 12, the 2000 Democratic presidential candidate said that the time had come for a "final reckoning" with Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein.

Gore applauded Bush for including Iraq in the "axis of evil" portion of his State of the Union address. "As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table," he said. "There is value in calling evil by its name."

Threats on Iraq aren’t new for Gore, of course. As a senator in 1991, he supported a resolution authorizing Bush’s daddy to go to war against Iraq. And of course, he was vice president to Bill Clinton, whose administration backed crippling sanctions on Iraq--and launched regular air campaigns against Iraq.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: "We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone. We have maintained sanctions in the face of rising criticism."

(...)

That took about 3 seconds to figure out. I guess the OP is too busy to give these things more thought.

Some Dems may be fortunate enough not to be concerned about those issues, but most Americans think they rank very high in importance.

Please also consider that for all their talk, Dems in Congress, including those running for president, have voted to approve Bush's appointments, even though their political risk in opposing Bush was nil. Actions speak far more than words.

Are you saying non-DLC Dems would appoint conservative judges if they were to win? Or are you making the bizarre assumption that any Dem who doesn't hew to the DLC agenda can't get elected. Either prospect is highly unlikely. Dems need to think harder about our candidates and reject the idea that no Dem can be elected to the WH without acting like a Republican. The US has changed and voters don't care for a conservative agenda any longer.

On each one of them, the policies of any of the Democratic candidates, including those who are "DLC" candidates will be substantially different than Bush-Cheney.

Iraq -- disengagement, maybe not as fast or absolute as I'd like, but better than anything I expect or have seen from chimpy and gang. And more diplomacy overall.

Economy--efforts at tax reform to correct the imbalance that exists today.

Health Care - For simple starters, no veto of things like SCHIP -- getting something on health care will require compromises to be sure, but that would be the case no matter who is president because at the end of the day, there will not be a "progressive" majority in either house of Congress.

between what we assume these candidates stand for and what they have put in writing.


Let's not assume they will do more on a particular issue than they have put into writing. We should also avoid making assumptions that they will run on a conservative agenda and vote with conservatives in Congress, then somehow magically change to a mainstream policy agenda once they're elected. There's far too much corporate money in the campaign system these days to make those assumptions.

Here's an idea: If you support a DLC Dem candidate and want them to win - make them reject the conservative DLC platform now - before the election. They have nothing to lose and, in fact, greatly increase their chances of winning if they do so.

Compromising on issues by conforming to a conservative DLC agenda is not only bad policy for the country, it also goes against public opinion and puts Dems at risk of losing the WH or having a small margin of victory that can be easily manipulated by the GOP on election day.

you've been thoroughly taken to task for your naderesque nonsense in this thread and you're stll at it. It's embarassing to watch- not unlike that scene in the Monty Python movie where the night has his legs and arms chopped off and still insists he's winning.
"What you gonna do? Bleed all over me?"


There are significant difference between Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Obama and Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, etc. And the voting records of the former demonstrate that.

if you don't want to engage in honest policy discussion, please find another thread.

I have engaged in honest policy discussion, and I've posted links. You already admitted that you "know" all the answers. You don't want an honest policy discussion; that much couldn't be clearer. Why not make a case for your candidate instead of making patently untrue claims about how there is no, or negligable difference between the "DLC" dem candidates and the repukes?

I'm engaging in a discussion of issues, analyzing the actual details of DLC positions adopted by some candidates and comparing them with mainstream Dem positions and conservative positions.

We're also discussing the impact of the DLC using money to control their candidates both before and after they take office, as well as what support, if any, the DLC and its candidates have among the voting public.

Your insistence on throwing the "Nader" bomb in order to stop a relevant and important discussion among loyal Democrats about the public policy positions our presidential candidates are running on in the upcoming primary shows you don't have an interest in honest discussion - only advancing some agenda of your own.

Discuss issues constructively or find another thread.

and you accuse me of doing it? Yikes. YOU are misapplying "DLC" with abandon. I'm quite accurate about you're being naderesque in this thread; you're insisting that there's no difference between the dems and the bush admin. And don't flatter yourself about your thread: it is not an important discussion, but a rather silly thread. And I'm not trying to stop anything at all.

You keep making assertions- like the DLC controlling the candidates without providing any evidence.

Also who the hell are you to define what mainstream dem positons are?? Mind boggling to see that kind of hubris.

And no, you don't get to tell me what thread to post on. Sorry about that.

If you could just bring yourself to admit that there are significant differences, but that you find the similarities disquieting, you'd have a good point.

after the last 7 years is just an idiot.

When you say there is no difference people are bound to list all kinds of differences, and you will lose your argument immediately. There are differences between Bush and the DLC, the problem is that far too often the DLC agrees with Bush. That is the problem, the problem is not that they are the same it is that they are far too similar in some key areas.

and that argument has vital points, but it's impossible to discuss things with womeone who insists that there's no difference.

he seems to be somehow ok with Bill Clinton and Edwards, seems to exclude them from the category "DLC dems." This simply doesn't hold up.

imo, the only candidate that seriously differs from the others on that scale is Dennis.