First of all, the DLC does not represent "moderate" views. Perhaps it did at one time, but no more. They represent the weakness that has allowed the Right-Wing to flourish. They are the out of touch "vital center" that seem to have a hard time learning from their mistakes.
Harold Ford Jr. and the DLC (Democratic Liars Club) found out what happens when you turn your back on your natural base and pander to the Right (a minority in this country). He lost, and it wasn't racism. Had racism been a factor he wouldn't have gotten half the votes he got.

He snubbed the Left and paid the price. I sure as hell didn't vote for him. Hillary and Biden will pay for the support of Lieberman (a slap in the face to the party as a whole that will not be forgotten) either in the primary or in the general should one of them become the candidate.

People who seek common ground in politics are good politicians. People who seek common ground with a fascist regime are fascist-lite. Every time a "centrist" in the Congress tries to meet the Right half way, they get stabbed in the back. Every time.
It's long past time for Centrists to begin showing some backbone. After all, it's that Jellycrat weakness and lack of resolve that has strengthened the Bush Regime and left us with a corporate death-grip on our collective balls. It's that apathy that has kept our soldiers in Iraq.

But it's ok. The DLC types don't have to change their ways to suit the party majority, we'll just replace them with better people in '08.

"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

I agree with R Neal.

I voted for Harold & did a little campaigning for him.
Facts are facts;Captainkorna won...we lost.When you lose..not much to say except.My hats off to you.
I will work to change that outcome.

especially the DLC, that bend over backwards to not offend the neo-cons and Republicans and those who support them. The truth hurts sometimes, The Republicans made their beds of corruption and lies and now they have to sleep in them.

It is way past time we stopped being so nice and mealy-mouthed when we describe the litany of lies and crimes and corruption, and that includes Democrats who have picked up and run with the sense of entitlement that has infected Washington D.C. (like Jefferson of Louisiana). The Bush administration is packed to the gills with LIARS, from Bush on down. People who say things like I read in today's paper in the editorials page piece by Marsha Mercer make me want to grab them by the shoulders and shake their brains around for a few minutes. Things like Linda Moon, the county Republican chairman said, "This is the Bible Belt, and we support the president for the values he professes. We believe he's a man of honor. We share the same values -- family, trust in God. This is a faith-based community for sure."
I want to yell, "What values are those? The kind where you LIE about WMD's to not only the Congress but the American people and the whole world? The kind of values where you send young men and women, mothers and fathers, off to a foreign land to prosecute a war of revenge against a man who insulted your father? The kind of values where you LIE about the connections of a country to one of the most horrific attacks on civilians this country has ever endured and use those LIES to justify killing thousands of innocent Iraqis that were brutalized by their own government and now ours as well? The kind of values that says torturing people because they are the wrong nationality or color is OKAY, even though you don't have an ounce of proof that person was involved in a crime, just a suspicion? The kind of values that says it's okay to lock someone up for years and NEVER tell them why they were arrested or let them see a lawyer or have any contact with their families? Some man of 'honor' that is.
"Those are some NICE Christian values let me tell ya. I wonder how many people Jesus would have tortured or LIED to or sent to die in his place...oh, yeah, he supposedly DIED for others so they wouldn't have to die...what a concept!
"Maybe the Republicans that still support this war should take a page from him and go do some good. Oh, wait a minute, they probably have other priorities just like Dick Cheney did during Vietnam."

/Anne Coulter-like rant is now turned off...
_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

/Anne Coulter-like rant is now turned off...

OK, good rant. But back to the topic. If I get the gist of your comment, it's about national security, the "war on terror", and civil liberties.

So, here is an executive summary of a policy paper from the DLC on the topic (just one of many covering many ideas and approaches). Is there anything in here specifically you don't agree with or think should be approached differently?

---
(link...)

Executive Summary

Five years into the war on terrorism, Americans find themselves searching for new ideas and strategies. PPI Foreign Policy Fellow Kevin Croke proposes a new paradigm for understanding the conflict -- the war on terror as counterinsurgency. In this paper, Croke outlines key tenets of counterinsurgency theory and how they apply to the war on terror.

Winning Hearts and Minds

The most important task of counterinsurgency is to separate insurgents from their base of popular support. For the war on terrorism, counterinsurgency theory suggests the following principles:

- Use measured force. Unless it can be carefully targeted, use of conventional military power against non-state groups will backfire;

- Hold the moral high ground. Abusive interrogation techniques or unlimited extralegal detention are counterproductive at the strategic level;

- Support political reform. A patient, multilateral strategy of support for indigenous political reform is the best way to repair America's image in the Muslim world;

- Pay attention to soft power. The US also needs to use the neglected tools of soft power, such as economic aid, trade preferences, diplomatic leverage, public diplomacy, and the attractive power of American ideals.

Targeting the Enemy

To target the hard core of jihadists, intelligence is key. This means that the U.S. must:

- Prioritize intelligence and police work. Day-to-day counterterrorism is mostly police and intelligence work, which means that continued intelligence reform is critical;

- Build anti-terrorism coalitions. Breaking up terror plots requires the cooperation of foreign authorities, so good international working relationships must be a top priority;

- Avoid civil liberties absolutism. The primacy of police and intelligence work means that Americans will have to make new tradeoffs between security and civil liberties;

- Invest in area and language knowledge. Counterinsurgents need to have an intimate knowledge of the language, culture, and history of the host population.

Supporting Reform

Counterinsurgency doctrine stresses the need for reforms that undercut popular support for insurgency:

- Promote political and economic modernization. The US needs to fight the root cause of extremism -- the Middle East's lagging economic, political, and social development;

- Divide the enemy. The US should seek opportunities to exploit internal divisions among jihadist groups;

- Help Europe integrate its Muslims. The susceptibility of some European Muslims to extremist ideology means that better integration policies are critical.

---

The only other thing I would add to this is that terrorists and states that harbor or support them must be made to understand that any attacks will result in swift and deadly retribution.

About the only thing I have a problem with is "Avoid civil liberties absolutism" and tradeofffs between security and civil liberties. So that's an opportunity to convince the DLC and authoritarian Republicans and their Daddy.gov scairdy cat enablers why you don't have to give up one to have the other.

If the DLC is so damned important, why the hell are they whining (just like the republicans) about the dirty hippie lefties? The whine sounds like it could have come from Rush Limbaugh.

We (lefties) have allowed the DLC machine to call the shots in the past, all to the detriment of the greater good. The bankruptcy bill, the war in Iraq, the medicare bill, and even welfare reform, are all glaring examples.

as you bring it up, take a look at your framing of "welfare reform." What was reformed? Many, many people, predominately single mothers, were taken out of education, and vocational schools and sent to work for minimum wage. Ahh, but based on your description, flipping burgers or cleaning hotel rooms for minimum wage is far better than being education or trained. Mandatory work hours have become longer, with no options for affordable child care -- remember, those on welfare are predominately poor single mothers. The result is thousands upon thousands of people, predominately single mothers, are caught in a vicious cycle of poverty. Mandatory slavery.

Yet, if we look backwards, before this "reform", the people that were given education and training (under welfare bill before it was reformed) have fared far better than what our current system gives us. So, in the end, reform meant regression. Regressing to a time when people were worse off. Being and admitted DLC'er, I find (ed to clarify) your framing of "welfare reform" is no different than the gop's.

The DLC staying in (the political) bed with the republican's has made them insignificant. The people want better, and the candidates have been forced to recognize this.

Irrespective of its policy prescriptions (some of which I'm amenable to), there's no escaping the fact that the DLC was founded by, is run by and is home to some of the most loathsome, toxic two-faced figures in American politics: Al From, Bruce Reed, Joe Lieberman, Marshall Whittmann, Skeletor, Mickey Kaus.

If they actually helped Democrats win elections, I might be obliged to grudgingly grant them respect. But on top of being flaming jackasses, they're also pathetic losers. Blecch.

Ahh, but based on your description, flipping burgers or cleaning hotel rooms for minimum wage is far better than being education or trained.

In fairness, I did not say that at all. What I said was:

the idea is better than the execution. "Able to work" means more than just mentally and physically able. It also means being ready to work with the right education, training, and skills. It means a social support structure for single parents and two-earner families. It means affordable housing and transportation. It means available jobs and a strong economy.

As for the relevance of the DLC, if you look at who was in Nashville, with the glaring exception of HFJ, the one thing many of those people have in common is that they were able to get elected. (And HFJ came close.)

And I have to ask, were we better off under Bill Clinton's administration or George Bush's administration?

You can't govern or lead if you can't get elected.

But, I agree that once you're elected you have to hold true to the principles of the people and the party that helped you get elected, and you can't sell out those principles just to get elected. And I believe I pointed out specific examples of where DLC/Blue Dogs have not done that.

I believe that I stated all of that quite clearly in my post. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually reads this kind of thing, though. It was kind of long, I guess.

Anyway, I hope we can elect some more Jim Webbs and Steve Cohens next time around, and put a D in the White House. I'm just saying we have to be realistic, and, gasp!, sometimes we even have to compromise. But I agree wholeheartedly that we also must have some backbone and stand up to the Daddy.gov authoritarian Republicans. Are your establishment Democrats getting that done for your?

Dennis Kucinich will not get elected. He doesn't even think he will. He's making a statement, and good for him. But if you want Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney in the White House, nominate Kucinich, and make a statement.

Randy, what I explained about welfare reform was what in fact did happen, regardless of the DLC'ers that were under the impression that "able to work" would continue to include education/training.

Fine, but what you said I said is not what I said.

Whatever.

My real question, and sort of the point of all this, is why can't Democrats get on the same page and get some Democrats elected?

My real question, and sort of the point of all this, is why can't Democrats get on the same page and get some Democrats elected?

I guess we first have to answer what do democrats stand for now?

Well, I reckon I'm asking that, too.

In the last presidential election, it appears we stood for wanting to lose. Looks like we will be making the same smart play again in 08.

And while we were all up in arms in 2006, we couldn't secure a veto proof majority in the Senate, or a House that would reign in Bush, and we couldn't even elect a right-wing Democrat from Tennessee.

So, you tell me, what do we stand for? Eight more years of Republican rule? More wars? More consolidation of wealth among the top 1%? Swell.

I'm just looking for answers. All I've heard so far is criticism, what's wrong with the "other" factions of the party, a lot of negativity, and no ideas or anything positive or constructive that might help move us along.

That's not a winning formula. Karl Rove figured that out in 1999. We're still playing catch up.

I guess both sides are entrenched, and the Democrats are as divided as ever, just like America, and it's going to be more of the same old same old for the foreseeable future.

Please just leave my Social Security and Medicare alone, otherwise y'all can do whatever you want.

Okay, I just lost my reply to you Randy. I'll try to reconstruct.

The next question should probably be, which faction should acquiesce? The lefties have acquiesced to the DLC/moderate/right-of-center faction too many times. In fact, I'd say this is one of the reasons why there is so much growing support for progressive policies, and so much outrage at the DLC.

And it is this growing support of progressive policies that the dem candidate are looking at. The support isn't coming just from dems, but from independents and (formerly self-described) moderates. The DLC and their supporters have simply not caught on, or are ignoring this. I have no idea, which, maybe a little of both.

But, by echoing the Rovian machine (and that is what you've done), that the dems need to be on the same page thing, you are allowing the GOP to dictate the debate.

If you haven't noticed, there is just as many factious groups in the GOP playing their political tug of war. It's no different from what is happening on the dem side. But, where are the news reports, like the week-long onslaught from the MMM on the DLC v YKOS? No, instead all we read about is the GOP snubbing CNN/utube, because of a snowman. Read some of the rightie national blogs, and you see a whole different story (especially on Freddie). His support is dwindling fast. But that's a whole other discussion.

Since I consider myself an independent, and I have split tickets a good number of times, I'll tell you what I think is wrong with the Democrats, and to a degree, what is wrong with the Republicans.

I come from a working class family whose parents saved money for their children's college education by shopping at K-Mart, having their own garden, and vacationing where we had relatives. My parents always paid cash for almost everything, including their cars.

My father has always believed that the Republicans stood more for the business man rather than the working man. Yet in most of the recent elections, my dad votes for the Republican. Why? Because when everything is presented to the voters in the campaigns, the Republicans always seem to be the ones who stand for the values that my father has prioritized in his life: home, family, faith, country, and work.

Now, I don't want to get in a debate about whether or not the Republicans really stand for those things, because
1)in politics, perception is reality and 2)my dad, and others like him, I assume, don't surf the Internet looking for critical analysis of Republican policies over the last two decades ad nauseum.

If the Democrats can reconnect to my parents' generation, and subsequently to their children, who at times may have rebelled only to return to the values of their parents, then, perhaps, the Democrats can regain their strength.

Whatever strategies and tactics Democrats use to regain those voters won't be nearly as important as abandoning the image of government saviors offering salvation to those who believe themselves to be "victims" of...life.

I worked for Jerry Brown here in Knoxville in the primary.
Ole Betty Bean covered our first meeting in the winter of '91 @ what is now sassy anns.

Former Knox County Democratic chair Gary Long(93-95),after Clinton won the nomination,said "Hell folks lets get together & elect the son of a bitch."

We did & Clinton won.

Anybody out there go to the Goodale for Congress
Clinton victory party?? Man,THAT thang wuz more fun than New Years Eve & Beatin Bama ever wuz!!!

The Dems have sucked at getting Dems elected precisely because of the DLC's tendency to react rather than define each race and define themselves.

--Socialist With A Gold Card

I have had this conversation with any number of Dem Activists. We should decide what we believe and drive opinion in that direction.

But...Actually, we know what we believe in...Tell the truth, play fair, and give kids whose parents can't buy them their own a lick off your fudgesickle...Same as in kindergarten.

I have had this conversation with any number of Dem Activists. We should decide what we believe and drive opinion in that direction.

And so far that's worked really well. When Democrats at least begin to act like they're taking their cues from the public rather than their own elitist leadership, which continues to claim they know what's best for everyone, they might have a chance to win and begin to develop a national movement.

The DLC is a friend of our party. They have come up with some of the best policies this nation has ever had.

Anyone who is in public service can tell you that you can't govern from the right or the left. You have to do like a Clinton or a Ford and govern from the middle. The DLC understands that. They also understand that to get into office, you need to nominate folks who will appeal to a wide majority of Americans, not just a section.

Empty rhetoric that appeals or excites the base is not enough. You have to have ideas that will move this nation forward. The DLC has those ideas.

The sooner the Democratic Party understands these thing, the better off it will be.

Rather than bitch about the two political parties (I'm sure you've heard plenty from me), I'd like to suggest that the answer to this problem lies outside either party. The majority of this country does not vote. If you put something like term limits on a ballot, presto, turnout!

If the Democrats start talking about fundamental changes to the way politics and elections are conducted, voters will come out of the woodwork.

What I would really like to see is John Edwards on TV saying, "You think this haircut is expensive? This commercial cost $100,000 to film and millions to get it on the air. Running for President is like bleeding dollar bills for months on end. The haircuts are the least of it. No one who is running for President is worth less than a million dollars except maybe that elf-looking dude from Ohio, but he just scored him a hot wife, so he must have some cash. I don't think a person should have to saturate themselves with money and bleed it all over the airwaves to run for office in America. Elect me, and 2008 will be the last year when candidates are judged by how much money they raise and spend. I will expose all the ways monied interests corrupt our government, and together we can return our country to a time leaders rose up on the strength of their mind and character and not the size of their bank account."

That is the sort of message none of the candidates are delivering. There are other themes Americans are desperate to see addressed that both parties tap dance around.

The Republicans can not possibly co-opt the message of driving the money-changers from the rotunda. Even trying would be like stepping in a trap. Of course, a candidate who tries this risks drying up their funding, so it might be best done in the general election and as a very explicit choice the party unites around.

In any case, it is the issues that do not get talked about that hold the answer to this dilemma, and most of those issues are financial -- political corruption and the growing disconnect between citizens and their wealthy representatives; a health care system that is now screwing not just those who can not afford insurance, but those who have it; tax policies that subsidize destructive and unsustainable industries; the abusive and usurious practices of banks and lenders; the disappearance of job security and employment benefits; the erosion of parenting precipitated by these financial pressures.

Democrats need to speak competently to these issues, but the ones who are running for federal offices are way too rich to understand. The party might be able to develop a coherent platform that resonates with ordinary people. The candidates will have to use the extravagance of a Presidential run as an ironic tool.

Gary: My father has always believed that the Republicans stood more for the business man rather than the working man. Yet in most of the recent elections, my dad votes for the Republican. Why? Because when everything is presented to the voters in the campaigns, the Republicans always seem to be the ones who stand for the values that my father has prioritized in his life: home, family, faith, country, and work.

That's very interesting, because yesterday I was stumbled across the following while trying to find out more about what the DLC advocates these days:

(link...)

Yet, class-interest populists cling to an outdated concept of workers' interests -- a holdover from the New Deal-to-Great Society era, when a large blue-collar class was fight-ing for a fair share of the industrial economy's rewards. Today, most people work in offices or high-end service jobs and they believe their economic interests are more closely aligned with the companies they work for.

This is an interesting paper that answers a frequent question, at least in my mind, as to why more people don't vote their pocketbooks in their own self interest.

I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but it's very interesting from a political strategy point of view, and talks about all the things Democrats have accomplished yet we don't get credit for because they have become established norms, and how changes in the economy have affected people's politics.

My point is that the DLC is a resource with ideas, some good, some not so good, and ought not be dismissed out of hand without at least trying to understand what they advocate.

As I have stated numerous times, whether its members follow through on their ideas is a different issue, but it doesn't mean they are bad ideas.

Rikki...there may be children reading this.

I think the DLC represents what 30 years ago would have been a moderate republican. Since there don't seem to be any moderate republicans any more, the DLC can rightly assmue the mantle.

Where that leaves the political party currently called "republican" I'm not sure.

The problem is that since the DLC ideology is contained within the broader Dem party, we have a clach of ideals that get watered down or dismissed before the Dem platform sees the light of day.

If we in America want a broad consensus we can't have a compromise of progressive ideas with conservative ideas within the Dem party and then those compromised positions face another gauntlet of compromising with the far right conservative ideology of today's republican party.

In a just world, the current Republican party would occupy the position of entities like the John Birch society, The DLC would take over the mainstream republican position, and the Democratic National Committee would be, as Howard Dean likes to point out, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

If we in America want a broad consensus we can't have a compromise of progressive ideas with conservative ideas within the Dem party and then those compromised positions face another gauntlet of compromising with the far right conservative ideology of today's republican party.

OK, that's a good point, and well put.

I guess I'm still trying to figure out how the DLC agenda is so conservative. And I'm talking about the ideas, not their actions like the bankruptcy bill.

Yes, it's pro-business and pro-growth. But what's wrong with that, as long as it's regulated and there's a level playing field?

Still just trying to spark some discussion about inclusion of "moderate" or "centrist" ideas in the Dem platform, to like, you know, win some elections and stuff.

But it is encouraging to see the party get back to its more liberal roots and win a few. Is that sustainable going forward, or is it an anomoly related to Iraq?

Another thing that concerns me is that giving control to the "liberal wing" of the party (while giving credit where credit is due to Dean and the job he has done at the DNC with the 50 state strategy) could result in the South being ignored by the party and lost for yet another generation. (And I'm not even sure Dems in the North and the West are 100% on board with the 50 state strategy.)

The ripple effect of the national party ignoring the South is less money and less momentum in state and local elections, which will result in even less progressive government and more Great Government like we are seeing in Knox County.

100 bucks..the '92 Brown presidential campaign's contribution limit..100 bucks.
Thats it..period.

Brown went toe to toe,with Clinton,for dollars spent in:Colo.,Mich,Conn.,Wis.& New York.

If you remember,Brown won Colo.,finished 2nd in Mich..knocking out Tsongas..beat Clinton in Conn...setting up New York & Wis as the make or break primarys.Brown lost NY big & Wis. by a nose & that was that...game over.

The point is Brown had the money to run.
One says yea but that was a long time ago.
Cant do it now...google around about the '92 Brown
campaign.Thats what THEY said then.

Every 2 weeks we got a list of folks that had given Brown money calling the 1-800 number in the 2nd congressional district.Man,Brown would flash that number & boom the $100 checks would roll in.

So,I called 'em...damndest thing happened...80-90% were voting for Clinton...but thought it took a lota guts to limit contributions to 100 bucks...they sent Brown a check!!

Ya know,if a candidate can win a presidential primary..just takin a 100 bucks...surely it could be done in a local race.

Seems like local politics around here is pretty much wholesale.

The DLC just doesn't seem to have what it takes to articulate their good ideas to "Everyman" and to get them implemented. Until they learn how to do that they are ineffective and divisive to the Democratic party as a whole.

Have we seen any part of the Democratic party be effective regarding "good ideas to Everyman"?