Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This Shapiro Thing Within The Party... Has An Echo Of The Lieberman Thing Of 24 Years Ago... [View all]Celerity
(54,336 posts)34. Lieberman then served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council from 1995 to 2001.
In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to publicly challenge Clinton for the judgment exercised in his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

https://prospect.org/features/dlc/
snip
A Business-Led Party
Freeing Democrats from being, well, Democrats has been the Democratic Leadership Council's mission since its founding 16 years ago by Al Gore, Chuck Robb, and a handful of other conservative, mostly southern Dems as a rump faction of disaffected elected officials and party activists. Producing and directing the DLC is Al From, its founder and CEO, who's been the leader, visionary, and energizing force behind the New Democrat movement since Day One. A veteran of the Carter White House and Capitol Hill, where he'd worked for Louisiana Representative Gillis Long and served as executive director of the House Democratic Caucus, From helped build the Committee on Party Effectiveness, a forerunner of the DLC, in the early 1980s. To From, a key rationale for establishing the DLC in those days was to protect the Democrats' eroding bastion in the South against mounting Republican gains, and indeed one of the DLC's chief projects in the 1980s was to create and promote the Super Tuesday primary across the South, aimed at enhancing the clout of southern Dems in selecting presidential candidates. Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party.
Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mousestyle, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, profree market outlook. It's hard to argue that they haven't succeeded. Today's is not your father's Democratic Party. Though the dwindling chorus of party progressives provides counterpoint, today's Democrats are proud to claim the mantle of budgetary moderation. They oppose President Bush's $2-trillion tax-cut plan not by arguing mainly for more spending on health, education, and welfare, but because it risks the new sacred cause of paying off the national debt. They are the party of increased military spending, the death penalty, the war on drugs, and partnership with religious faith. They are the party of Ending Welfare As We Know It, the party of The Era of Big Government Is Over.
snip
While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman that was held at the National Building Museum in Washington. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.
And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.
snip
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This Shapiro Thing Within The Party... Has An Echo Of The Lieberman Thing Of 24 Years Ago... [View all]
Rubyshoo
Aug 2024
OP
I've used that quote many times lately because it is spot on & I'v'e witnessed it in action too often for over 50 years.
elocs
Aug 2024
#35
Shapiro? I thought they said DeNiro, either way, I will vote for Kamala because I am not an idiot.
Eliot Rosewater
Aug 2024
#51
The consistent lack of apostrophes and the extra space before punctuation is
Prairie Gates
Aug 2024
#72
I never viewed Lieberman as a moderate personally, and as time went on, he proved me correct.
msfiddlestix
Aug 2024
#3
I don't think anyone here would appreciate Shapiro being compared to Lieberman...
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#5
I'd advise you to proceed with caution, there Rubyshoo. Some of us were HERE after that stolen election
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#17
Since you asked, yes. Yes, A comparison with Lieberman was the first thing that came to mind.
EarnestPutz
Aug 2024
#54
Exactly. What the OP is implying in terms of Lieberman's reception was simply not the case.
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#18
Lieberman then served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council from 1995 to 2001.
Celerity
Aug 2024
#34
Yes. And Gore felt the need to distance himself from Clinton somewhat in 2000 election--
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#37
I should've said why I posted that reply. I posted it to show that Lieberman was long known to be a centrist/Third Way,
Celerity
Aug 2024
#41
True.. But I think, like me, most voters were pragmatic enough to look past that as Gore's choice...
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#42
I was 3 years old for most of 2000, lol, BUT I've deeply (at a proper academic level) studied American political history
Celerity
Aug 2024
#46
Looking through your lens now (and how intensely important every election has become since 2000)
hlthe2b
Aug 2024
#49
You know, the one that some are trying to conjure up, but only to help us don't you know. n/t
elocs
Aug 2024
#36
Gore was happy it made history as the first Jewish VP, but it also was to win a state
karynnj
Aug 2024
#22
If you are equating the two based on their religion, that is disgusting
getagrip_already
Aug 2024
#40