DLC/New Dems/Third Way vs. Dean discussion

[knowledgeispower]

The way I see it, this primary is really about the identity of the party. Do we throw our weight behind the DLC sponsored New Democrats because they brought us 8 years of Clinton and what should have been at least 4 years of Gore? Or do we instead attempt to frame the debate ourselves by rallying behind a candidate who promises a "new kind of politics?" That is the central question, IMO.

There are strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the argument. The DLC (which I shall use here as the moniker for "New Democrats" and "the Third Way" as they are really all interchangeable) gave us Bill Clinton, or perhaps Bill Clinton gave us the DLC. Either way, the point is that the DLC represents a Democratic president being elected for the first time in 12 years and being re-elected for the first time since FDR (though JFK would almost certainly have been...or RFK for that matter). Then Al Gore largely road the DLC path to what should have been a narrow victory over George W. All in all, we did have 8 full years of a popular Democratic president and probably should have had 12-16.

The other side of the argument is this: what exactly does the DLC stand for? Winning is the first and foremost answer, and that is a praiseworthy goal since nobody likes losing (especially as horribly as the Dems had pre-DLC). But beyond winning, do they have any principles? Is there a master plan? It seems to me that winning is all to the DLC, which leaves little room for even moderate idealogues in the party. What's more, some people have argued that not standing for anything has hurt the Democratic party's chances of winning elections in the long run, although I think that really still remains to be seen. The point is that the DLC doesn't give much to rally behind other than staving off a McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis type defeat.

I think it should also be mentioned that the Dems lost both the Senate and the House under the DLC's leadership. This does not necessarily imply causation; perhaps the house and senate were lost for reasons that had nothing to do with the DLC. But there still remains the possibility that DLC politics have damaged the view of the Democratic party as representative for the little guy.

So on to Dean. It is hard to characterize him in any other terms than that he is not DLC, yet at the same time he is hardly the opposite of DLC. He was himself DLC for a while, and as many have pointed out he is rather moderate. In other words, a Dukakis he is not. But Dean DOES stand for something other than merely winning. He may be revolutionizing the way campaigns are done through his massive donations from individuals. Unlike the DLC, he is not, at this point, sold out or beholden to the corporations. It is this facet of the DLC that makes it hard for them to be anything other than Republican-lite. When both parties are controlled by largely the same money interests, you just aren't going to have a lot of political diversity.

So Dean represents a possible escape from that path. It remains to be seen how he would fare in the general election, but at least as far as the primaries go his strategy of grassroots fundraising has obviously caught on. This is what excites me about Dean more than anything else, including the decidedly moderate principles he espouses.

The question Democrats must decide in this primary is as follows: Should the Dems stick with the DLC path (as represented by Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, and-to a lesser extent-Gep and Edwards) or should they instead seek out a new path with new promises (as represented by Dean) but also new challenges.

What say you, my fellow DUers?

[caledesi]

1. Dean will be the nominee. It's the $ and a brilliant campaign.

But, it stills comes down to the $. Sad, but true.

[StephNW4Clark]

2. My "problem" with this argument is...

<snip>"...his strategy of grassroots fundraising has obviously caught on. This is what excites me about Dean more than anything else, including the decidedly moderate principles he espouses."

I DO admire his campaign strategy, and I think he has set or at least refined a new model for campaigning. But I have a problem with people who support the campaign more than the candidate. I do think the "people" need to be heard more, but Dean's policies don't necessarily reflect such a huge dynamic shift markedly different from other candidates.

At the end of the day, I want a candidate for president who has a history of leadership, ability to react well under extreme pressure, and has views that correlate with mine. I don't want a candidate who has a better marketing plan than other candidates - I want a candidate that's a better bill of goods.

I really don't mean to be offensive; it's just a problematic argument for me.

[knowledgeispower]

8. Well, I see your point, but...

the argument is that Dean's campaign is much bigger than the man, which I think is important. Dean might become president, but after four or eight years he will be gone. But if he truly revolutionizes the way campaigns are waged (for the good of the common man) then that will survive on much longer than any term he could serve.

Plus, not to be offensive, but do you really think that Wesley Clark is "a candidate for president who has a history of leadership, ability to react well under extreme pressure, and has views that correlate with mine"? I don't know about your views, but Clark has never proven to have political leadership (much different from military leadership), nor an ability to react well under extreme pressures that don't have to do with the military. Dean does have that experience as Governor of Vermont, and I think it is experience that pertains quite a bit more to the Presidency than Clark's experience as a military commander.

[StephNW4Clark]

17. Well, actually

the 2 primary responsibilities of a President are:

1) Uphold the Constitution
2) Maintain and defend the security of the United States of America

Considering that as a soldier and officer, Clark took that oath 34 years ago to uphold the Constitution, and spent most of his entire life defending the Security of the United States.

And as far as Dean's experience in Vermont, I don't really give it much credence. Simply because Vermont is not large enough to be representative of the United States. If Dean were governor of CA, NY, FL, Iowa or Missouri, that would be a different matter. But he's not.

Vermont (compared to the rest of the country) is overwhelmingly white, and probably has a higher median per capita income than the rest of the country. It's just not representative.

And for a final note...I don't want someone who is untested in foreign policy. Dean has NO experience in foreign policy, and relying on a "team" doesn't cut it when you're fighting 2 wars - one in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan that is part of the larger war on terror.

[knowledgeispower]

24. In response...

the 2 primary responsibilities of a President are:

1) Uphold the Constitution
2) Maintain and defend the security of the United States of America

Considering that as a soldier and officer, Clark took that oath 34 years ago to uphold the Constitution, and spent most of his entire life defending the Security of the United States.

So how is the military "upholding the Constitution" in Iraq right now? Or Afghanistan? I see it coming: "Clark wasn't invovled in THOSE campaigns". Okay, how was Clark upholding the Consitution in Kosovo? In Yugoslovia? In Albania? If you think the military truly upholds the Constitution I am afraid you may be deluded.

The same question goes for "maintaining and defending the security of the United States of America." Name me ONE conflict since World War II when the United States acted to defend its security. And I mean really, not some nominal threat such as "communism" (Korea and Vietnam) or "terrorism" (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Vermont (compared to the rest of the country) is overwhelmingly white, and probably has a higher median per capita income than the rest of the country. It's just not representative.

Is Arkansas representative of the country as a whole?

And for a final note...I don't want someone who is untested in foreign policy. Dean has NO experience in foreign policy, and relying on a "team" doesn't cut it when you're fighting 2 wars - one in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan that is part of the larger war on terror.

I don't think knowing how to blow things up and knowing foreign policy are synonomous. Unfortunately, most of the country seems to disagree with me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. Wow, perfect example of how Dean will lose

"So how is the military "upholding the Constitution" in Iraq right now? Or Afghanistan? I see it coming: "Clark wasn't invovled in THOSE campaigns". Okay, how was Clark upholding the Consitution in Kosovo? In Yugoslovia? In Albania? If you think the military truly upholds the Constitution I am afraid you may be deluded."

If Democrats want to lose so badly, why are we wasting our time? I may as well vote Green or Working Familes party - I agree with their positions more, and they aren't going to win either.

Yeah, attack the military for doing what the Commander in Chief orders. Oh, and by the way, Dean supported Afghanistan, so I guess you are a Kucinich supporter right?

[knowledgeispower]

48. Actually

If Democrats want to lose so badly, why are we wasting our time? I may as well vote Green or Working Familes party - I agree with their positions more, and they aren't going to win either.

I don't understand your point here, or if you even have one. MY point was that the military doesn't "uphold the Constitution", as was the claim leveled by another poster. Are you going to disagree with me on that? If so, I am wondering if you could tell me why it is OK for the military to go to war without a formal declaration of Congress, as is required in the Constitution? Or why is it okay for the United States military to violate the law of the United Nations by attacking Iraq when our Constitution clearly states that treaties made are "the rule of the land" (or something to that effect)?

Yeah, attack the military for doing what the Commander in Chief orders. Oh, and by the way, Dean supported Afghanistan, so I guess you are a Kucinich supporter right?

You are twisting my words. I was writing in response to the statement that the military upholds the Constitution. All I was doing was trying to prove that that statement is in fact false, and not whether I personally agreed or disagreed with each of the wars. Although, in the interests of full disclosure, I did not support the war with Afghanistan BECAUSE THE TALIBAN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, but no candidate is perfect, including Kucinich.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

53. And Dean will be different how?

That's my point. Why is it that Dean supporters hold other candidates to a strict ideological purity test, while forgiving every Bush-Lite policy of Dean - who is pro-Wall Street, pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate, and pro-every war until running for President.

Do you really think that Dean can be anti-imperialist and support NAFTA? Don't you see that they are one and the same?

We're not going to get that kind of candidate, we will have to compromise. We can do SO much better than Dean.

If you think Dean won't go to war without a formal declaration of Congress you are just fooling yourself. What you and people like you are doing is giving the Dean campaign EVERY political weakness the left has and compromising away ALL of our strengths.

[knowledgeispower]

67. I can see we are on the same ground here

I agree with pretty much everything you say about Dean. The reason I support him, as is outlined in my original post for this thread, is for his campaign. The way he has run his campaign thus far has a chance to revolutionize politics in a way that would take power away from the corporations and put it into the hands of the common man.

As far as the war stuff goes, I was merely trying to refute this romantic notion that Clark is some great defender of the Consitution. I didn't mean to imply that Dean would do otherwise, only that to think Clark is some kind of savior for decency is absurd.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

73. He raised a bunch of money from middle class white liberals

That's really really good, but it's not revolutionary. You know what would have been revolutionary? An online fundraising campaign as tight as Dean's that *didn't* endorse a candidate so early on, and instead doled out money during the campaign, in order to influence what the candidates did.

You want to know why Dean's campaign, while really effective, is not revolutionary? Because as soon as Dean wins or loses, the campaign goes *poof* - I bet you don't even HAVE the mailing lists do you? It's locked up in Dean's campaign office.

In the end, the main accomplishment of Dean's campaign is that you all managed to silence real progressive voices in the Democratic party, like Kucinich and Sharpton, to get behind yet another member of the ruling class, who is neither a populist, nor a progressive, and hardly even liberal. Sad but true.

[Tinoire]

91. Well you've accurately summed up

what a lot of Dean supporters can't seem to understand and that's whence the resentment coming from Kucinich and Sharpton supporters & why it won't so easy to jump on board with Dean later on.


Well said:


In the end, the main accomplishment of Dean's campaign is that you all managed to silence real progressive voices in the Democratic party, like Kucinich and Sharpton, to get behind yet another member of the ruling class, who is neither a populist, nor a progressive, and hardly even liberal. Sad but true.

[Ardee]

100. For both StephN and Knowledge

An excellent exchange in which,imo, you are both correct. The majority of Dean supporters are more attracted by the novelty and angst than by any quality of the man himself. Any perusal of Dean's record in Vermont shows plainly that he is as entangled with corporate interests, or to be fair, was then,as is any career politician.

Clark is a man with absolutely no political expertise and his ability to get any agenda through congress is certainly suspect.While Eisenhower could be raised as an example of the possible success of this model I would say that those were the fifties and this is not.Things then were much more black and white, much simpler and far less complex than they are now.

I truly believe that the problem is not the candidate but the party. We live in an era of poll driven politics, wherein noone says a damn thing without running it through various committees and selected members of the public. Despite the vituperative nature of the Dean campaign we do not see the man behind the statements as the comments do not come from the man but from the committee.I get this feeling about almost every democratic candidate, excepting Al Sharpton and, to a lesser but still significant degree, Dennis Kucinich.

[southpaw72]

40. higher median per capita income ?

Vermont ... probably has a higher median per capita income than the rest of the country. It's just not representative.

Vermont ranked 30th in 1990, and 24th in 2002 for p/ci. About as middle as you can get. Outside of the affluent areas (Burlington, Stowe, Brattleboro) it's got a lot of agricultural poverty.

[Skwmom]

101. Being the govenor of Vermont is equivalent to being the

Mayor of Miami. A far cry from being the president of the United States.

[Larkspur]

34. You just described why I support Dean for President

I want a candidate for president who has a history of leadership, ability to react well under extreme pressure, and has views that correlate with mine.

Dean's history proves that when his back is against the wall, like it was with the Civil Unions battle, he doesn't shrink from the fight. Against a better funded rightwing foe, who received funds from out-of-state rightwingers, Dean prevailed, not by caving into the rightwing demands, but by lashing out at them and calling them the hypocrites and crackpots that they are. He had to wear a bulletproof vest when campaigning because of death threats by rightwingers. Dean showed guts and political courage when it was needed.

The pro-war Dem Prez leaders chickened out and caved into Bush when political courage was needed. They let Bush define the battle and they lost the senate. These pro-war Dem Prez candidates are miserable failures as leaders. When the going gets tough, they want to hide behind poll numbers.

Dean is a fighter and knew how to govern well. That is what I want in my Dem Prez nominee.

[knowledgeispower]

52. Thanks for putting it so well

Dean has proven himself to be a fighter. Who else can you say that for? Maybe Clark since he was apparently willing to start WWIII over a pissing contest, but I don't think that is exactly a POSITIVE for him.

[Tinoire]

92. Honest question

What if Dean is more of a talker than a fighter?

I've heard a lot of talk but with no action backing any of it up. Had Dean done something as small as show up to an anti-war rally, I would be able to buy the talk a lot better. My fear with Dean is that he says a few words here and there and that people then project their own desires on him.

Have you never been conflicted by his conflicting statements, or the troubling ones about Iran and Syria?

Call me a cynic but I need real action behind words which can be so easily changed and try as I have, I can't shake my distrust. And Dean is not helping me one bit by sealing his records. I don't want to start bashing Dean because it looks as if he just may get the nomination and I would much prefer Dean over someone like Clark (much is mild) but I really don't sense the sincerity that seems to have won so many Iraq anti-war voters over.

[Eloriel]

93. Calling it a marketing plan

only demonstrates your lack of understanding about what the campaign is really about, how it works, what the appeal is, how it will revolutionize American politics well beyond the compaign contributions aspect if it succeeds.

I see so much of this at DU. Some of it is quite purposeful misrepresentation by supporters of other campaigns. Some of it is simple ignorance. Some of it is, regrettably, willful ignorance.

Eloriel

[wyldwolf]

94. it is a marketing plan...

..the best marketing plans are the ones you don't notice.

[sangh0]

3. Dean is the most DLC candidate out there

with a possible exception for Lieberman. Aside from Dean's Iraq rhetoric, how is Dean NOT DLC?

[knowledgeispower]

14. In terms of how he runs his campaign...

Dean is not DLC. If he is the most DLC candidate, why does the DLC issue a memo practically every week slamming him and his campaign? That is an odd way to show support for your guy. Also, why did the DLC put Clark up to jumping into the race if they are so satisfied with Dean?

[KittyWampus]

19. Dean Is RESPONSIBLE For Helping The DLC Pull Right

That's a fact... and how his campaign raises money is largely irrelevant to what Dean's actual record is and how he has 'evolved'.

Dean was lionized by the Cato Institute where he badmouthed the Democrats in Washingon for being big spenders... even though those same Dems were fighting to get money to the States for programs like Dr. Deanasaur or whatever....

[sangh0]

21. I disagree

The DLC's argument is that Dems need to be strong on military matters, crime, and budget deficits while keeping quiet on guns, gay rights, welfare and other social issues.

Dean fits right in.

why does the DLC issue a memo practically every week slamming him and his campaign? That is an odd way to show support for your guy. Also, why did the DLC put Clark up to jumping into the race if they are so satisfied with Dean?

Personal animosity.

[knowledgeispower]

31. Gosh that is funny

Didn't Dean support gay rights as Governor of Vermont? Hasn't he said he would do so as President himself? You will have to forgive him for not raving about that to the high heavens, but it is a somewhat unpopular stance and as such he cannot make it a central issue to his campaign. But at least he HAS a history of supporting gay rights...who else does?

As far as social issues, other than the Iraq war, what is Dean's biggest arguing point for why he should be President? Because he HAS brought health care to the people of his state and, as such, knows how to do so more than any other candidate, NONE of which have done much of anything of substance on the issue.

And I haven't heard Dean railing about the need to control crime, I haven't heard him railing about the need for military might (it certainly doesn't jive with his position on the Iraq war).

[wyldwolf]

38. You're a bit off...

On your opinions of Dean in so far as gay rights and the Iraq war. I'll just detail one of them:

Didn't Dean support gay rights as Governor of Vermont? Hasn't he said he would do so as President himself?

In December 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that Vermont was "constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law." The court instructed the legislature to grant gays "inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' or some equivalent statutory alternative."

Given that choice, Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time. He did encourage the legislature to pass a civil unions bill. But the alternative he averted was legalizing gay marriage, not preventing gay domestic partnerships.

Many supporters of the bill criticized Dean for signing it "in the closet," in private and without a ceremony.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086952

That action has prompted a few reporters to ask Dean about his support for such a law at the national level. His answer has been virtually the same in all cases -- he is opposed. Why would he oppose a national law that he felt justified in endorsing for his state? Because he apparently believes that the federal government has no right to intervene in state decision-making.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8387

[knowledgeispower]

45. BS, it was a political decision

The polls show that a vast majority of people DO NOT support gay marriage. Dean is a politician, and as such he bases a lot of what he does on what is popular with the people. I don't like it, but I will freely admit that to do otherwise would be political suicide.

[wyldwolf]

49. BS? Bwahahahahahahaha

I think it is sooo funny when you cite sources and all folks can do is say it is BS based on.... based on.... their own mind!

You said Dean supported gay rights as the governor of VT. The truth is he was FORCED to do it.

You said he would support gay rights as president. The truth is, he would make it a state issue.

[Eloriel]

102. That's only partially true

While the Supreme Court of VT did force the issue, there was still the option of changing Vermont's Constitution. He did NOT go with that option, choosing to do what was right instead of what was politically expedient. Further, he signed the bill when he was at only 35% in the polls with an election just months away. He went on to campaign hard on exactly why what he did was the right thing to do. And he won the next election.

Here's a tip for you: The WHOLE Story is much more informative -- and intellectually honest -- than half the story.

Eloriel

[wyldwolf]

103. Well, here's a tip for you...

Unless you have tea with Dean daily or can read his mind, you don't really know what you wrote above. It's more of that Deanie speculation.

Sure, the VT constitution could have been changed but at what cost politically to Dean? You also assume the VT state legislature would go along with it - Dean couldn't have just waved his hand and changed the constitution.

The fact is Dean took the more conservative option. According to the Associated Press, Vermont's lieutenant governor and House speaker supported gay marriage, but Dean didn't. Gay marriage "makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else," Dean said at the time.

Eloriel, you're not dealing with amatuers on this board. Throw out an absurd speculative generalization and some people may say "ditto" to you, but not everyone.

[sangh0]

It's also a political decision for the DLC

As I said earlier, the DLC's point is to not push the liberal social issues. In VT, Dean did NOT "fight for" civil unions. He did support them, but he did so in as quiet as manner as possible.

There's nothing wrong with that IMO. I'm primarily concerned with getting the job done, and if discretion works in a particular situation, then I'm all for it. However, that IS a political decision, and with respect to this issue, Deans strategy is consistent with the DLC's.

[FrenchieCat]

79. This is what I remember....

On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization.

And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.

Then a day later, he told the Associated Press that he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approves the move and backs it with action of its own. "They have to send troops," he said.

Four days later on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Dean said United Nations authorization was a prerequisite for war. "We need to respect the legal rights that are involved here," Dean said. "Unless they are an imminent threat, we do not have a legal right, in my view, to attack them."

Then on June 22 2003: Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, another Democratic contender, followed Mr. Kerry's lead yesterday with a similar accusation on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"We were misled," Mr. Dean said. "The question is, did the president do that on purpose or was he misled by his own intelligence people?"

[KittyWampus]

22. Can You Prove That Clark Was Put Up By The DLC?

Can you demonstrate the DLC is slamming Dean with a memo practically every week?

Do you have links to these weekly memos?

And perhaps whatever memos happened came from Democrats who are responding to Dean's attacks.

It is NOT a given that Dean is always correct or even consistent when he slams other Candidates and elected officials.

[knowledgeispower]

32. First of all

I never stated or implied that Dean is consistent in slamming other candidates. I know he isn't and it disturbs me. It disturbs me that he even slams other candidates to begin with. It has almost cost him my support.

Secondly, I cannot PROVE that Clark was put up by the DLC, but the fact that most of the important people in his campaign or DLC favorites says to me that he at least has their support.

As for the memos, find them yourself. I know I've seen them, and if you are too lazy to look it ain't my problem.

[wyldwolf]

35. You invented those memos in your mind...

... after all, why would your position depend on their existance yet you refuse to produce them?

[knowledgeispower]

43. Fine, here is your precious proof

I don't like appeasing lazy people, but you've implied that I am either a liar or am deranged, so I feel the need to respond to that. Here are some links you can take a look at, if it isn't too difficult for you. Or perhaps you would like me to come to your home and read them to you?

PHILADELPHIA, July 28 -- The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.

The warning, by the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats that helped move the party to the center 10 years ago, was largely a response to the popularity enjoyed in early presidential primary states by Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.

snip

But the group's leaders said their concerns went beyond Dr. Dean and reflected what they feared was an emerging perception of the entire Democratic presidential field as supportive of liberal policies that the council rejected long ago.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251935&kaid=85&subid=65

-----------------------------

PHILADELPHIA -- The Democratic Party is "currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal," Mark Penn, a pollster for President Bill Clinton, told party centrists Monday.
Penn, citing the declining percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Democrats, issued his warning to more than 300 elected officials attending a two-day conference of the Democratic Leadership Council. The organization, the springboard for Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992 and the source of many of his policy proposals, was formed in 1986 to wrest control of the party from its liberal wing.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251938&kaid=85&subid=65

------------------------------

Armed with Poll, DLC States Its Case for Steering Party
By Dick Polman
Fearing that antiwar liberals will spoil Democratic prospects in the presidential race, the party's pro-business moderates yesterday brandished a new survey which contends that, in terms of voter loyalty, Democrats are in their worst shape "since the dawn of the New Deal."

Translation: At its annual summer meeting, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council renewed its three-month feud with presidential candidate Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has galvanized left-leaning activists with his outspoken attacks on President Bush and Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251940&kaid=85&subid=65

------------------------


And there is much more, if you care to look yourself. All of the stories above are FROM ONE DAY. If they can spew that much hate towards liberals in one day, how can you contend they aren't anti-liberal?

And would you care to rescind your allegation that this stuff is "made up in my mind"?


Note: bold type added by me for emphasis

[wyldwolf]

47. Precious proof?

Someone makes accusations then balks at providing proof, then calls people lazy for not finding the proof for him? :eyes:

You said memos were put out about Dean daily. So you got three. And they weren't even about Dean specifically but about the further left part of the Democratic party.

You've made these what you wanted them to be.

[knowledgeispower]

50. DID YOU EVEN READ THE LINKS YOU DEMANDED FROM ME?

At least one of them specificially refers to Dean. But that isn't even an issue, because the statement that I am trying to prove is that the DLC is ANTI-LIBERALS. All three of the links did prove that. If you want more proof than that YOU ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

And I called you lazy because you obviously are. I didn't feel the need to provide you with links because I am pretty sure you can use Google yourself.

Finally, you said:

You've made these what you wanted them to be.

BULLSHIT. I don't think even you believe that.

[artr2]

63. Don't even bother argueing with wyldwolf

He hates Dean and will not bother to read anything you post. He will just slime on - do yourself a favor, don't even reply back. HE has no vaild points and makes shit up . There are plenty of people who will give & take with you-

[wyldwolf]

65. Show me an an example..

..of ...

I make shit up.

[bushclipper]

68. On the contrary...

Wyldwolf debates logically. Like most, he prefers people prove what they say and doesn't accept someone's opinion as evidence.

I also reject the notion that criticism of Dean equates to a personal attack on him or his supporters. Many dean people feel that way.

Dean isn't getting a coronation in 2004. He isn't above reproach.

[knowledgeispower]

69. thanks, but i guess i learned that lesson the hard way

I was really hoping to get some intelligent debate going in this thread. I guess that is too much to ask. Of course, I have only myself to blame since I let wyldwolf draw me into a flame fest.

[wyldwolf]

64. Yes

At least one of them specificially refers to Dean.

You said the DLC put out anti-Dean memos daily.

I am trying to prove is that the DLC is ANTI-LIBERALS. All three of the links did prove that. If you want more proof than that YOU ARE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

But your links didn't do that. They showed how the DLC is competing with those further left of the party for control of the party. they show a DLC rejection of some liberal policies. But, as liberal themselves, the DLC isn't anti-liberal.

Their policies are here:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

And, reading for the first time, I agree with this.

Further, every DLC member I know is for the core liberal values I believe in. Pro-choice. Pro-affirmative action. Pro-gun control. etc.

I didn't feel the need to provide you with links because I am pretty sure you can use Google yourself.

I really hope you never have to defend yourself in court. In the future, keep in mind that the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the claims you make.

[knowledgeispower]

70. This discussion is over

I said something I knew to be true, and assumed that you would take it at face value or check to see if it was true. you asked for proof. i gave you the proof. in a pathetic attempt at saving face you are now attacking my proof. i won't play your games any longer.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

88. They are anti-liberal, and

they are totally DINO. Nice links, thanks.

"Fearing that antiwar liberals will spoil Democratic prospects in the presidential race, the party's pro-business moderates yesterday brandished a new survey which contends that, in terms of voter loyalty, Democrats are in their worst shape "since the dawn of the New Deal."

The key difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties is that Democrats are pro-labor and pro people, and Republicans are pro-business ownership and pro corporation.

The Democratic party is the party of the people. The Republican Party is the party of the pro-corporation, anti-democracy, wealthy "elite".

The Democratic Party was founded by Jefferson and Madison in response to their growing concern over the monarchism, corporatist, and authoritarian policies of the elitist Federalist party, which can arguably be called a predecessor of the Republican party.

By adopting a pro-corporate agenda, the DLC has moved away from a main founding principle of the Democratic party. In essence, they have become "liberal" Republicans, or conservative Democrats. Centrists.

I believe that transnational corporations founded the DLC during the Reagan era in order to insure that business would maintain control of our government no matter what party was in power. It is nothing more than simple logic that they would do this. The DLC is an insidious plant.

I have noticed that many Democrats are unaware of the history of the Democratic Party, who founded it, and why it was founded. I think if they were, they would not support the DLC.

Jefferson Was Right
By: Dr. Michael P. Byron - 05/24/03

Most Americans don’t know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation’s original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited “monopolies in commerce.” The amendment would have made it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by the states for the primary purpose of “serving the public good.” Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but rather of “artificial persons.” This means that they would have only those legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT; and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

Jefferson and Madison were so insistent upon this amendment because the American Revolution was in substantial degree a revolt against the domination of colonial economic and political life by the greatest multinational corporation of its age: the British East India Company. After all who do you think owned the tea which Sam Adams and friends dumped overboard in Boston Harbor?....Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power.

What is to be done? Let’s open our eyes and admit that the emperor has no clothes. Let’s admit that our democratic, constitutional, system was derailed more than a century ago. Until we return power to the hands of flesh and blood citizens EXCLUSIVELY, until corporations are summarily striped of “personhood”, until this legal obscenity is abolished, we can have no real freedom, democracy cannot flourish. Furthermore, to ensure that the will of the people is respected and reigns supreme, all members of our federal judiciary must face periodic reelection by the citizens—just as is the case for our judiciary here in California. Until and unless these things come to pass we cannot be a free people. Because we are fundamentally NOT a free people, because our ability to act and to build freely upon our inspirations is constrained by corporate forces beyond our present control, we cannot live up to our full potentials as human beings. Once these goals are accomplished there shall be such an explosion of innovation in economic and political and scientific entrepreneurship as to make Periclean Athens seem timid. It’s up to each of us to act NOW. Freedom itself hangs in the balance.


http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/_d195/_v195/__show_article/_a000195-000205.htm

Encyclopedia:

When political alignments first emerged in George Washington's administration, opposing factions were led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson . In the basic disagreement over the nature and functions of government and of society, the Jeffersonians advocated a society based on the small farmer; they opposed strong centralized government and were suspicious of urban commercial interests. Their ideals—opposed to those of the Federalist party —came to be known as Jeffersonian democracy, based in large part on faith in the virtue and ability of the common man and the limitation of the powers of the federal government. This group of Anti-Federalists, who called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans (the name was not fixed as Democratic until 1828), supported many of the ideals of the French Revolution and opposed close relations with Great Britain.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Democrat_OriginsinJeffersonianDemocracy.asp

FEDERALIST PARTY, in American politics, the party that organized the national government of the United States under the constitution of 1787. It may be regarded as, in various important respects, the lineal predecessor of the American Whig and Republican parties.

Federalism died because the Republicans (Note: this does not mean current Republican party. The Democratic party was called the Democratic-Republican party at this time) took over its principles of nationality. Rather it fell because its great leaders, John Adams and Ale~ander Hamilton, became bitter enemies; because neither was even distantly comparable to Jefferson as a party leader; because the party could not hold the support of its original commercial, manufacturing and general business elements; because the party opposed sectionalism to a growing nationalism on the issues that ended in the war of 1812; and, above all, because the principles of the partys leaders (e.g. of Hamilton) were out of harmony, in various respects, with American ideals. Their conservatism became increasingly a reactionary fear of democracy; indeed, it is not a strained construction of the times to regard the entire Federalist period from the American point of view as reactionarya reaction against the doctrines of natural rights, individualism, and states rights, and the financial looseness of the period of the War of Independence and the succeeding years of the Confederation. The Federalists were charged by the Republicans with being aristocrats and monarchists, and it is certain.

http://74.1911encyclopedia.org/F/FE/FEDERALIST_PARTY.htm

The differences between the Democratic and Republican (Federalist) Parties remain the same today; except that the DLC corporatists are successfully trying to take over the Democratic party at the bidding of transnational corporations, and swing the party as far to the right as they possibly can.

I wonder if they are here at DU trying to swing the party as far to the right as they possibly can.

:dem: Don't take chances. Nominate Dennis Kucinich.

[wyldwolf]

25. Where are these weekly memos slamming Dean?

And what proof do you have that Clark is the DLC's man?

[RetroLounge]

26. You tell us how he is.

Links? proof?

Didn't think so...

[rman]

99. so that's why the DLC keeps bashing Dean?

and supposedly Clark is more to the left then Dean, which is why the DLC does not bash Clark?

[blm]

4. Dean governed as DLC his entire career and helped pull Dems to the right.

In contrast, Kerry stayed on the liberal left and worked with other lefties to pull against the centrists pulling to the right.

Why do you believe Dean's 10 month old conversion to rhetorical populism more than his entire career as a Libertarian leaning centrist? You do know that the CATO Institute gave him a high rating out of all the Democratic lawmakers, don't you? No Democrat should even be on CATO's radar screen, except as an enemy.

[janekat]

5. He's "tops" with the NRA too....

n/t

[RetroLounge]

29. Yawn

:boring:

[boxster]

74. Do not underestimate the importance of that fact.

For some people, gun rights issues are very important. They are especially important to a significant portion of the liberal base.

Our eventual candidate is going to need all the support they can get and most certainly that of the liberal base of the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

6. My problem with this argument is...

...you speak as though there are no DLC here.

Though I am not a member, I am moderate, and backed Clinton, Gore, and a host of other DLC democrats - as have many here on DU who are moderate democrats.

I find the DLC discussions a bit divisive - especially when no one can quite put their finger on the specifics of why they hate the DLC.

In an earlier thread on the DLC (which was locked because of it's divisivness) I heard such charges as "DLC literature completely rejects the 'liberal' ideology and politics." No proof of this was given despite several requests.

If your "wing" of the democratic party is the most influential, why worry about the DLC?

Winning is everything this election year. We can hash out the nitty gritty once Bush is history.

[knowledgeispower]

10. I disagree

I know there are DLC supporters here, that is why I put this thread together. I want an intellectual, non-divisive debate on whether the DLC strategy IS the strategy Dems should go with. It follows that to have such a debate you must have people that support the DLC.

As far as criticisms of the DLC, I laid out my main criticism a number of times in my post, but here it is again: the DLC has no principles other than that of winning. Let me ask you this question: what does the DLC stand for, besides winning? Can you name anything?

And the DLC DOES reject liberal ideology. How many memos have they released slamming candidates (particularly Dean, oddly enough, since he is a centrist) for being "too liberal"? They sound worse than the Republicans when it comes to slamming liberals.

[wyldwolf]

13. You have to prove these points...

the DLC has no principles other than that of winning.

and

the DLC DOES reject liberal ideology.

Burden of proof. And a few memos (that need to be introduced into this argument) does not go very far in proving the DLC rejects liberal ideology.

[knowledgeispower]

16. Why do I have to prove mine but you don't have to prove yours?

I'm not going to spend hours scouring the Net to prove to you that the DLC rejects liberal ideology. If you have been paying attention AT ALL you would know this. Bill Clinton, the DLC's figure-head, has come out a number of times telling candidates not to be liberal. And the DLC memos DO matter, just as do the DLC meetings (which you can watch yourself on C-Span if you so desire) and the DLC's history of campaigning. They don't like liberals because liberals don't win, and they are ALL ABOUT WINNING.

[StephNW4Clark]

20. Flawed Assumption

<They don't like liberals because liberals don't win, and they are ALL ABOUT WINNING.>

OK - See here's another problem. Its the assumption that liberals are the core of the Democratic Party. I don't think so. I'm probably a "moderate" liberal - closer to the center than the wing. And to say that the Democratic Party belongs to the activist minority isn't fair.

I think liberals like Kucinich should have a place in the party, but to say that they are the soul, true voice, true spirit is a flawed premise. Ideology and pragmatism have to meet somewhere. And you know what? It is all about winning, because the cost of failure in this election is not just about the ideological purity of the Democratic Party, it's about the role of the United States in the rest of the world. This election will have massive implications on both our future as a country and our relationship with other nations. So to me - it is ALL ABOUT WINNING.

[knowledgeispower]

33. So tell me how the dems will win without liberals?

Because if you continue to push us out of the party, that is something that will have to be addressed.

Look, I agree the party needs to be inclusive. But what I see with the DLC way is a complete and total centrist approach. We aren't talking a center-left compromise. I think if anything the DLC is center-right. Yeah that might be more left wing than the fringe-right Repubs, but that doesn't satisfy me.

[wyldwolf]

36. You have a misconception of what a liberal is...

...and your argument here is dependent on it.

You may be more liberal than me, but that doesn't mean I'm not a liberal.

I'm more liberal than Clinton, but he is still a liberal.

If those on the far left want to run away pouting because they don't have the pull to get their way, fine. No one is going to hand you anything. Politics doesn't work that way. You have to earn power. Lobby your forces and take it if you can.

[knowledgeispower]

55. Clinton is center-right

Its called triangulation.

You are more liberal than Clinton, so that puts you somewhere around a moderate. I'll buy that.

I am more liberal than you, which would make me...a liberal!

Is that so hard to understand?

[wyldwolf]

58. Again, a charge with no proof...

Clinton is left of center.

pro-affrimative action
pro-women's right to choose.
pro-gun control
pro-public education

etc. etc.

Sorry your getting so beat up in this thread. Your posts are getting more desperate and meaningless as they come.

[knowledgeispower]

62. Oh really?

Well I provided proof that the DLC hates liberals. That is in post #43, which you still haven't responded to yet. How funny that you go quiet as soon as the facts are shown to be inconvenient to your argument.

As far as Clinton goes, I assumed that since he is the figure-head of the DLC and the DLC is anti-liberal (as proven previously), it follows that Clinton is not liberal. In fact, Clinton's plan is to take the Republican message and make it nicer. That sounds center-right to me.

[wyldwolf]

84. yes really...

Well I provided proof that the DLC hates liberals. That is in post #43, which you still haven't responded to yet.

No you didn't and yes I did (post #47)

How funny that you go quiet as soon as the facts are shown to be inconvenient to your argument.

Are you even reading this thread? I've responded to every post of yours directed at me. I can't help it that you have a warped interpretation of the points you present.

As far as Clinton goes, I assumed that since he is the figure-head of the DLC

Proof?

and the DLC is anti-liberal (as proven previously)

As not proven previously

it follows that Clinton is not liberal.

Weak deduction based on limited knowledge.

In fact, Clinton's plan is to take the Republican message and make it nicer. That sounds center-right to me.

Proof?

Oh yeah, you don't like to give proof.

And didn't you say here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=624910&mesg_id=625718&page=

...the discussion was over?

A man of his word.

[wyldwolf]

30. You made the charges first...

...defending them by asking me to prove mine isn't valid. YOU started the thread with what I can only assume are figments of your imagination.

I'm not going to spend hours scouring the Net to prove to you that the DLC rejects liberal ideology.

Of course you're not. :eyes:

[blm]

15. Because THAT'S the game Dean decided to play early this year.

The DLC knows he's a centrist, but, Dean started railing against the DLC and other Democrats as if he was Wellstone's successor, and the DLC decided to play along with Dean's game. "OK, Howie, you're too liberal for us centrists...heheheheh...." What a sick joke on the Democratic party, both Dean and his fraudulent populist campaign and the DLC Dems who responded to and played Dean's game.

Ever hear of bait and switch?

[knowledgeispower]

18. You may have a point

Honestly, the thought has crossed my mind. But you know what? I don't even care. If Dean wants to project the image of being Wellstone's successor but is in fact not, that is fine. Because ultimately the image matters a lot more than the man. If Dean wins the nomination by being "Wellstone's successor" (even as a "bait and switch" campaign) then that sends the message that Democrats want their party to be more Wellstone-like, which is exactly what I am going for.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

46. And it worked: Kucinich never got a chance

The #$%$$ middle class liberals got uppity about how they wanted to choose an "moderate" so they picked the ultimate DLC neo-liberal New Democrat, thinking that he would have a better chance than a real populist like Dennis Kucinich.

The result? By compromising EVERY issue (except gay rights and abortion) so early on, they guarenteed that Dean - who is $#@$# right-of-center - is now the "left wing" of the Democratic party.

Damn it, middle class liberals, I love you guys, but you just don't seem to get how the game is played.

[blm]

104. Great point. In fact, Dean is right in the center with Lieberman.

On some issues he is even to Lieberman's right.

Kucinich IS more of a mainstream Democrat according to the Democratic platform. Dean is WAY to the right of that platform. NO real Democrat pushes for deregulation in the energy industry.

[OKNancy]

87. I'm not too fond of the DLC

but it is their right as a political group ( focus group?) to support who they want and ideas they want. The DLC doesn't support Dean because they think he will lose. Simple as that.

It was stupid to put out those memos too.

[Mairead]

11. " We can hash out the nitty gritty once Bush is history."

How so? Do you think they're not going to mount a dreadful candidate next time? Of course they will! That's how it works, and then the cry morphs from 'nothing is more important than getting Bush out!' to 'nothing is more important than keeping X out!' So there's never time to do anything but repel the latest End To Civilisation As We Know It.

The ploy probably goes back to paleolithic times.

[wyldwolf]

23. OK, we'll run with your point...

... when does it become obvious that democratic candidate "A" can't beat Bush? During the primaries? After? A few months leading up to election night?

If the non-DLC democrats are so sure that their man is THE man, let the market, so to speak, decide.

In the voting booth, Lieberman will have as much a chance to win as Sharpton.

As for the nitty gritty? If a dem wins, he will have to appease the party or risk revolt. Diehard conservatives are already turning on Bush for not appeasing them.

[knowledgeispower]

37. Conservatives are turning on Bush because he isn't conservative

He is just using the platform as a vehicle to further the interests of the Bush cabal. I don't think true conservatives want the government sinking hundreds of billions of dollars into unwinnable foreign wars. I also don't think that true conservatives would advocate reckless budget deficits.

But the same can go for Democrats. If they aren't liberal, and don't even try to appease liberals, then the liberals will turn on them too.

[wyldwolf]

42. Conservatives are turning on Bush because he isn't conservative enough...

...just as hard core liberal can do to ay dem who doesn't pander to them.

That was the point. Perhaps you didn't read the preceeding posts.

The importan thing is for a dem to win. period. The nitty gritty can be hashed out later.

And please, before you start jumping from point to point, prove your prior charges.

[knowledgeispower]

57. Please see post #43

There is your proof. What does it feel like to have egg on your face?

[wyldwolf]

85. When I have egg on my face, I'll let you know...

...until then, your far left fringe hysteria is just entertaining.

[Mairead]

76. "let the market decide"

I think that would be a fine idea...if we had Adam Smith's ideal marketplace, where nothing but the quality of the goods and their price were at issue. But the reality is that our marketplace is controlled for the benefit of the few, not the many.

[wyldwolf]

90. Everyone can vote...

..I'm sure you know that the "let the market decide" was a reference to letting people decide when they go to the polls.

[Mairead]

97. "a reference to letting people decide when they go to the polls"

Yes, I did know that. Sorry that I didn't make myself more clear: when Dean and Kucinich start out even-up in the polls, but Dean is purposefully hyped by the press while Kucinich is ignored (as in fact happened and is happening), the eventual voting will be skewed strongly in favor of Dean. That is not a Smithian marketplace.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Well listen to one of your "Extra Liberal" friend

who has a different idea about everything you just reasoned.

www.liberalresurgent.com/mooreclark.mp3

[Mairead]

7. "he is not, at this point, sold out or beholden to the corporations"

No, he's going to take care of them for free. You guys finance his campaign, and he keeps the money flowing into elite corporate-owner pockets. Such a deal. For them.

[wyldwolf]

9. Dean and business interests...

Former governor Philip H. Hoff served three terms in the 1960s, and is regarded as the grand old man of liberal Democratic politics here. His support for Dean comes leavened with skepticism... "As governor, he fell under the sway of business interests." Hoff said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15326-2003Aug2?language=printer

[HFishbine]

41. Clark's Business Interests

are even more worrisome as the business involved helping the government establish survelience dossiers on U.S. citizens.
-------------

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000.

Clark's consulting role at Acxiom puts him near the center of a national debate over expanded government authority to use personal data and surveillance technology to fight the war on terrorism and protect homeland security.


more: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html (cut and paste)

[wyldwolf]

44. Yeah, but no one has ever denied Clark has business interests... Deanies..

..however, refuse to aknowledge Dean's. Instead, like you, they divert attention to something else. Usually Clark.

As for Acxiom, tired. Don't you have something else?

As described by developers, the Acxiom system would be an unobtrusive network enabling authorities to target potential threats far more effectively while reducing lines at security checkpoints for most passengers.

This technology is used every day by the finance and business industries and can be applied to enhance airline safety.

Do you have a problem When you apply for an insurance policy that your application and identity are subjected to a computerized background check or risk assessment?

How about when you apply for a credit card? Or write a check?

Why wouldn't we want data available for airlines to check into terrorist backgrounds?

Acxiom had information on 11 of the 19 publicly identified hijackers,'' Jones said. ``Had a system been in place on September 11 that integrated commercial data with that from the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization, Customs and other agencies, several of the airplanes certainly would have had extra security directed at them.

In the post 9/11 world, I would bet you'd find more people willing to endure an 'nobtrusive network enabling authorities to target potential threats."

[HFishbine]

51. I Love it Wild

Your defense of Clark always does more to illustrate the dangers of Clark's Acxiom ties than I ever could.

Go ahead and make excuses for an unprecedented program of government survelience of U.S. citizens. Go ahead and argue for pre-emptive detention without probable cause. Go ahead and argue for profiling.

When you attmept to excuse Clark's actions by arguing against the civil liberties protected by the constitution, it does my case far more good than you seem to realize.

[wyldwolf]

54. I love it, too...

Deanies are so predictable. Like children. You catch them doing something and you get, "yeah, but Clark did such and such... see... Clark did this, too!"

Most people grow up and learn to take responsibility.

As for Acxiom, you entire argument is based on the assumption that airline screening is a bad thing.

Remember, is isn't an unprecedented program of government survelience of U.S. citizens. It is only for those who fly on the privately owned airlines. You have the choice to walk.

Now, show me where this is a violation of the civil liberties of the constitution.

I've seen it and debunked many times. I guess once more won't hurt.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HFishbine]

71. I'm rolling now

Now you're just misrepresenting the facts.

"Remember, is isn't an unprecedented program of government survelience of U.S. citizens."

The TSA is not the government?

"As for Acxiom, you entire argument is based on the assumption that airline screening is a bad thing."

Staw man. I never said such a thing. I contend that profiling citizens for the purpose of pre-emptive detention based on what books they buy, what kind of car they may rent, whether or not they own a home, how long they've lived at their current address, etc. is indeed very un-American.

As for the violation of civil liberties, I don't care to undertake an elementary review of constitutional law which I'm sure most DUers and most Americans understand better than you.

I can promise you this, if Clark comes up against this issue and dismisses constitutional concerns the way you have, he will surely lose more voters than he gains -- in my opinion many, many more.

[wyldwolf]

86. yeah, you're rolling backwards...

It isn't an unprecedented program of government survelience of U.S. citizens.

As for the violation of civil liberties, I don't care to undertake an elementary review of constitutional law which I'm sure most DUers and most Americans understand better than you.

In other words, you don't know...

I can promise you this, if Clark comes up against this issue and dismisses constitutional concerns the way you have, he will surely lose more voters than he gains -- in my opinion many, many more.

Since no constitutional violations are in question, I doubt it will matter.

[knowledgeispower]

12. That is quite a bleak view of Dean

Do you really think he is engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the American people? I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I just find it very hard to believe. Why would he do this? Politicians are usually beholden to corporate interests because that is where they get their campaign money. If Dean doesn't get his campaign money from the corps, why would he govern with their interests in mind above all else?

[blm]

27. Think again. Energy donors SEEDED Dean's campaign.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

[knowledgeispower]

61. Do you know anything about Green Mountain Power?

Renewable fuels make up the largest energy source for Green Mountain Power. These fuels are better for the environment, produce fewer emissions, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuelse chart below shows you exactly how we derive the power that keeps you "on everyday."


Because of a decreased dependence on oil, our prices are stable and our service is reliable. And you can feel good ­ knowing that the power generated in Vermont is in the top ten nationwide for renewability.

http://www.gmpvt.com/whoweare/green.shtml


Oh my, getting money from an energy company that relies on environmentally friendly renewable fuels. How horrible!

[blm]

66. Read on about DEREGULATING electricity

and also how the ratepayers got stuck paying for 90% of a excess costs.

And his coziness was with MORE than Green Mountain as stated in the article.

[Mairead]

75. I agree--it's damned bleak!

If Dean doesn't get his campaign money from the corps, why would he govern with their interests in mind above all else?

The only reason I can imagine is because that's where his heart is--he's doing it because that's 'real Howard'. He doesn't see anything wrong with milking us to feed the wealthy, so that's what he wants to do.

How many multi-millionaires can really relate to working people? Maybe about the same number as those of us who can really relate to the idea of having to scrounge in dumpsters for food and clothing, i.e., zero or as close as makes no difference.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. Dean IS, and has ALWAYS BEEN, a Third Way, DLC Democrat

Dean, the DLC posterboy, is miffed because the DLC doesn't think he can beat Bush, and would rather have Lieberman or Edwards.

His one year makeover into a populist only fools people with very short memories. Dean agrees with the Cato Inistitute's pro-corporate policies, but has made a few speeches supporting some corporate reform, things that Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus and even Gephardt and old labor has been screaming about for years. Where was Dean? He was out pimping NAFTA as Chair of the Governor's Association. Some populist.

Kucinich and Sharpton haven't budged an inch - there will be no left candidate this season, hopefully at least a liberal.

Why the HELL would we want the DLC's cast-offs? If we are going to compromise, at least pick someone who can win.

[JaneQPublic]

56. At least four of the candidates are card-carrying DLC members

Kerry: also member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition and signed the "Hyde Park Declaration of "Third Way" centrism"
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Principles_+_Values.htm

Edwards:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Principles_+_Values.htm

Gephardt: member and past chair of the DLC
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Dick_Gephardt_Principles_+_Values.htm

Lieberman: also a Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Joseph_Lieberman_Principles_+_Values.htm

The same source cited above (www.issues2000.org) does not list DLC memberships for the other candidates.

While I would not be surprised if Dean was a DLC member at some point, since he is a self-described Centrist, I would appreciate it if someone would provide a link that supports the theory that he is DLC.

[blm]

60. DLC lists CURRENT officeholders. Dean left office Jan. 2003.

You think he became head of National Governor's Assoc. by being an outsider?

Here's how Dean was running BEFORE the antiwar movement grew:

March 2002
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/2794665.htm

Dean, a medical doctor, describes himself as "a bit unusual" for a Democrat. For one thing, "I'm very conservative about money," he said. Also, he pointed out, he has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

"I have trouble with the liberal wing of my own party," Dean said.

Other things working in his favor, he added, are: "I'm not from Washington. I'm very direct with people. I say what I think. People always know where I stand. ‘.‘.‘. I think people are ready for that."

[SahaleArm]

77. To Dean supporters...

the campaign is bigger than the candidate. The latest claim is they are revolutionizing the political process:). It's hard to argue with people who think up is down and left is right.

[blm]

83. Yeah, but most of the the MOVEMENT doesn't have a DLC/Libertarian agenda

while Dean's core principles are VERY much DLC/Libertarian.

[CWebster]

78. Yo Clark Corps

Don't you have threads for your own candidate to play in? What's the matter, can't conjure up enough interest?

There is no way your are going to raise Clark in the estimation of Dean supporters by constantly attacking Dean--especially with lame arguments that have been rehashed and debunked a hundred times.

Dean was DLC years ago but views them as shifting too far to the Right. The DLC has vocally attacked Dean and his supporters repeatedly while condoning greater cooperation and support for Bush.
Clark and Kerry are DLC players so any attacks against Dean for being a DLC dupe are really weak.

[FrenchieCat]

81. No, not really,

I thought that this was a good debate at times. Liked the links that really told some stories, the best.
see ya!:loveya:

[mandyky]

82. Hey K.I.P., looks like your attempt at civil debate

and discussion has been overtaken by the usual suspects (known Dean haters). Your post brings up issues that need to be thought about and discussed. As an independent Dem, I voted for Nader in 2000, and I am so sick of the DLC and them thinking they get to choose the nominee.
Why do we even bother having primaries if they decide? It makes me mad. And I am really upset that they misrepresented Dean in those memos, just because they think that is what will win.

[realFedUp]

89. Take the path less traveled.

A little more work but worth it.

[Tinoire]

95. Defintely a new path

Many fell for the DLC's game because we fell for Clinton's charm and are confusing our personal appreciation of a persona with the DLC.

The DLC's path is anathema to me as a Leftist and I say ditch them and ditch them quickly because Zell Miller is not an anomaly with them.

[Darranar]

96. The problem with the DLC...

is that they are unwilling to fight.

Sadly enough, we can't elect a far-left radical on par with Noam Chomsky, but neither can we, nor should we, elect someone who will kiss the boots of the Republicans.

Not only will that destroy any real differences between our party and the Republicans, but it will also spoil what a more than one-party system is all about: debate. If we never challenge the Republicans, will we ever win?

The DLC is essentially trying to be "politically correct," but in a bad way. They won't challenge Bush's foreign policy, they won't challenge the Republicans on trade policy, they won't even challenge the Republicans on economic policy, at least where it matters.

This fight isn't about a few tax cuts for the rich; it's about whether the corporations will rule, or the people will rule. Bad economic policy continued under Clinton, though it was slowed down considerably; Bush simply undid what Clinton accomplished.

The thing I admire most about Dean isn't his policies, because on almost every issue I am considerably more radical then he is; rather, it is his willingness to fight and challenge the right-wing. That is why he is tied with Kerry as my second choice. That is why the DLC wants to stop him; they are blinded by a desire to win to see what exactly needs to happen in this country.

The main problem with Dean is that he is not a liberal. He can challenge the DLC and the Republicans (which are essentially the voices of the corporate establishment) but if he only does it with words, no one will get anywhere. His policies need to reflect that fighting spirit in order for him to be a truly great president. They don't seem to, which is why I support Kucinich and not Dean.

But what really matters now is defeating Bush, not my personal perspective on the Democrats. I will support the Democratic nominee whether he's Lieberman or Kucinich, because I despise Bush with every fiber of my body.

[farmbo]

98. The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present...

...we must disenthrall ourselves; and then we will save our country. (A. Lincoln, 1864)

Our party can ill- afford another campaign where we concede the South and the conservative blue collar vote to the GOP, by insisting on a doctrinaire, dismissive adherence to past policies on gun control and Southern cultural issues.

Do we want to meaningfully court the NASCAR Dads...or will we rule these issues "off limits"; subjecting any candidate who utilizes prohibited code words of the cultural wars to immediate and universal scorn?

Its our choice. And judging from the intensity of the posts on these boards, we may be making the wrong one.