The Third Way and Democrats for Life.... and women's rights.

[madfloridian]

I found this article today about the Democrats for Life group claiming to be 47% of the Democratic Party, but they only claim 20,000 members. In an earlier article and at their website, they only claimed about 3,000. Here is their website:
Democrats for Life

How can they make that claim? That is bothering me.

According to a recent article at MSNBC called Roes Army Reloads...the DLC group called the Third Way is working with them to lower the percentage of abortions by 95%.

We are going to have to stand up to Chairman Dean on this as well, unfortunately. Many of us have contacted him that they don't just want access, they want to control. They want to cut abortions by 95%, which means they get to pick and choose.

This group refused to support John Kerry last year, yet they want a voice in the party.

Roe's Army Reloads

The past dozen years have been a political roller coaster for the choice groups. First they grew complacent with a sympathetic Bill Clinton in the White House. Then they got bogged down opposing popular measures like parental-notification laws and bans on so-called partial-birth abortion. Technology provided more sophisticated images of a growing fetus. Meanwhile, the pro-life movement got an unwitting boost from Clinton, who decreed abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," says Emory University legal historian David Garrow. "Once the pro-choice movement sent the message that abortion was undesirable, we were on a slippery slope headed downhill."

Democrats recently began realizing they were caught in the slide. Democratic Party chair Howard Dean met with members of Democrats for Life last month. Later the same day he told the party's national finance board that he didn't want to change the Democrats' fundamental position, but he did want to "reframe" it. "He said he wanted to take 'abortion' out of the political lexicon," recalls former DNC head Steve Grossman, who attended the meeting. Dean's already taken action: in April, he let pro-life Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan use DNC headquarters to announce his bill to cut abortions by 95 percent over 10 years.

Strategists at Third Way are taking a more cautious approach. For months, they've been quietly drafting a plan to help Democrats better connect with voters on abortion. The think tank—whose co-chairs include seven moderate Democratic senators—has been consulting with a wide range of advisers including pro-life advocates, religious leaders and former staffers of pro-choice groups. After issuing a series of memos and a major poll on the issue this fall, Third Way will roll out a new strategy to help Democrats broaden their support without sacrificing the party's core values.

I think I read that this DLC group only wants to cut abortions by 50%. And who gets to pick? Here is their Third Way website. It appears to be forming its own agenda, claiming to be the majority. I don't think they are.
Third Way

Here is an article from The Catholic Sentinel about the Democrats for Life group and their move on the party.

Oregon’s pro-life Democrats using charmed moment to try to change party

"Their political party aims to stand up for the little guy, and it only seems natural to them that unborn children are included.

Democrats for Life of America is one of more than 200 member organizations of Consistent Life, an international network promoting peace, justice and life. There are only about 20,000 registered members of Democrats for Life, but they say they represent 47 percent of the party. Forty-one states have formed organizations of pro-life Democrats.

Pro-life Democrats, long seen as gadflies by party leaders, have gained more respect since the 2004 presidential election. Large numbers of voters said that moral issues, abortion high among them, drew their allegiance to Republicans. That has caused the likes of Howard Dean and Sen. Hilary Clinton to utter welcome where before there was silence. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, who supported the partial-birth-abortion ban, unborn crime victims’ legislation, and banning abortions at overseas military facilities, was even chosen this year as U.S. Senate majority leader.

The founder of Democrats for Life was in Oregon last week trying to organize and energize members, about half of whom are Catholic. Meetings took place in Portland, Salem and Eugene.

“People know the abortion issue is sinking the party,” says Carol Crossed, a longtime peace-and-justice activist who helped revitalize Democrats for Life two years ago. “I was going into the voting booth and having trouble voting for Democrats. I asked myself, ‘What is wrong with this picture?’”

A member of Queen of Peace Parish in Rochester, N.Y., Crossed says she agrees with the Democrats on almost everything except life issues and disagrees with Republicans on almost everything except life issues. She has no comfortable political home."

What bothers me about this group is that they don't just want to have a home, they want to control the issues. It bothers me more that Roemer was their candidate in the race for DNC chair, and that they are now working with the Third Way, and that they are claiming to be the majority. They also believe in controlling birth control access.

They are not the majority.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. 47% of Democrats?

That is a steaming pile of horseshit.

Thanks for staying on top of these groups, MF. :hi:

[madfloridian]

2. That's what they claim...that 20,000 is 47% of the party. Baloney.

They don't want a foot in the door, they want to control the whole agenda. Roemer's speeches as a chair candidate angered a lot of people because they were arrogant speeches.

They want to control the agenda, and they are making us part of it.

[othermeans]

3. A poll done by Zogby in 2004 just prior to the Dem Convention

quoted the number 43%.

"...a reference to a January 2004 Zogby poll that found 43 percent of respondents who call themselves Democrats take a pro-life position opposing most or all abortions"

http://www.lifenews.com/nat655.html

[madfloridian]

5. Media Matters drew together several polls which show support of choice.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507220007

SNIP..."In fact, a number of recent polls show that more than six in 10 Americans believe that Roe should be upheld.

For instance, a Pew Research poll conducted June 8-12 asked: "In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?" Sixty-three percent responded "No"; 30 percent responded "Yes."

Similarly, a Gallup poll conducted July 7-10 asked the same question to half of its respondents; 68 percent said, "No, not overturn," while 29 percent responded, "Yes, overturn." Gallup asked the other half of respondents a different version of the question: "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" Sixty-three percent responded, "No, not overturn," and 28 percent responded, "Yes, overturn."

A Gallup poll conducted June 24-26 found that nearly two-thirds of respondents want a new Supreme Court justice who would vote to uphold Roe. Gallup asked: "If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?" Sixty-five percent responded, "Vote to keep it," while 29 percent responded, "Vote to overturn."

In addition, a CBS News poll conducted July 13-14 asked: "More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?" Of the 632 adult respondents, 59 percent called the decision a "good thing," and 32 percent called it a "bad thing."

My note:People may claim to be pro-life, but that sounds good to them, apparently...they don't appear to want Roe v Wade overturned.

"Polling does suggest that Matthews's numbers are roughly accurate when measuring whether people regard themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, but not when those numbers are applied to the debate over the Supreme Court's role in protecting the right to an abortion. A May 2-5 Gallup poll found that 48 percent of respondents considered themselves "pro-choice," and 44 percent considered themselves "pro-life." Similarly, an April 25-26, 2005, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asked registered voters: "On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?" Forty-seven percent responded "pro-choice," and 42 percent responded "pro-life."

It should be noted that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are vague terms, and different respondents surely understand them differently. A May 12-16 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked a more specific question: "Which of the following best represents your views about abortion -- the choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor, abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk, or abortion should be illegal in all circumstances?" A majority, 55 percent, said the choice should be left up to a "woman and her doctor"; 29 percent said abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother; and 14 percent said it should always be illegal."

[othermeans]

8. I guess Zogby made it up.

[dsc]

16. No it has to do with several issues

First, what does pro life mean in the Zogby poll? Is it banning all abortion? Is it banning abortions in all cases with the exception of the life of the mother? Is it banning abortion in all cases with the exceptions of life of the mother, rape and incest? Or did the people who answered the question choose the meaning (ie are you pro life or pro choice?)

Secondly, was overturning Roe v Wade defined? I would imagine that more than a few people believe that if Roe v Wade were overturned abortion would be banned the next day. Unless the poll made clear what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned it is pretty worthless.

[othermeans]

34. All I was saying was that

I think the original statement was that "47 per cent of Democrats" were pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice whatever you want to call it. The post that responded to my statement about Zogby's poll stated things like: "all people" a "majority" I was only responding to the fact that Zogby mentioned Democrats as a group not any other group of people.

Here is the link to Zogby's poll with his findings:
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

[madfloridian]

4. Their agenda..oppose abortion on overseas bases, oppose stem cell research

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=39

These are the House members who refused to allow an amendment to moderate this abortion ban on overseas bases;

Berry
Boren
Butterfield
Costello
Cuellar
Davis (TN)
Doyle
Holden
Kanjorski
Kildee
Langevin
Lipinski
Lynch
Marshall
McIntyre
McNulty
Melancon
Michaud
Mollohan
Murtha
Oberstar
Ortiz
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ross
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Skelton
Stupak
Taylor (MS)

These are the ones who voted against allowing funding of stem cell research.
Democrats that opposed HR 810 Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

Costello
Davis (TN)
Holden
Kaptur
Kildee
Lipinski
Marshall
McIntyre
Mollohan
Oberstar
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Stupak
Taylor (MS)

[madfloridian]

6. Kick because 20,000 is NOT 47% of the party.

It just is not.

[wyldwolf]

7. A few issues with your analysis

I found this article today about the Democrats for Life group claiming to be 47% of the Democratic Party, but they only claim 20,000 members.

I don't believe they are saying that 47% of the party are members of their organization but rather are interpreting polls that suggest 47% of Democrats agree with their positions.

A CBS News poll from two years ago found that 43% of Democrats think that abortion should be generally available (thus, this organization may be implying that 47% do not think abortion should be generally available.)

By the way, the poll also said 35% of Dems want abortion available, but with stricter limits than now and 21% of Dems want it not permitted at all.

(Dislaimer: Not my views)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

You also asked several times in your post "who gets to pick?" in reference to suggestions on reducing abortions.

Surely you don't believe there is a plan in place to pick who gets to have them and who doesn't.

When the American Heart Association talks about reducing heart attacks they're not saying they're going to hand pick who haves them and who doesn't.

Same with the American Cancer Society and any number of organizations who concentrate on reducing various sicknesses, DUIs, etc.

YOU KNOW they're objective is to reduce the numbers through education and NOT "picking" who can have them and who can't. The only things that would even remotely resemble "picking" would be so-called partial birth restrictions and parental notification legislation, both of which would have overwhelming public support.

Also - where does it say this group wants to limit birth control access?

Why do you stress things like "they think they're the majority?"

Such divisive language only serves to engage people in more inner-party battles and distract from what you post is actually about.

Lastly - I see posts like this daily on DU that twist facts to conform to a pre-established anti-DLC agenda. If they are so evil, surely one wouldn't have to create fires where none exists to win converts.

[madfloridian]

9. I just read this, but no time to prepare a response right now.

Something has come up.
I do have a response to each point, not that it matters at all, but not time to compile it.

They will control the number of abortions. The control is already in place in most states. NARAL has charts and lists.

They are circumventing Roe already with the help of our Democrats...and they claim their 3000 to 20,000 members represent 47%. That is not even sensible.

But...later.

[madfloridian]

13. I have decided not to respond. My post was clear and correct.

The only thing I corrected was an impression I thought total of Democrats meant numbers...I did not think that.

Otherwise, my post stands and is correct.

[wyldwolf]

19. your post was neither clear nor correct

Let's see those charts and numbers from NARAL.

Let's see PROOF of the major points of your post.

and... how about a link that DFLA DID NOT support John Kerry (not the FLA state chapter but the national organization.)

[madfloridian]

20. You tell me what was incorrect in my post, give details.

Here are your charts and etc. from NARAL. There are 3 sections, and I will let you look through on your own.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/index.cfm

See my post above....I did not mean I thought the 47% were numbers...we misunderstood each other on that. 3000 to 20,000 do not stand for a majority when the polling is against them.

They are just taking the power anyway, and the Third Way site admits they are after the "abortion greys". Site above.

[wyldwolf]

22. gladly

...although I already did it in post #7, I'll repeat my self and do it again:

don't believe they are saying that 47% of the party are members of their organization but rather are interpreting polls that suggest 47% of Democrats agree with their positions.

A CBS News poll from two years ago found that 43% of Democrats think that abortion should be generally available (thus, this organization may be implying that 47% do not think abortion should be generally available.)

By the way, the poll also said 35% of Dems want abortion available, but with stricter limits than now and 21% of Dems want it not permitted at all.

(Dislaimer: Not my views)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls...

You also asked several times in your post "who gets to pick?" in reference to suggestions on reducing abortions.

Surely you don't believe there is a plan in place to pick who gets to have them and who doesn't.

When the American Heart Association talks about reducing heart attacks they're not saying they're going to hand pick who haves them and who doesn't.

Same with the American Cancer Society and any number of organizations who concentrate on reducing various sicknesses, DUIs, etc.

YOU KNOW they're objective is to reduce the numbers through education and NOT "picking" who can have them and who can't. The only things that would even remotely resemble "picking" would be so-called partial birth restrictions and parental notification legislation, both of which would have overwhelming public support.

Also - where does it say this group wants to limit birth control access?

Why do you stress things like "they think they're the majority?"

Such divisive language only serves to engage people in more inner-party battles and distract from what you post is actually about.

Lastly - I see posts like this daily on DU that twist facts to conform to a pre-established anti-DLC agenda. If they are so evil, surely one wouldn't have to create fires where none exists to win converts.

So to review:

1. You intentionally mislead by saying these groups want to "pick" who can have abortions. There is no evidence of that.

2. In your original post, you DID say that Democrats for Life claimed to be 47% of the party. I and another person in this thread have provided polling showing that it clearly ISN'T against them.

You post on the Media Matters article dealt primarily with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The CBS poll and Zogby poll posted dealt primarily with abortion in general. There is a difference. You know what it is, right?

3. The NARAL link in no way shows that anyone is picking who can have abortions.

4. I can't seem to find any info that DFLA didn't support Kerry as you've claimed.

...and I'd like to see this answered as well:

5. Where does it say this group wants to limit birth control access?

Lastly, it is always so funny to watch people make these assertions about the DLC then either scurry away or flat out refuse to provide proof as you've done.

[madfloridian]

23. Here is part of the research I have done for you.

It says it at their website that they don't approve of the morning after pill. Website link above. Neither does Casey approve of birth control pills, for that matter. I may get around to your others later, or I may not. I don't post made up stuff. I don't do the scurry away crap either, and I don't appreciate your saying it.

http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=904
"Democrats for Life did not endorse Kerry in the presidential election, and it found little to support in the party platform. Nonetheless, DFL leaders were pleased with the 2004 convention because they felt they gained a bit more respect. DFL also held a public rally at the national convention that, they believe, helped increase their visibility."

I found the above through this article which says that Florida Democrats for Life did not endorse Kerry. In fact they advocated ABK, anybody but Kerry.

http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=1471§ion=Featured+Today

Florida Democrats Unable to Endorse Kerry
FLORIDA DEMOCRATS UNABLE TO ENDORSE JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT

Florida Democrats for Life of America, Inc. (Florida DFLA), an affiliate of Democrats for Life of America, Inc., would like to offer our Top Ten reasons why we cannot endorse John Kerry for President of the United States.

1. Florida DFLA is committed to advancing the right to life in the Democratic Party. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry is the first presidential candidate ever to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund which boasts that John Kerry's support for a woman's right to choose has never wavered.

2. Florida DFLA is committed to advocating for pro-life legislation and government policies. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry says he personally believes life begins at conception, but an ?article of faith? should not translate into public policy.

3. Florida DFLA is committed to preserving the dignity of the human person. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry has promised to reverse regulations that prevent the National Institutes of Health from funding research on ?cell-nucleus-transfer techniques? (in other words, human cloning for the purposes of biomedical research).

4. Florida DFLA is committed to promoting public awareness of all issues surrounding fetal tissue research. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry voted against the ban on fetal tissue research from abortions and the disclosure of fetal tissue research from abortions.

5. Florida DFLA is committed to reducing the number of abortions by ensuring that parents have the right to know when a minor child is seeking an abortion. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry has voted at least three times against requiring parental notification.

6. Florida DFLA is committed to promoting positive assistance to developing third world nations which helps to lift families out of their poverty. John Kerry is not. Proof: John Kerry has promised to reverse the Mexico City Policy as his first Executive Order. This action will provide organizations with taxpayer money to promote abortion, birth control, and forced sterilization in nations where America wishes to ?control? population growth."

[wyldwolf]

29. Let's make one thing perfectly clear

You haven't done research for me, you've done it for yourself. YOU'VE made the assertions, it is YOUR job to provide the proof.

In addition, for several posts - leading to the one I'm replying to - you did "scurry away" (post #13 and post #20).

See how easy it is to post proof of an assertion when the proof exists?

Although I can only find one piece which says DFLA didn't support Kerry while numerous pieces say just the Florida chapter didn't.

It says it at their website that they don't approve of the morning after pill.

Then why didn't you say that? Instead you said they want to control access to birth control. Of course you knew that with all the news about pharacists refusing to fill birth control pill prescriptions, people would draw the conclusion that DFLA was against birth control in general and I've seen no evidence of that. In addition, not "approving" of something is different than wanting to "control access" to something.

Has the DFLA called for controlling access to birth control or do they just not approve of the morning after pill?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[wyldwolf]

39. Interesting response

It doesn't surprise me that you avoided any point raised and instead resorted to the tired old "DLC is persecuting the left" meme, complete with baseless charges, and did some (im)potent attacking of your own.

Personal attacks have become so common among your set.

you still pretend we do not have facts and are unacquainted with you? ..and why do you never answer questions about the sources of your funding?

1. If you have facts, why do you never present them. What are you saving them for?

2. What questions about funding?

Standard challenge:

Anything you dislike about the DLC, throw it out here. Then demonstrate how the DLC alone takes action in such a way, then demonstrate how it is a bad thing.

I'll be waiting.

[Hidden Stillness]

61. Free Debate Among "D"LC

I am now able to get back online again tonight and reread this thread. I am completely baffled as to why my post was censored, but not surprised upon reflection--more "D"LC "open dialogue for all" again, which means only them. You obviously went to an effort to get it censored, which by the way, I have never done. I questioned why you jumped onto a thread calling for ordianary women's rights, only to attack, as you have been fighting with several people on the thread. I quoted a part of your post, and why your comparison was ludicrous:


"During your post, you stated, about madfloridian, the thread-starter, "You also asked several times in your post 'who gets to pick?' in reference to suggestions on reducing abortions.

"Surely you don't believe there is a plan in place to pick who gets to have them and who doesn't.

"When the American Heart Association talks about reducing heart attacks they're not saying they're going to hand pick who haves them and who doesn't."

Please tell me that that was not supposed to be a real argument--is this really how little attention you give to this issue? After there have been cuts to Medicaid coverage of abortion services, a new ban on Armed Forces personnel at overseas bases unable to get abortions, legal penalties now for transporting a minor to get an abortion, etc., etc., you can't spot "picking who gets them" here? Your reference to heart attacks was bizarre. I have never in my life heard of the American Heart Association announcing that it was going to reduce the number of heart SURGERIES by 50%, which would have been the actual comparison. The situation exists, now the surgery is needed. Your comparison here would have been that this society should reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by (say) 50%, as here. Of course, this is the position of Planned Parenthood. If you reduce access to the surgery that was needed, but do not help the original problem, you are making everything worse."

I criticized your phony use of the word "divisive," which you turn to regularly whether it makes sense or not, then quoted an offensive, "divisive" quote of your own on the "If you don't like Paul Hackett..." thread, and referred to the snide ending of your post. I asked, among other things, why you never answer people's questions about the "D"LC's strange funding, and you continue to avoid answering again here. I notice your snide style of writing continues, and your demands that everyone else answer your questions, while you refuse. "Then demonstrate this, then demonstrate that..." Since I never used the phrase, as you claimed, "the 'D'LC is persecuting the left," or anything like it, I am perplexed as to how that qualifies as a great retort. Try answering questions about the "D"LC's funding, rather than always giving orders, on a thread you did not even start. Again, baffled as to the deletion of my post.

[wyldwolf]

62. If you have a question as to why you post was deleted, ask a mod

Probably had omething to do with the rule Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum and your usage of the word "prick."

Just my guess.

And, of course, your tired "the DLC is persecuting me" meme is so old.

I asked, among other things, why you never answer people's questions about the "D"LC's strange funding, and you continue to avoid answering again here.

Actually, I didn't avoid answering that and never have because no one ever asks about the DLC's strange funding because it comes from the same place other Democrat's funding comes from. People know that.

But in my standard challenge to you, which you ignored as most do, that issue would surely come up. If you have "facts" as you claim, then bring them to the table.

Here's the challenge again:

Anything you dislike about the DLC, throw it out here. Then demonstrate how the DLC alone takes action in such a way, then demonstrate (this would have to be your opinion) how it is a bad thing.

This would include, for example, funding.

Now, you talk about free debate. There is no such thing. Debate has rules and procedures. No straw men. No ad hominems. No red herrings. Documented facts must be presented and a case built around them. This is difficult for most, including most of the anti-DLCers who "argue" from emotion and cast aside history and facts in favor for what they "feel" is "right."

[Hidden Stillness]

65. MORE "D"LC Lies, Orders, and Refusal to Answer

Note: Posts are not removed unless people like you go to the effort of removing them. If my post was removed because it quoted your offensive message on the other thread, then it makes sense.

Yet again, you lie as I stated nothing even similar to "D"LC "is persecuting me" or anything like it. You are getting desperate. Snideness alone is not working anymore.

Yet again you refuse to answer why all of the "D"LC's funders are corporate Republicans. Yet again you hide behind the distraction of giving people orders to cover up your own refusal to give information on their questions.

Yet again you end your post with a snide routine that reads as if it were written by a committee you need to help you. Yet again you will pathetically pretend that you have scored a victory because I did not run off like a servant and research whatever your latest order was. Yet again you will not answer people's concerns about your Republican funders. " 'D'LC: We Only Talk to Rich People." You are sinking; the entire middle class rank-and-file has started to hate your consulting firm, wants our Party back in our control, and does not even fall for your Republican "Democrats are too liberal for America" line.

[wyldwolf]

66. what part of my last post was a lie?

And, of course, you ignored the challenge. Again.

Hint: If you personally attack someone, your post has a very good chance of being removed. That is what the rules here are for. If you have a problem with them, complain to the admins.

all of the "D"LC's funders are corporate Republicans.

Proof?

But anyway, I'm off to a state Democratic party event.

I'll look forward to your reply.

[Hidden Stillness]

67. Same Routine, Yet Again...

You will never answer a question and you have no attitude other than a snide, childish demand that we servants drop everything and "prove" ourselves to you. No wonder we hate the "D"LC attack machine--never a good word about Democrats, never an complaint against Bush. You just worry about answering people's questions about your corporate Republican funders. That will give you enough to try to explain your way out of, pretending to be a Democrat, unless you know you can't. I'm not your servant, rich boy--don't give orders this time. Answer one single question; once.

[wyldwolf]

68. accept my challenge - bring facts to your accusations

Can you even back up what you claim?

Yes? Then do it.

No? Why not?

[Hidden Stillness]

70. I Did Not "Claim," I Asked a Question--Remember?

Only you know why you are so afraid to come clean on the question of your corporate Republican funders; why you will do anything to get off the topic. You are giving me orders again, when I had asked a quetion about the "D"LC's funders. It must be bad....

[wyldwolf]

75. Yes you did

You demanded to know why all the DLC corporate fundraisers are Republicans. That isn't a question. It's an accusation.

A question would be: Are all (or any) DLC fundraisers Republicans?

I'll be more blunt: They're not. Answered.

So I guess I cleared it up for you.

[Eloriel]

10. Not the majority, not even Democrats!!

is what I'd put my money on.

Don't we ALL know by now that the DLC -- and all its offshoots -- are NOT "real" Democrats? And I don't use that term lightly. They are Republican-aligned co-optors of our party. I don't care if Clinton supposedly formed them or not -- he could have been just as hoodwinked. When you've got Repugs bankrolling the DLC from the get-go, it's NOT because of some nicey-nice bipartisanship sentiment, it's CO-OPTATION.

Anyone don't believe me? The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin


At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

-- more --
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print


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.

How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html


Those corporate contributors--whose names fill the lists of givers to the DLC and a closely linked political arm, the New Democrat Network--include Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, the Health Insurance Corporation of America, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, Occidental Petroleum, Raytheon, and much of the rest of the Fortune 500.

"With the DLC in a position to influence the Democratic Party, Wall Street wins either way," says populist Jim Hightower, who has abandoned his lifelong loyalty to the Democratic Party this year in order to back Nader's candidacy. "If the Republicans win, the corporations have a party in power that will do their bidding. And if the Democrats win, Wall Street knows the DLC will keep them in line."
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print



Four years later, however, it was a different--if still somewhat disappointing--story for the group. As the 1992 campaign geared up, the DLC and its then-chairman, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, engineered a historic clash between what DLC theorist Will Marshall describes as "party traditionalists" and the New Democrats. Long before Clinton's carefully calculated denunciation of rapper Sister Souljah, the DLC pointedly denied the Reverend Jesse Jackson a speaking slot at a high-profile 1991 session in Cleveland. (Jackson once memorably said that DLC stands for "Democrats for the Leisure Class.")

Jackson identified the DLC leadership, most of which hailed from the Southern states that had made up the Confederacy, as "Dixiecrats"--a reference to the racist Democrats who blocked civil rights. The battle of Cleveland was on. The well-publicized confrontation exposed the DLC'S fiscal and ideological ties to distinctly non-Democratic groups and individuals. Then-Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said he was dismayed that a top Ohio Republican had provided $50,000 in funding for the DLC gathering and that the event was awash in Philip Morris, RJR Nabisco, and AT&T money. Then-Representative William Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who had been a DLC governing board member, said the group's agenda on affirmative action and other issues of concern to African Americans "sounds like David Duke."

snip

After the Cleveland debacle, the DLC abandoned the "big tent" approach that had characterized its early years--when it proudly counted the likes of House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, in its ranks. The lack of a grassroots base would have made this narrowing of constituency dangerous for some groups, but not the DLC. Secure in its corporate funding, the organization had the money to continue operating as a sort of upscale fifth column, "an elite organization funded by elite--corporate and private--donors," explains Baer.
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print

[madfloridian]

27. They announced the 95/10 plan at the DNC. Pic.

http://www.floridadfla.org/news.asp?newsid=16
Washington, DC - Apr 21, 2005 Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) joined Congressmen Tim Ryan, Bart Stupak, Lincoln Davis and other pro-life Democrats at a national press conference at the Democratic National Committee today to unveil an innovative abortion-reduction proposal. The proposal they call the "95-10 Initiative" was released after months of research, political outreach and planning.



Some of the plan sounds fine on paper. But I fear there will so much pressure to accept the adoption option. Ok, sometimes, but not in cases where a woman's health is involved. To have a group who refused to endorse Kerry announce this in the DNC HQ bothers me.

Time for another letter to Dr. Dean. He is bright enough to know they want more than a foot in the door.

[Greyhound]

77. They're not only corporate whores, they're cheap corporate whores n/t

[truthbetold]

11. Ugh.

I'm very disappointed to hear this.
Sounds less like a Democratic platform and more like Republicans in disguise.
Limiting the number of abortions? My god, how can anyone decide who can have one and who can't? This is sickening.

[madfloridian]

12. This post from GD totally confirms how this will affect people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4392429&mesg_id=4392429

[omega minimo]

14. The Third Way will inspire the Third Party

which will be grounded in the true meaning of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

These "Democratic" control freak-enablers and abortion apologists have a LOT to apologize for. They will kill the Democratic Party and/or engender the REAL Democratic Party.

Excuse me, I have to visit the DU thread about how we can avoid being "eaten alive by abortion." (Are there any Histrionic smilies or guidelines for the most flameworthy OP titles?)

[The Flaming Red Head]

15. it has nothing to do with abortion it's an agenda

They don't even live in reality land with the rest of us. They want to encourage women to have children.

I have a friend raising a grandchild because the mother is in prison on drug charges (she can't afford it) and I already know children orphaned because the parents had aids or hepatitis. I know a very young girl that gave birth to a preemie while on meth. Most of the women (girls)had drug problems and other problems were not able to think of any other options.

The problems are already out of control and as they preach their pronatalism and deny women any choices they also cut back on social funding to families.

I hate this even more because I live the south and when the Dem's run pro life candidates. I'm denied my right to choose.

[madfloridian]

17. It is about a lot more than abortion...it is about a whole lot more.

Many of them want women to be nothing but wombs. That is the truth. It is about choice in all areas, and about personal privacy.

[madfloridian]

18. DFLA is part of Consistent Life..formerly known as Seamless Garment.

http://www.consistent-life.org/members.html

Here are the member groups. I am not familiar with them but it appears to be mostly Catholic, some Baptist and other religous groups.

This group and Feminists for Life opposed Kerry, refused to support him. Yet they want to be a big voice for the party. I have a problem with that.

[madfloridian]

21. Seamless garment...from conception to "natural death"

http://www.seamless-garment.org/index.shtml

This is their old website.

Involved with Terri Schiavo and culture of life.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. Feminists for life?

Agnostics and Atheists for life?

These groups must have 3 members combined.

Orwell is spinning in his grave. I'm nauseous!

[Eloriel]

44. Feminists for Life is the group SCOTUS nominee's wife is involved in

Can't imagine why we'd consider them Dems, can you? Or expect them to support Kerry? Or listen to a word they have to say?

[leyton]

25. They're entitled to their views and their place in the party.

What bothers me about this group is that they don't just want to have a home, they want to control the issues.

They are a group with a certain viewpoint and they want to get more people in the Democratic party to agree with them. Is that so bad? You may not agree with them, but they have just as much right to be Democrats and to have a say as you do; especially since they see their cause (fewer/no abortions) as related to the central Democratic idea of protecting the helpless.

This group refused to support John Kerry last year, yet they want a voice in the party.

How many people here at DU say they will not support Hillary, or they will not support Kerry again, or they will not support candidate X, because that candidate does not speak for them? How is this any different?

[madfloridian]

26. They don't just want a place in the party.

They want us to no longer be a party of choice.

They want to be part of the decision making of the party, and their goal is to get Dean to put a link to their website at the DNC....yet they find almost nothing in the party to approve of and did not endorse Kerry.

http://thewitness.org/article.php?id=904
"Democrats for Life did not endorse Kerry in the presidential election, and it found little to support in the party platform. Nonetheless, DFL leaders were pleased with the 2004 convention because they felt they gained a bit more respect. DFL also held a public rally at the national convention that, they believe, helped increase their visibility."

They are welcome to belong, but that is not what they want. Not this group.

[leyton]

37. Doesn't this happen at DU too?

Aren't there a lot of DUers who want the more liberal wing of the party to have a larger role in the decision making of the party and who constantly express disgust with the party at large and who promise not to vote for our nominee unless the nominee is to their liking?

[wyldwolf]

40. all the time

But some can't see their hypocrisy.

[madfloridian]

41. Are you excusing their control of women's rights because of DU posts?

I think that may be what you are doing. People post all kinds of things here.

However, I am not one who posts crap and runs as wyldwolf puts it,

I research what I post, and I respond with an apology if I am wrong.

That is what you call "changing the subject", and it does not excuse the Democrats for giving in to the religious groups who think they need to have power over women.

Wyldwolf questioned me about the birth control issue. It is a varied opinion topic....but the problem we face is these groups I am referring to believe that life begins at the moment of conception.

Some in those groups do not believe in giving the morning after pill, and they consider it murder. It is available throughout the world, but not here in our enlightened country.

Many of those in the groups believe that any attempt to control conception is wrong. I do not believe that. I should not have that religious belief forced on me. Many do not believe in the pill for birth control, only barrier types. I can't figure that, maybe you can. Probably because the pill prevents pregnancy and they consider that against God's will.

Take at a look at the groups they have aligned themselves with...the former Seamless Garment group, now called Consistent Life. They were in on the Terri Schiavo issue, not wanting the husband to remove the tube as they called it murder.

Then get back to me with veiled insults. I am so used to them now. I almost thrive on them.

[leyton]

59. I'm not saying I agree with them.

I'm saying that they, as you state, believe that life begins at conception. This does inform their views on abortion and birth control - does that not make their views valid opinions, however vehemently you may disagree?

I'm not defending their views on abortion. I'm defending their attempts to gain more influence in the Democratic party.

And someone please tell me how pro-life Democrats who simultaneously refuse to support our pro-choice nominees and attempt to gain more influence in the party are any different from liberals on DU who promise that they will not support a centrist hawk if (s)he is nominated and who still crave a voice in the party.

[madfloridian]

60. First they came for the women.

And the leaders in the party said ok, fine, go ahead with your religious agenda to control women.

The rest is yet to be written.

[wyldwolf]

30. the only REAL difference is it's an organization and not individuals

The original poster's problem is that she feels it's a DLC affiliated group, and she despises the DLC.

A better comparison would be with moveon.org, who wants to be the policy-making head of the party and who does such things as fund other candidates to oppose Democrats.

In fact - if you strip out the original poster's issue with women's reproductive rights, the structure and goals of DFLA and moveon are similar.

[madfloridian]

42. Do not begin to compare DFLA with MoveOn.

MoveOn has never as far as I know tried to put restrictions on me as a woman.

DFLA wants to do so.

I would rather you present evidence that I am wrong. I wish you would.

[wyldwolf]

43. I just did and will again:

Strip out your objection to DFLA's anti-choice agenda and their's and moveon's agenda is quite similar.

[madfloridian]

45. No, not at all. DFLA is a very very religious group, mostly Catholic.

Do you remember when Kennedy was running for president? Probably not, most are not as old as I am...

I remember, though. We were strict Southern Baptists, and my parents were very concerned about his trying to impose his Catholic beliefs on the country. He dd make it clear he wouldn't, and he did not.

Now Southern Baptists are in many cases joined with the Catholics...especially in Florida where they just must combine to combat the menace of the gay community. Sarcasm there of course, but true.

Now look at you...comparing an almost extreme religious group who thinks they can control my reproductive rights to MoveOn...who doesn't give a damn whether I take birth control pills or not.

[wyldwolf]

46. Yes, quite similar

They both want a seat at the table to write the Democratic agenda.

[madfloridian]

49. Ok for the non-religious group to want that.

And to try to get it...but in our country we are supposed to not have religious groups meddling in our lives and politics. MoveOn is secular, DFLA does not give women control over their bodies....guess which one has a right to try to get a place at the table.

[wyldwolf]

50. I wasn't making a judgement call as to whether it was right or wrong

But the fact remains the moveon, DFLA, and any number of other fringe groups want to set the party's agenda.

Like I said.

in our country we are supposed to not have religious groups meddling in our lives and politics.

No, actually, our government isn't supposed to make laws respecting the establishment of a religion.

I would object to DFLA as much as I would moveon trying to control the party.

[Eloriel]

47. What utter nonsense. Are you this uncareful with ALL your "facts"?

Let's see if I can drive the point home for you.

Strip out whatever objection you might have to their agenda, and the agendas of the Council of Conservative Citizens and NAACP really are quite similar. There, how's that work for ya?

Nor does have quite the designs you say it does on controlling the Dem Party's agenda or policy-making apparatus. Do they wish to influence it? Of course. Control it? No, they're in no position for that and the charge itself sounds -- and is -- just a little hysterical.

But the really BIG difference in your claims that "there's no difference" and how farking harmless you apparently think this anti-abortion group is, NONE OF THESE OTHER GROUPS ARE INTERESTED IN TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT TO CONTROL MY BODY.

This one is.

Get. A. Clue.

[wyldwolf]

48. As usual, Eloriel, you jump into a thread without reading it

the original poster stated that DFLA wanted to set the party's agenda. I quote: What bothers me about this group is that they don't just want to have a home, they want to control the issues...

Same as moveon.

So... Eloriel... Get. A. Clue.

[madfloridian]

51. Perhaps she also could have said DLC is the same as GOP

in many ways...and Third Way appears to be even more like them.

[wyldwolf]

52. Standard challenge:

Demonstrate to me how the DLC is like the GOP, how their positions are not Democratic party traditions and never have been, and define what makes a "GOP position."

Then, demonstrate how the DLC is unique in the Democratic party in taking these positions.

[madfloridian]

53. Do your own research on this.

Eloriel and I have posted this stuff here long enough, with details and all.

Your way of continuing conversation is to just keep asking me to get more proof of that which you already know is correct.

You have challenged me over and over in this thread. You have not had to do a single thing but tell me to research more.

I posted true stuff. You know it, so you have to resort to other methods.

[wyldwolf]

55. I already have

which is why I'm confident that you can't provide any details.

[spaniard]

54. or how moveon is the same as the socialist party?

...in many ways...

[madfloridian]

56. Right wing talking points. Do your own research.

The right wing is having trouble keeping MoveOn from making a difference so they just make up names. Check them out yourself. Great group. Proud to be part of them.

Liberal, socialists, and communists...they toss those labels around too freely.

[spaniard]

57. you have no idea

..the extent of my research into the Democratic party, it's history, etc.

Currently I'm assisting in writing a text book on it.

I've done my research. Years of it.

You haven't done yours. And it is obvious.

[madfloridian]

58. I know. I am famous for my ignorance. Thanks for the reminder.

Most people wonder how I manged to survive this long with such a lack of intelligence.

[blondeatlast]

76. A text book from a guy who doesn't know simple grammar and provides

responses like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2023178&mesg_id=2024196

I'm a book buyer--sorry, I'm going to pass on yours, my friend.

Thanks for cutting down on my workload a bit.

[spaniard]

79. ah, a grammer nazi who expects perfection on an internet forum

Grammer nazi: someone trolls forums looking for posts to correct becuase they have nothing worthwhile to add to the thread..

[blondeatlast]

80. Sweets, I know what a grammar nazi is. I've been an editor... nt

[spaniard]

81. sweets, then you fit the description

[barbaraann]

28. If they refused to support John Kerry, they are not Democrats.

Period.

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

31. Aren't these folks all DLC?

I thought they were behind Kerry or he was taking money from them. Maybe it was all an illusion, lately after reading this I am astounded by everything.

http://www.answers.com/topic/2004-u-s-presidential-election-controversy-voting-machines

[mrgorth]

32. Pro-life democrat here

and I'm not a DLCer.

[WePurrsevere]

33. Aren't all Democrats for "Life"? Pro-Choice IS Pro-Life

Being Pro-choice isn't about being anti-life it's very pro-life, it's not FOR abortions it's FOR a woman having a Choice and a VOICE over what happens to her own body and life. Sorry but IMO those that call themselves "pro-Life" should be more acurately called ANTI-Choice.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Absolutely! And I think we have to fight like hell to take

that stupid terminology away from the anti-choice people.

Makes me nuts.

[Telly Savalas]

35. 47% number comes from the new Rectal-USB adapter.

Pulls the numbers straight out of their ass and loads them onto an Excel spreadsheet.

[Zhade]

38. Kick

Kick for my sistahs, yo.

[JerseygirlCT]

63. How are they going to reduce the number of abortions?

To me, that's the really important question.

Will they plan on making contraception more widely available? Providing better education for our kids? Morning after contraception OTC? Funding for those who'd wish to carry the pregnancy but can't afford it? (And I mean funding until it's no longer needed, not until the baby is born...) I'm good with that. I don't think abortion's a great thing. I think it's a necessary thing if women are to control their own bodies and their own futures.

If what they're talking about is limited access (or more limited access), more rules about who can and can't and when, and OMG, LESS BIRTH CONTROL??? Count me out, and I should hope, count the Democratic party out in a big way. That cannot be allowed.

[madfloridian]

73. Check out their 95/10 position. Some of it looks fine.

However, though they do not advocate "against" birth control...I do think they are against the pill on the grounds that it would keep life from beginning. They do include giving advice on birth control methods which is good. Their main goal is to subsidize the women while she carries the baby to full term, so it can be adopted. Not a bad idea within itself, but the women's advise clinics which exist now present a very lop-sided version of things.

They use the Culture of Life stance as a rule...that life begins at conception. Thus the morning after pill, though easily available in most countries, would not fit their criteria.

[JerseygirlCT]

74. The problem with their stance

(or one problem) is that they may wish to believe that life begins at conception, but what exactly is conception? At what point on that continuum?

The morning after pill prevents implantation. Most medical professionals don't consider a pregnancy to begin until it has implanted in the uterus. Implantation of a fertilized egg often doesn't happen. Every month, women have had fertilized eggs, and they never realize that as the effects are washed away in their next period.

[jonnyblitz]

69. i would never vote for a prolife DEM. they have no respect for a

women's right to control her body. they are even more pathetic then I thought if they believe in controlling birth control. apparently religion has fucked up their rational thought process like it always seems to...fuck those assholes. sorry if i offend anybody but people who think like this have no business calling themselves progessive. ant-woman is what they are.

[Nimble_Idea]

71. Pro-life movement is a minority fringe group

They only get the press they do because the media wants to show this group as the margin that wins for the pukes. This fringe group also makes for good TV. The pukes won on only ONE thing last election and that was National Security. NOT abortion.

[madfloridian]

72. Agreed, but they got to announce their 95/10 plan at the DNC headquarters.

http://www.floridadfla.org/news.asp?newsid=16

Washington, DC - Apr 21, 2005 Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) joined Congressmen Tim Ryan, Bart Stupak, Lincoln Davis and other pro-life Democrats at a national press conference at the Democratic National Committee today to unveil an innovative abortion-reduction proposal. The proposal they call the "95-10 Initiative" was released after months of research, political outreach and planning.

[radio4progressives]

78. That's why We campaigned so hard for Dean - all those that were chosen by

the Neo Libs (DLC/NDN - so called "Third Way" crowd) put their candidates forward and a lot of clout - but through grassroots organizing and hard work we beat them despite their well funded and highly orchestrated smear campaigns against Dean.

[wyldwolf]

82. you "beat" them?

:shrug:

[spaniard]

83. I can't believe I actually canvassed for John Kerry through October...

...and Dean was really the nominee!