No Membership List at DLC.org any longer... Why?

[Totally Committed]

Over the weekend, I recieved a PM from a fellow DU-er who informed me of something of which I was not aware... It seems www.dlc.org no longer has available a list of its members. Anyone who reads DU with any regularity knows I am as anti-DLC as anyone here, and I state that up front, for purposes of disclosure and to frame the question I am about to ask as fairly as I can. This is not a "gotcha", but a sincere question I am about to ask. I hope those whith knowledge as the the "why" of this will weigh in and tell us what they know. Here's the question: If the DLC has nothing to hide, and those who belong to this organization are proud of their affiliation, why has the membership list that used to be available there been taken off the site?

Have they gone into a sort of self-imposed "stealth-mode"? If so, one has got to wonder why.

Have they become aware of the growing discontent with their policies and their members within this Party, and decided to "duck and cover"?

Albert Camus once said that all human beings could be divided into three categories: Those with nothing to hide, but felt obliged to lie for their own protection or the protection of others; those who preferred lying, whether or not they had nothing to hide; and those who enjoyed both the lying and the hiding.

Please enlighten me. If the DLC has nothing to hide, and is not trying to undermine anything or anyone, why the secrecy?

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. Maybe they realized how pointless that list was

Hi TC! :hi:

I wonder if the DLC realized how pointless their list was, as it really didn't tell anyone anything about individual officeholders. Howard Dean was on the list until he left office in 2003, and John Kerry was on the "list" despite the fact that I read no fewer than 3 interviews in which Al From expressed his disdain for Kerry's "liberalism." In other words it was a pointless list of people who had at one time been affiliated with the DLC despite whether they were still participating members or not. Maybe they'll come out with a new and improved list emphasizing Hillary, their all-star?

I'm just guessing, but I'm glad that list is gone.

[Totally Committed]

2. Very good point.

That's an absolute possibility.

They had a "Leadership List", featuring Hillary, and Vilsack prominently... onder if that list is still there? Do you think, even though you are glad the list is gone, that people deserve to know who is DLC and who isn't, or do you really think it doesn't/shouldn't matter? Just wondering. (And hoping that Kerry decides to leave the DLC and publicly disavow his affiliation, myself, but I realize he probably wouldn't do that just for my comfort level...)

Hi, yourself, WildEyed! :hi:

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. I think a "leadership list" is more likely

I know what you're saying about the general membership, but at the same time, the only ones who matter are those who call themselves "leaders" of the DLC, IMO. People like Vilsack and Clinton and Bayh who openly affiliate themselves with the DLC and who are guests/keynote speakers at the DLC convention are the ones who take policy positions based on the principles of the DLC, so they're really the ones people should keep an eye on.

Just an inkling, but I have a feeling the DLC is going to start churning out Hillary 2008 propaganda BIG TIME after the 2006 elections. I wouldn't be surprised if this is reflected on their website. DLC strategists James Carville and Paul Begala are already salivating at the prospect of being Hillary's campaign grand poobahs, and neither of them fails to throw in a snarky aside about Kerry, Dean, or any other Dem not of the "third way" persuasion when they go on the talking head shows. Someone needs to tell Carville and Begala that they've been irrelevant for over 6 years now.

[Totally Committed]

39. I agree with you on both the "Leadership List" and

the Hillary push post 2006 elections. I REALLY agree with you about Carville and Begala!!! -- I am so sick of their sorry K-Street-Third-Way asses, I can't tell you.

Nice post! I appreciate the perspective.

TC

[acmejack]

3. That is a question best answered by the DLC apologists.

Removing the list was a mere formality, you can easily determine their membership roster by simply finding a vote on anti worker legislation such as the bankruptcy bill and seeing who on the Democratic side voted against it.

[karynnj]

12. actually that is not true

without looking it up - Hillary Clinton, as DLC as you can get, voted against cloture on the bankrupcy bill (she didn't vote on the bill itself because her husband was in the hospital and the outcome was not in question). (Kerry also voted against it - but his votes don't look DLC, but liberal)

Joe Biden, on the other hand, is not DLC but he voted for it.

[radio4progressives]

14. Hillary's Hospital Excuse...

Hillary's excuse that her husband was in the hospital, turns out it was merely a check up - nothing serious - nothing to prevent her for casting a vote against the bill.

lame lame lame lame lame lame lame

[karynnj]

31. It was a health scare

The key point is that the only possible way to stop the bill was the cloture vote (which needed 6o yes votes). The Republicans had more than 50 votes. I think this was the bill that Lieberman voted No on the vote - but yes on cloture.

I am not a Hillary supporter - but I think that Clinton actually had some surgery to remove scar tissue from the earlier operation. Even if it were a check up, Clinton's appearance at that time was weak enough that she may have wanted to be there in case the news was bad - and he needed more surgery. If the vote were critical, she might have made a differnt decision.

But at any rate: Kerry voted against and Biden for

[wakeme2008]

4. They read DU and saw

ppl like me will not vote for ppl on their list :)

[Totally Committed]

5. I am one of those ppl, to be sure...

but do you really think they actually give a fig about the likes of us and what we think? Or do you think t's something deeper and even more cynical than that?

TC

[mom cat]

6. What do they have to hide? I an upset that a group that wants to

influence one of the two main parties in America has pulled its membership list. Is the DLC now a secret society? Does publishing the list violate the state secrets act? What are they hiding and why are they hiding it? Are they ashamed of who they are? Are they afraid for people to know who they they are? Is the Democratic Party now going to be controlled by a secret gaggle of elites? :wtf:

[AtomicKitten]

7. Yeah, another DLC thread.

[Totally Committed]

9. All anyone has to do to stop this thread in its tracks is

to provide an answer to the question. If you know the answer, please speak up. If not, why just take pot-shots from the side-lines? It's this sort of antagonism that makes these threads go ballistic and never reach any real solution. I'm not looking for a war, just an answer. This sort of post is counterproductive to that end.

TC

[SaveElmer]

13. Why don't you...

Email the DLC and ask them directly? Could be as simple as they are updating the list and have taken it down temporarily.

[jonnyblitz]

20. this isn't your own private discussion board , deal with it

hide thread is your friend. :eyes:

[mom cat]

8. It seems that some info is at the website. I do not know how much there is

as compared to in the past.

[Totally Committed]

11. I looked and could not longer find the comprehensive lists

that used to be available there. The DU-er who PM-ed me was correct: those lists are no longer there. That sort of info should (imo) be readily availbable in an organization that should have a certain degree of transparency.

TC

[mom cat]

19. I wanted to be certain that there had been a change before asking

what they are trying to hide. Has membership become a liability that some members are ashamed of? Is the Democratic Party now going to be controled by a secret society?

[WePurrsevere]

10. Maybe they've been having a hard time keeping the list up to date as...

smart politicians tell them to shove their losing policies and leave? It would be especially emabarrassing if they're losing their "stars". :D

Okay so maybe it's wishful thinking but... politics is a strange thing so ya never kno' eh? ;)

[SaveElmer]

15. Instead of getting others to do the research for you...

Why don't you simply contact the DLC and ask them where the list is?

[Totally Committed]

22. I'm not asking others to do research for me at all...

I'm asking for information that no longer seems available where it once was. And, why ask an organization I don't trust for information that used to be publicly available?

TC

[SaveElmer]

25. If you don't trust the organization...

Why would you trust their supporters?

[LincolnMcGrath]

26. Your beef is simply that it is about the DLC.

Threads asking questions are all over DU, every hour of every day.

[SaveElmer]

27. But...

If he is asking specifically why the DLC does not post their list eny longer...wouldn't it make sense to maybe ask them first...simple common sense...

Otherwise it's just another excuse to randomly bash the DLC based on no information...

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. No, but you already know that.

[SaveElmer]

30. No I don't know that...

I can see that an innocent explanation would blow the whole thread out of the water, so I am not surprised that the OP would not just ask the DLC.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. I presume then, you will be addressing the rest of the 1000s of threads

that ask questions? Am I correct in that assumption?


I think you and I both know that is not going to happen.

[SaveElmer]

35. Ridiculuous...

If I posted a thread saying I had an earache and asked everyone why...they would rightly tell me to call a Doctor. Since no one here is in the DLC (as far as I know), and you are asking why the DLC did a very specific thing...the logical thing would be to call the DLC first.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. Ridiculuous...

Is right. :rofl:

[onenote]

16. hardly a "secret" organization

The website still has leadership profiles, it still gives bios for the principal DLC staff, and it still lists members of the Congressional "New Democratic Coalition". http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103

onenote

[MrBenchley]

17. But other than that

what a swell thread this was.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. lol Remember what Truman said MrB.

[MrBenchley]

29. Better stick to re-posting what I've written

Your own posts aren't worth reading....

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. Better stick to calling the DLC 'idiotic' and saying there is no

difference between the two parties. (snickers bar)

[MrBenchley]

34. Better stick to re-posting what I've written

Your posts aren't worth reading (snicker)

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Better stick to purging hunters from the Democratic party

P.S, Feel free to prove the worth of my posts by responding to every posting of mine. :hi:

[Totally Committed]

18. Did you open either of those click-ons?

The lists that used to be there are no longer there at all, just a few paragraphs about who are recent additions the "The New Democrats" in both the House and the Senate. (At least that's what I got just now when I clicked on them....)

Thank you, though, for providing the link. I appreciate it.

TC

[onenote]

21. here's a better link

If you surf around there's all kinds of info on the DLC site

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=253190

[Totally Committed]

24. Thank you!

I have saved this to a file. Case closed.

TC

[Mass]

40. There has NEVER been a list of DLC members on the DLC website

This is a common misconception.

There was though a list of ELECTED New Democrats caucuses linked to the DLC website. This list never represented the complete membership of the DLC (when somebody was no more an elected member, they were dropped off the list without any possibility of knowing whether the person was still part of the DLC or not). In addition, occasionally, they have been known to have people on it that did not want to be listed (Obama, for example).

This said, this list has disappeared last November and an updated list (including new elected DLCers and dropping old ones) has never been posted. Not sure why? May be because they realized at what point the list was useless, as it did not reflect people who agreed or disagreed with them in any given subject.

[wyldwolf]

42. you make a very good point

What exactly constitutes being a member of the DLC?

Well, we know many elected officials are members.

But membership in the DLC comes with a free subscription to BluePrints Magazine, a publication that has an estimated 20,000 subscribers (Matt Taibbi, New York Press). Not a lot by national magazine standards, but still a hefty number that for all extents and purposes qualifies as a membership amount.

Do all the subscribers "subscribe" to the DLC's point of view on every issue? Probably not. But the elected members are not in agreement with each other on all issues, either.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Maybe they're updating?

:shrug: