I sure hope so

I would love nothing more than to see a stake driven through the hard of the counter-productive DLC once and for all.  They are the reason why Democrats did so poorly in most elections in the 1990's and early 2000's.  It wasnt until 2005 when Democrats finally found the will to fight and block Republicans until they started winning again.  Now that we have another DLC administration, the party is sinking again.  The DLC must be destroyed at any cost.  

---

by: Anka @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:58:54 AM UTC

Uh, the President was never part of the DLC

He wasn't part of any caucus while in the Senate/

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:04:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Aww

and Anka is one of those "We must destroy the Democratic party to save it" types too. Now I'm really ticked off. >.>

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:06:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep

After reading over 200 posts filled with garbage and BS I have came to the same conclusion as well.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:07:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go to FDL!

Leave us alone!

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:05:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah seriously

Or OpenLeft and MYDD you'll fit in well with those types.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:08:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a Republican strategy

Trying to make our caucus take litmus tests is not the answer.  If you aren't a Republican, you really should consider to become one.  The Democrats welcomes liberals, moderates, and conservatives to our caucus.  Can't say that about the Republicans, can you?

You say that the Democrats have no will to fight, but that's just not true.  That's Republican spin if I ever heard it before.  The truth of the matter is that the Democrats are not nearly as brazen as the Republicans.  The Republicans are nothing more than cheap shot artists that will try their best to put down any Democratic leader at any costs.  Jimmy Carter was ruined by the Republicans for being a pansy.  Bill Clinton was ripped apart for womanizing, draft dodging, and raising taxes on the rich, but Clinton fought back.  Clinton called the Republican's bluff to shut down the government.  Obama is doing the same thing.  Republicans love to throw out their tea bags, their claims for his birth certificate, but they won't throw out NEW IDEAS.  

The DLC might not be perfect, and it might piss off many liberals within our party, but the DLC does fit in the overall framework of the Democratic party.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 14:27:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree completely.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:47:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That the Obama administration is DLC?

Nonsense.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:51:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With nearly ever statement in that post.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:04:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why?

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:07:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama hasn't exactly been a radical

He campaigned on healthcare, sure, but the Overton window had shifted. Universal healthcare is a pretty mainstream idea, or at least it was a year ago.

And he didn't fight hard to drag the bill left - he kept schtum on the public option, for example, and didn't try to cut the ground from under Nelson, Landrieu or Lieberman.

Nor has he been especially radical on anything else - he kept Gates and Bernanke, appointed Hood and tried to tap Gregg, the stimulus was a mixture of stimulus and fairly wasteful tax cuts to appease Republicans and Conservadems, he's preserved a lot of the executive power theories Bush argued for, DADT is still law, Sotomayor was radical only in that she's a Hispanic woman and nobody from the previous administration is being investigated.

Sure, he still gets called a socialist, but that's just because America has a frankly delusional political culture. I'm a member of a party which defines itself by saying "the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party". Take it from me - Obama isn't even a Social Democrat. If he was in Britain, he'd probably be a Conservative.

Describing Obama as DLC, whilst perhaps not strictly accurate, is fairly close. He's a gradualist, loosely aligned to the right of the party these days and eager to disassociate himself from the left - look how much more he meets with Blue Dogs than the Progressive Caucus. He wants to give America a saccharine version of the Democratic platform, and the only thing grandiose about him is his rhetoric.

That sounds pretty similar to one William Jefferson Clinton to my ears. And whilst the DLC may have got him elected, DLC policies didn't reverse 1994. That was letting the DFHs have their way over Iraq in 2006.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 20:49:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well I have news for you

Obama is not God! He has to govern center left, if he goes far left then he is likely a one-termer. Now lets just end this, it is really not the place for SSP.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

---

by: hoosierdem @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:07:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not debating the rights and wrongs

Just stating the choices he's made, and what this appears to indicate. I don't get a vote in America and don't want one, so nobody needs to take notice of my policy preferences.

I'd just argue that he's governed a little more towards the centre than the left. If you want to disagree, I won't stop you. Either way, I'm happy to leave it there.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And we knew he govern from the centre

And we were fine with that, Hoosier is right if the President would of Governed from the far-left he would lose just like if McCain won and he did the same from the right. Were just saying your wrong about your opinions of the choices he made. But yeah lets not go off thread and go into a flsme war. Your right, lets agree to disagree and leave it there, i'm happy to do the same as well.

BTW Since your English I got to tell I find Parlimentary Government in England pretty fascinating. Two years ago in my pol sci class at the Community College I go to I did a paper on the differences between the English Parliament and the United States Congress. Worked hard on at and found it be be fun, it was 34 pages long. If you give me your e-mail address i'll be happy to send it to you see if I got everything right about the procedures and how it's ran.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:27:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you're interested in that, you might be interested to hear that it may change soon

The government recently introduced a bill to change from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote electoral system. I assume you're familiar with the terminology, but if not it essentially means that you rank the candidates in order of favourability, eliminate the least popular first choice, reallocate preferences and continue until somebody gets 50%. Since we lack your rigid two-party system, huge numbers of our constituencies were actually won on 40% or less of the vote.

There's no guarantee it'll get passed before the next election (the odds are against it, if anything), and the referendum it'd trigger won't happen until 2011, which would gives the Conservatives (the likely next government, and opponents of the change) the opportunity to repeal the bill. But if there's a hung parliament or a Labour victory, the system could get that little bit more different from the American system.

If you'd like me to read that paper, I'm happy to give it a go, although any coherent response might take a while. Email address is edwardcarlssonbrowne[at]gmail.com

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:43:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm quite aware of the first past the post system

And aware that politicans in Parliament win many times with less than 50 percent of the vote. I'll e-mail my paper to you because as a Englishman I lik to know if I got my facts down straight.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 00:14:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

He may not be radical but the guy is far from DLC. He campaigned on health care, the public option was later and when he saw the votes dwlinding on it in Congress and the polls he abandoned because he knew it would pass plus it wasn't the waterloo there were many things in that bill I cared about such as the pre-existing conditions and the expansion of healthcare to well over 90 percent of americans. Those were the sticking points to the bill and he kept them.

So he appointed Republcans to his cabinet, who gives a shit, he said he do that during the campaign and ono one cared. Plus he appointed moerates like LaHood and kept Gates because those were the type of GOPers that would go for his agenda. I have no problem with that.

The stimulus was not chockfull of tax cuts like you want to believe, alot of money in it went to states to put people back to work like in construction, fubd departments or give money to improve projects like mass transit, your wrong there. As the President has said time after time he's going to repeal DADT and said he wants it done by the end of the year, that sounds pretty clear to me. sure he has kept some powers Bush had bu he has also gotten rid of some when he took office like when he banned totrure.

It's been pretty documented on TPMDC on why Obama meets with Blue Dogs than he does with Progressives is because the Blue Dogs is a well oiled group that has their shit together and has one clear messages while the Progressives first don't try enough and are a group of different opinions. But he meets with all the groups, Blu Dogs, Progressives, CBC etc. so who cares. And he's more than rethic.

I'm sorry but just because he's not a hardcore liberal like you dosen't make him a good Democrat and President,he is and he has never been DLC and is far from it. Sorry, but your dead wrong.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:12:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are some misapprehensions here:

1) You really shouldn't call members of the British Labour Party liberals. It'll really annoy us. Over here that means Liberal Democrat, and anybody who hits the pavement for the Labour Party learns to really despise those guys. I realise that wasn't your intention, but as I made quite clear, I'm a democratic socialist, not a liberal.

2) I'm not even sure why you're assuming I'm a 'hardcore liberal'. As far as I'm concerned, I was making statements of fact. Right up until the end, I wasn't criticising Obama for his choices, merely describing them.

3) Whilst Obama may have said he'd appoint Republicans to his cabinet, one wouldn't expect a radical Democrat to do so. That's especially true of Gates, I'd argue - leaving him in place cemented conventional wisdom that Democrats are too soft on defence. Sure, it's not breaking his manifesto pledge, but it's evidence of a lack of radicalism.

4) I didn't say the stimulus was entirely tax cuts. I know it had money (a little under $500bn) for shovel-ready projects, aid to states, research, extension of benefits and other good stimulating spending. It's just that it also had $288bn of tax cuts, and that a lot of spending was cut from the bill by the Senate, and that many economists argued the stimulus was too small anyway.

That last worry may not come to anything if a double dip recession is avoided, and you can make a case that Obama was being pragmatic, but pragmatism and radicalism rarely go together. I don't see how this doesn't fit my template of Obama governing from somewhere near the centre.

5) I accept he wants to repeal DADT. He's just going pretty slowly when you consider the percentage of the country that supports its repeal.

6) As for torture, he certainly has banned it. He's made big improvements. But if he'd kept all the powers Bush claimed, that'd hardly make him centrist. That'd make him John McCain. I could quote Glenn Greenwald here 'til the cows come hom, but it just seems to me that you aren't actually debating my point. I didn't say Obama had made no changes, merely that the changes he'd made were not sufficient for him to be reasonably be considered to be on the radical left.

7) The Blue Dogs are not a single coherent well-oiled group. Compare the voting records of Steve Israel, Jim Costa, Mike Michaud and Walt Minnick if you don't believe me.

Not that I'm saying he shouldn't lobby them more - again, you're confusing observation on my part with advocacy. Obviously he needs to lobby hardest those who are least likely to vote for his proposals, but my argument was that if he were a radical rather than a centrist, he'd be alternately ignoring them, speaking directly to their constituents to undermine them and harassing them. I think it's fairly clear he hasn't taken that sort of bomb-throwing route.

I don't want to get into an argument about the political merits of any of this. I don't have time and that's not what SSP is about. So if you think I'm wrong here, feel free to respond, but I'll probably call a halt to my participation in the thread here. If you want to keep arguing the case, there's always Open Left. Failing that, shall we agree to disagree?

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:31:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wasn't

Even talking about any of the parties of the English Political System, I know there's a difference between a Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. Looking up their philosophies I be a Lib Dem.

Obama never came off as a radical, anyone who thought that is dilusional and I don't think would win if he ran as a radical. As for leaving Gates in place I never had a problem with that because Gates wasn't a neo-con like Rumsfeld and a moderate who supported gradual troop withdrawals like Obama did that and I think with two wars going on he didn't want to change his secretary of Defense so he kept him in place. Odds are though if Obama wins a 2nd term Gates will retire as he stuck on because Obama asked him too.

Yes repealing DADT is what the country wants and the President yes because given how the military works it will be a slow phased out plan to make it work but he said he wants it done by the end of the year.

As for Greenwald, he's a purist that like his name in the paper so I don't pay attention to what he says but yeah he has made big improvents on things his predcessor made and kept some but I wasn't fully expecting him to get rid of everything but he has made improvents like you said on torture. But all this dosen't make him McCain, it does make him centrist and i'll say it again Obama never campaigned as a radical and odds are wouldn't win as a radical.

The Blue Dogs are more well oiled than Progressives because they stick together most of the time and have a clear message while Progressives are made up of Democrats that don't really have a apparatus and have different messages. It has been documented by TPMDC last year about this.

I think you are wrong that's why i'm responding. But Lefty, you are right this is policy and that's not what SSP is about, it's about elections. I have nothing againist you as reading your posts in the past you come off as a very smart and intellgent person, I just think your wrong on this. I like you won't go any further than this because I don't go to OpenLeft because there shitkickers. So yes, let's agree to disagree.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 00:06:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pardon me, but the American legislative system is very different from Britain's

Honestly, the bill was always going to be as far to the left as Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, etc. wanted it because without them, no bill passes, and that's something that President Obama has no real control over. President Obama supports a public option, he supports repealing DADT (and DOMA for that matter), and supports Cap and Trade (as well as higher taxes on the rich), it's not his fault that the Blue Dog caucus and Conservadems in the Senate have the power to kill progressive legislation (nor is it his fault that he lacks the ability to take away that influence).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:32:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm aware of how the legislative system works

I'm just saying that the American political culture is frankly delusional. I don't think that's easily debatable. You live in a country where people take Glenn Beck seriously, after all.

I'm not saying you're mad as a nation or anything similar to that. But your political culture is dominated by a very powerful right wing that froths at the mouth at every opportunity, which directly empowers those looking for a reason to kill legislation. And frankly that's a much worse obstacle than cloture laws. Without America's lunatic fringe, perpetual filibusters would almost certainly be politically unacceptable.

That's not a slam at Obama. It's just my way of saying that I'm glad we don't have to deal with that very much here.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:36:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, your preaching to the choir

The Conservative like David Cameron are nothing to the lunatic conservatives we got here. I think Bill Maher said it best regarding America: We are a stupid country that elected a smart man as President. Yeah be glad you don't have to put with this type of BS in England.

Wait a minute here, your telling me there not people like Sarah Palin in Parliament? There have to be some RW crazies there.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 00:11:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think I overreacted a bit

I actually do agree with you about the political culture in the US (and, for the record, I think you guys had the right idea, basically eliminating the power of your Upper Chamber over the years, I wish we would've done that...)

Incidentally, why in the name of all that is holy would Gordon Brown even consider trying to give the House of Lords more legitimacy, they should just disband the whole damn thing instead of trying to emulate the US Senate...

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:47:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah I agree

The English Parliamentary Government got it right there. I like that Commons have more power than Lords, don't get me wrong they do decide things but for the most psrt legislation is pass and done through Commons the lower chamber since that's how it should be since looking at the people serving in Lords it's just like the people serving in the Senate only worse since you don't elect a Lord and a Lord is usually someone from the richest of England for the most part, atleast that what I got out of it from the paper I did on Parliamrnt.

Plus one of the things I love about Commons is every week (I think Thursdays) the PM has to go and answer questions from the members. Could you imagine we having that and Bush having to answer questions from Congress? It be a nightmare for him. I have always like that about Comons and the fighting and screaming that happens there as well.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:08:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Small point

Bennet and Gillibrand are running for election to a full term, not reelection, as of course neither Senator was elected to the position.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:33:05 AM UTC

Bennet is running for a full term

Salazar was up this November anyway. Gillibrand is running to complete the last two-years of Hillary's term. That seat will be up again in 2012 for a full six-year term.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:35:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks didn't know how best to word that

n/t

---

by: fitchfan28 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 16:45:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the correction

I don't know the election laws of my own State of New York!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:13:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton himself hasn't sounded like DLC anything

since before he left office.

---

by: andgarden @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 12:23:04 PM UTC

The DLC won and thus it's demise.

It started as a project to move the Democratic Party to the right on certain issues and had quite a number of luminaries.  Bill Clinton won the nomination and fellow member Al Gore became Vice President.  I'll add Bill Clinton's campaign was quite conservative though he did move it to the left to counter Paul Tsongas.

Almost all the initiatives of the DLC were passed during Clinton's presidency including their centerpiece entitlement reform and building ties between the business community and the Democratic Party.  And the Democratic Party was moved towards the center.  It just perhaps has not seemed that way to some because the Republican Party moved so much further to the right.

It's death has absolutely nothing to do with the value of being left, right, or moderate.  Just a product of a past era that served it's purpose and had nothing much to do.  Same way if the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) disbanded.  It would have been notable in 1950.  Perhaps even in 1980.  But certainly not in 2000.

NY-13, Democrat. Blog @ http://infinitefunction.wordpr...

---

by: Taget @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 17:31:25 PM UTC

totally agree

n/t

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 18:09:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hope comments aren't getting off topic

My diary was designed to create a discussion about what type of messaging would be used in the 2010 campaigns not to determine what type of ideology is right or wrong because I know that's not what this site is about. I know this is a fine line to walk and it's fine to argue your point on what's best but I hope people won't find this a venue to bash various viewpoints.

---

by: fitchfan28 @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:31:13 PM UTC

True

I'm just saying that even though you come in good faith, talking about a group like DLC even for election purposes can turn into a policy debate easily and againist SSP rules for the most part.

22, Male, Democrat, PA-18.

---

by: Daylin Bradley-Byak @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 21:37:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably about four different kinds of messaging

Let's face it, Democrats don't do good message co-ordination. Blue Dogs, New Dems and Progressives will all do it differently. The obvious example is the economy:

I'd guess most Blue Dogs will lean more towards anti-government populism (although obviously not of a teabaggy kind), New Dems towards frantically avoiding discussing the banks, or failing that resort to wonkishness and Progressives will take a more left-populist tone. Each group will try to talk about how that approach is working, and what they're doing with it. Challengers of all types will probably pick one of those sorts, but go more all-out with it and use it as a stick to beat their opponents.

But then there's the cross-over between the various groups, the different regional dynamics, and the added difficulty for incumbents in changing their established image.

Honestly I don't think there'll be a co-ordinated message until 2012, when either the answer will be obvious or Obama will lay down the law about what approach is to be followed.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 23:50:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two things delegitimized the DLC......

First, the Iraq War just killed them as a voice on policy.  The DLC fervently supported the war looooong after almost all Democrats turned against it.  And while giving up their warmongering rhetoric after 2006, they never did acknowledge they were wrong.

Second, the election of Barack Obama destroyed the DLC electoral model.  The DLC was formed in the first place to help push the party to nominate centrist southern white men for president.  Bill Clinton was their great success.  And at that time, that probably was the model we were stuck with, because the country had become hyperconservative right under our noses and most of us as Democrats didn't realize the extent of it until in hindsight.  So now we nominate a liberal black guy from Chicago who to boot was the offspring of a black man and white woman, and on top of that his NAME is Barack Hussein Obama, with direct Muslim ancestry on one side of his family and his middle name shared with a Middle Eastern Arab dictator we recently overthrew in war?  That is not in the DLC playbook!  And THAT guy goes ahead and wins Virginia and Indiana for the party for the first time in 44 years and North Carolina for the first time in 32 years, and picks up an electoral vote in Nebraska for the first time in 44 years?  Um, looks like the DLC's model ain't all that.

I understand the DLC and its allied organizations still do some legwork helping ideologically like-minded politicians with intellectual support for politics and policy at lower levels, but at the federal level the DLC's influence is now ZERO.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 03:33:12 AM UTC