DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endorse

I thought I should educate myself and others with the following information culled from the DLC and the Democratic Underground.

Let us begin with Congressional Membership.

I could not locate a list of members on the DLC website.  After performing a search on Google, I located a list maintained at Democratic Underground, the link to which I provide above.  The link Democratic Underground provides to the DLC's website, however, led me to a DLC page that claims the webpage is presently unavailable.  It seems as if the DLC is acutely aware of the disgust many of us have for their policies.  But why must they be so secretive?

The following members of the 109th Congress are also members of the DLC:

Brian Baird, U.S. Representative, WA
Max Baucus, U.S. Senator, MT
Evan Bayh, U.S. Senator, IN
Melissa Bean, United States Representative, IL
Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative, NV
Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator, WA
Lois Capps, U.S. Representative, CA
Russ Carnahan, U.S. Representative, MO
Tom Carper, U.S. Senator, DE
Ed Case, U.S. Representative, HI
Ben Chandler, U.S. Representative, KY
Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator, NY
Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator, ND
Joseph Crowley, U.S. Representative, NY
Jim Davis, U.S. Representative, FL
Artur Davis, U.S. Representative, AL
Susan Davis, U.S. Representative, CA
Christopher Dodd, U.S. Senator, CT
Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator, ND
Rahm Emanuel, U.S. Representative, IL
Eliot Engel, U.S. Representative, NY
Bob Etheridge, U.S. Representative, NC
Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, CA
Harold Ford, Jr. , U.S. Representative, TN
Charlie Gonzalez, United States Representative, TX
Jane Harman, U.S. Representative, CA
Stephanie Herseth, U.S. Representative, SD
Rush Holt, U.S. Representative, NJ
Darlene Hooley, U.S. Representative, OR
Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, WA
Steve Israel, U.S. Representative, NY
Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator, SD
John Kerry, U.S. Senator, MA
Ron Kind, U.S. Representative, WI
Herb Kohl, U.S. Senator, WI
Mary Landrieu, U.S. Senator, LA
Rick Larsen, U.S. Representative, WA
John Larson, U.S. Representative, CT
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator, CT
Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator, AR
Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, NY
Mike McIntyre, U.S. Representative, NC
Gregory Meeks, U.S. Representative, NY
Charlie Melancon, United States Representative, LA
Juanita Millender-McDonald, U.S. Representative, CA
Jim Moran, U.S. Representative, VA
Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator, FL
Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator, NE
David Price, U.S. Representative, NC
Mark Pryor, U.S. Senator, AR
Loretta Sanchez, U.S. Representative, CA
Adam B. Schiff, U.S. Representative, CA
Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative, PA
David Scott, U.S. Representative, GA
Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, WA
Vic Snyder, United States Representative, AR
Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator, MI
Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Representative, CA
Tom Udall, U.S. Representative, NM
David Wu, U.S. Representative, OR

Although I am disappointed with the membership of some politicians, none of this surprises me.  Indeed, Melissa Bean and Rahm Emanuel are included on this list.  Embarrassments to the Illinois Democratic Party, they are more dedicated to the problematic policies of the DLC than they are to their constituents in Illinois.  And this was amply illustrated by the intervention of Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry in the Sixth Congressional District of Illinois's Demcratic Primary.  And notice how Rahm, Hillary and John are all members of the DLC.  Will Tammy join if she wins her election this November?

But for what does this organization stand?  On their website's main page, they provide a link to the following article, essentially sanctioning the ideas articulated therein.  The article is entitled "Reclaiming the Democratic Party," and its author is Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post.  Allow me to quote generously from this article.

Though you'd never know it from surfing the Internet, there exists in the Democratic Party a substantial body of politicians and policymakers who believe the U.S. mission in Iraq must be sustained until it succeeds; who want to intensify American attempts to spread democracy in the greater Middle East; and who think that the Army needs to be expanded to fight a long war against Islamic extremism.

Their problem isn't only that some people (mostly Republicans and independents) don't believe they exist. Or that the flamers at MoveOn.org would expel them from the party if that were possible. They also face the formidable task of rescuing what they believe is a quintessentially Democratic policy agenda from the wreckage of the Bush administration, so that a future president can do it right.

Where to begin: with the dismissal of what Diehl calls "Internet" activists who are also members of the Democratic party; with Diehl's touting of a defense strategy that is increasingly losing popularity in the United States; or with his denigration of MoveOn.org, something Republicans, especially Liz Dole and the NRSC, enjoy doing with a vengeance?  And why is this review of their new text entitled With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty displayed on the DLC's front page?  If it insults the most active organizations within the Democratic Party's orbit, would it not be in the best interest of their members who are also members of the Democratic Party to not affiliate themselves with such statements?

But the jabs in Diehl's article are not limited to "Internet" activists and MoveOn.org; they are also directed to our Congressional leaders.  Try digesting this gem:

No, I'm not talking about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wants to quickly abandon Iraq, regardless of the consequences; or Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who recently issued a "Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World" that does not include the word "democracy."

Harry Reid, according to Diehl and, by implication, the DLC, does not believe in "democracy." Or as they view it, his foreign policy stance is one that is somehow undemocratic.  And again, the DLC publicizes this unfounded characterization of Reid's platform on their website.  The dismissal of Nancy Pelosi is similar, but notice how Murtha, whose plan Pelosi now embraces, is not mentioned in Diehl's article.  For if it was, Diehl and the DLC would be criticizing a Viet Nam Veteran.  But Reid and Pelosi are fair game for the hawkish DLC, for the Minority Leaders are not veterans.  The sanctimony and hypocrisy is astounding.

Let us continue:

This is about a coalition of mostly younger foreign affairs professionals who held mid-level positions at the State Department and the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and who have spent the past several years formulating a distinctly Democratic response to the post-Sept. 11 era -- as opposed to a one-dimensional critique of President Bush or Iraq. Now they are beginning to gravitate toward some of the centrist Democrats who -- unlike Pelosi or Reid -- might actually emerge as serious presidential candidates in 2008, such as former Virginia governor Mark Warner, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack.

Those of us who desire to withdraw our troops from Iraq are now "one-dimensional?" Should I recommend Marcuse's text to them?  For Diehl and the DLC certainly do not understand Marcuse's use of that adjective.  But those of us who understand preemptive war and the destruction of a country's infrastructure in the name of establishing political hegemony are somehow simplistic?  And this is endorsed by members of the DLC?  But even worse, Democrats who have actually assumed a coherently articulated stance against the war are not capable of serving as US President?  Is this the threadbare "electability" argument that lost us the election in 2004?  And lackluster Governors such as Tom Vilsack and Mark Warner and ineffective and frankly lazy Senators such as Evan Bayh are somehow qualified to be US President simply because they desire to continue a war that promises to deplete our Treasury and thereby engender an economic doldrum?  This is considered leadership?

But it gets better.  Look at the following political strategy the DLC endorses:

Like most of its authors, editor Will Marshall, a DLC founder who now heads the policy institute, sees himself as reviving the foreign policy of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, who formulated the Democratic response to the totalitarian menace of communism. Jihadism, Marshall says, requires a similar exercise of intellectual muscle. "Democrats have always been at our best when we have defended democratic values against illiberal ideologies," Marshall told me last week. "When we do that we can appeal to a broader public, not only at home but globally."

I did not know that "illiberal ideologies" only existed abroad.  Do Diehl and the DLC notice the illiberal ideology that is presently eroding our civil liberties, our civil rights and our ability to control our own destinies?  Have they viewed Bush's 2005 and 2006 budgets?  Have they vetted Sensenbrenner's Immigration Bill?  Should we not address these domestic affronts to liberal ideology, however they may define it, and not those they believe exist overseas?  And is producing an easy scapegoat that enables one to avoid domestic issues a liberal practice?  The answer is an obvious and resounding no, but I imagine it will fall on deaf ears.

But these two paragraphs are even more interesting:

As Marshall sees it, the rapidly sinking popularity of Bush and the Republican Congress provides Democrats with "their first real opportunity since 9/11 to make the case on national security." The paradox is that Bush has appropriated some of the central themes of the Truman-Kennedy foreign policy -- above all, the emphasis on the global promotion of freedom. Bush has poisoned grass-roots Democratic support for democracy promotion: The book quotes a German Marshall Fund survey showing that Democrats now oppose it by 50 to 43 percent, while Republicans favor it by a margin of 76 to 19.

So Democrats have to start by "reclaiming our own ground," Marshall says. His book proposes two important ways to do that. First, Democrats can clean up the crimes perpetrated by the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the CIA's secret prisons, and restore America's reputation as the world's foremost defender of human rights. They can also end Bush's cynical policy of demanding democracy from enemy regimes such as Iran and Syria while tolerating the continued autocracy of such friends as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In an essay laying out a "grand strategy for the Middle East," former NSC official Kenneth M. Pollack proposes that a Democratic administration take a simple but crucial step that Bush has eschewed: directly linking the $2 billion in annual U.S. aid to Egypt to the implementation of "a long term plan for political and economic changes."

We surmount the paradox of Bush's appropriation of an erstwhile Democratic policy by reclaiming it after it has been abused and debased?  And then we become even more hawkish than the Bush Administration in order to affirm our committment to the spread democracy and to a very dangerous foreign policy that is the product of Republican madness?  There is a difference between a committment to democratic political systems and the fascist imposition of such systems on other geopolitical entities, I believe, and I do not believe reinscribing Bush's foreign policy is one anyone with a critical sensibility should condone in the wake of his plummeting approval ratings.  But if this is the strategy the DLC and their mouthpeices desire to undertake, I will allow them to dig their own hole.  Again, the DLC publishes this on the main page of their website.

Here is the final paragraph of Diehl's article, and I reproduce it in full:

Are those Democrats talking? Yes, indeed: Marshall's group also has ideas on how Democrats can build stronger ties to the Republican-dominated military, revitalize NATO and the United Nations, and reverse Bush's tax cuts in order to modernize and expand the Army. Don't be surprised if, after all the Internet noise fades away, such ideas are at the center of the next presidential campaign.

So the "noise," not the legitimate criticism, on the Internet must fade so those who are not Democrats can become the phoenix that rises from the ashes of a fully invalidated and pulverized progressive movement.  But how does this resonate with the DLC's position on the use of the Internet to further political participation?  Read the following from the DLC's "key document" entitled "The Hyde Park Declaration: A Statement of Principles and a Policy Agenda for the 21st Century," which was penned on 1 AUG 2000:

2. Return Politics to the People

At a time when much of the world is emulating American values and institutions, too many Americans have lost confidence in their political system. They are turned off by a partisan debate that often seems to revolve not around opposing philosophies but around contending sets of interest groups. They believe that our current system for financing campaigns gives disproportionate power to wealthy individuals and groups and exerts too much influence over legislative and regulatory outcomes.

The time for piecemeal reform is past. As campaign costs soar at every level, we need to move toward voluntary public financing of all general elections and press broadcasters to donate television time to candidates.

The Internet holds tremendous potential for making campaigns less expensive and more edifying and for engaging Americans directly in electoral politics. We should promote the Internet as a new vehicle for political communication and champion online voting.

Goals for 2010

Introduce voluntary public financing for all general elections.

Allow properly regulated voter registration and voting online.

Implement civic education courses in every public school.

If the Internet is to serve as a tool for "political communication" that promises to "return politics to the people," why would your organization endorse an article that denigrates open, public debate on the Internet as so much "noise?" Or is communication a one-way street for the DLC?  Or does the DLC assume that only they are "people?" 

And what about the following sentence did Rahm Emanuel, the main culprit in the Cegelis Scandal of 2006, fail to understand about the following:

The Internet holds tremendous potential for making campaigns less expensive and more edifying and for engaging Americans directly in electoral politics. We should promote the Internet as a new vehicle for political communication and champion online voting.

Should we revoke Emanuel's DLC membership?  Or did Cegelis threaten to make rhetoric into a reality?

But this is my last concern.  Here is the DLC:  

They are turned off by a partisan debate that often seems to revolve not around opposing philosophies but around contending sets of interest groups.
 Why do I hear Markos Moulitsas Zuniga's voice?  Why does his voice come to mind unbidden?  Or why do I hear Markos parroting DLC rhetoric?  Who speaks when Markos writes, the DLC or Markos Moulitsas Zuniga?  Who speaketh thus?  

I will end there.  But I must say I am not pleased with the DLC's endorsement of Diehl's column, and I am certainly not pleased with Kos's utilization of an idea culled from the DLC's "Hyde Park Declaration." After all, are not the DLC and Daily Kos special interest groups?  Are they not one of many groups who comprise the Democratic Party?  Aspiring to efface their marked status by espousing a policy of unity though subsumption beneath an undefined banner named the Democratic Party, both Kos and the DLC desire to shove "special interest groups" to the margins with the goal of colonizing the unmarked space in the center of the party's orbit with their own "special interests." And why does this recall the DLC's policy of confronting "illiberal ideologies" abroad?  Eradicate that which you define as antithetical to your own goals in order to establish what you call "unity"?  Hegemony is now a liberal virtue?  I hope both of these "special interest groups" will medidate on this paradox instead of what Diehl calls the paradox of Bush adopting a Democratic foreign policy.

Voilà!  

Tags: CA-10, DLC, Ellen Tauscher, House, Senate (all tags)

Comments

30 Comments

Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

Consider where the DLC gets its money.

by Alice Marshall 2006-05-27 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

the fact that rush holt is on this list shows you that dlc membership alone means nothing.

by yomoma2424 2006-05-27 09:04AM | 0 recs
Not Centrists

The DLC is a part of the elitist wing of the party. If you look at their positions, it's the positions and view point of nice, mommy & daddy funded ivy leaguers. The folks who never had to hold a cheesy part time job, had connections to get the door opening internships, etc...

IN almost every case, if you can put your head into that mindset, their views become predictable.

Muscular foreign policy? Hey neither I nor anyone I know will have to get within miles of serving in the military (See also: Fetishization of the military).

Free Trade sans labor agreements? Sure. My trust fund and connections immunizes me from any impact. Plus I get cheap lawn care and stuff!

They really are utterly predictable. Just think "what policies would I like, if I was a  vapid silver spoon?"

by ElitistJohn 2006-05-27 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

Tom Carper served in the Navy during Vietnam. Tom Vilsack was an orphan, never knowing his birth parents. Charles Robb, former chair, was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam. Former chair Dave McGurdy was a JAG. Countless other DLC members have served in uniform, and many members do not come from high social status.

Believe it or not, Democrats before Vietnam were pretty hawkish. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy were all true progressives who also believed in a very muscular foreign policy. Truman was not college-educated, and Kennedy was a war hero. The DLC's foreign policy views are pretty much in line with old school Democrats. Their economic principles are not. I think that's because today's economy is so different from the economy of the New Deal Democrats. Isn't is possible that their political philosophy comes from real conviction, rather than selfish greed?

by bluenc 2006-05-27 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

But their policies are still flawed, and their voting records are not to be desires.  Tom Carper's stance on immigration, for example, is a veiled form of racism.  And a lot of these members voted for the Patriot Act.  Desiring a third way as they fear having to articulate a coherent stance, these politicians are cynical and lazy, and I could care less what their financial backgrounds are.  I also care less if they have served in wars, for their foreign policy is flawed and retardataire.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

"I could care less what their financial backgrounds are"

It's pretty clear that his response was to ElitistJohn, not to you. When somebody makes a patently false statement, such as saying that DLC members are "The folks who never had to hold a cheesy part time job, had connections to get the door opening internships, etc", then they deserve to get called out on it.

Calling Carper a closet racist, as you do, is beyond ridiculous. What about his stance is racist? Why are DLC senators and congressmen collectively "cynical and lazy?" How is "their" foreign policy flawed? You speak with a lot of conviction and certainty for a guy whose diary contained, by my count, 35 different questions coupled with only a bit of sound logic, rhetorical though some of those questions may have been. Not everyone here will jump on the "every DLC member sucks" bandwagon without some explanation.

"I also care less if they have served in wars"

Really? So I guess it was someone else who asked "But how many members of the DLC actually served?" Your intellectual incompetence is simply stunning.

by JRyan 2006-05-27 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I questions prompt thought, and I do not believe I should have to write didactically if you are as intellectually vigorous as you claim to be.  Regarding service, I notice that many of those on this list who are the most vocal hawks have never served.  Those who did, however, are somewhat mute on DLC foreign policy.  And yes, it is their policy, and I recommend you consult their text and their Hyde Park declaration if you need clarification.  If I may address my comments on service, I do not believe service necessarily qualifies one to be a foreign policy strategist.  In fact, a PhD in History or Political Science or even in a foreign language literature may be more qualified than a soldier.  In my ideal world, post-colonial theorists would be our foreign policy specialists.  To summarize, the service of some DLC members does not excuse their group's poor foreign policy.

You have not participated in the discussion, and you have failed to contribute to the diary I post above.  Maybe you should reread the diary.  If you have questions about its content, I will be more than happy to entertain your queries.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

You have no idea how little I care about your ideal world. You say: "If I may address my comments on service, I do not believe service necessarily qualifies one to be a foreign policy strategist.  In fact, a PhD in History or Political Science or even in a foreign language literature may be more qualified than a soldier." Great. "I also care less if they have served in wars". Great. But then asking "But how many members of the DLC actually served?", as if service makes DLC policy more compelling, totally contradicts what I quoted above.

"You have not participated in the discussion, and you have failed to contribute to the diary I post above."

I have participated in the discussion, but that's beside the point. Contribute to your diary? I've already made it clear that, despite your diary being over 2,600 words, you say remarkably little that's compelling. Your diary basically makes a mountain out of a molehill. The only reason I posted here was to point out your contradictory statements, and to further point out that when you pronounced Carper a racist, you offered absolutely no proof. I certainly don't trust your word.

Here's a one right back at you. I find it amazing that someone who called a distinguished veteran a bitch can be offended when he's called intellectually incompetent. I think you're just angry that you got called out on your contradictory statements.

by JRyan 2006-05-27 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

No, and I gave you a one, for you are once again engaging in an ad hominem argument.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I suppose calling you an angry person is what you consider ad hominem? I certainly can't find anything else in my response that attacks you personally. You can't even try to respond to the evidence I put forth, so you downrate me, and then pretend that you're the "real contributor" to the discussions on MyDD. Sigh.

by JRyan 2006-05-27 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I have rated you with a 1, for the tone of your comments is acerbic.  you also make statements about my character.

regarding immigration policy, i find carper's votes during the immigration debate very problematic, and i recommend you review them at http://www.senate.gov

regarding the statement about service, i do not how my stance is contradictory.  perhaps you should reread my diary.

and regarding your use of "ideal world" in reference to my political beliefs, i do not believe my ideas and desires are so abstract that they are unattainable.  in other words, i feel you are attempting to invalidate my position.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

WASHINGTON (May 25, 2006) - Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., today released the following statement on the Senate immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate on a vote of 62-36. Carper voted in favor of the legislation.

"It's estimated that there are already 12 million unauthorized aliens in the United States, and that number is growing by almost 10,000 per week. In order to secure our borders and deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants living in this country, we need to develop an immigration reform plan that is tough, smart and comprehensive, and see it signed into law this year.

The Senate bill isn't perfect, but it represents a good-faith attempt to pass a bipartisan immigration bill that will increase security at our borders without providing amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living in this country.

The bill would tighten border security by hiring additional border agents, deploying the latest surveillance technology and constructing strategic barriers at our most-vulnerable points. At the same time, it would allow undocumented immigrants already in the United States to eventually earn their citizenship rights if they hold down a job, learn English, pay a fine and all back taxes, and, most importantly, obey the law.

It will be tough to marry the Senate bill with immigration legislation passed by the House, but my hope is that we can work together and come up with a bipartisan solution to immigration reform this year. We shouldn't let politics stand in the way of enacting a tough, smart and comprehensive immigration bill this year."

I fail to see how his position is a "veiled form of racism." It looks to me like you're making a blanket statement without looking at the facts.

"I have rated you with a 1, for the tone of your comments is acerbic"

I thought it was because my comments were "ad hominem attacks". Shifting rationales?

"regarding the statement about service, i do not how my stance is contradictory."

I explained it perfectly clearly above. Why don't you read my post again.

"But if you want to discuss my analysis, I am willing to entertain any thoughts you may have."  

I doubt that you are. I responded to your response to bluenc because I thought that several statements you made were either hypocritical or totally lacked critical analysis. You still haven't explained why Carper is a racist, and I certainly haven't found any proof to back up your claim. You've responded by downrating me, whining about harassment, claiming that all your opponents are the same person, and simply classifying all criticism as "petty and childish games." You don't seem to understand that an incendiary statement backed up with no proof (such as, for example, calling someone a racist) tends to anger people, and thus disrupts the "great conversations" you claim to have. This isn't rehashing an old debate. I'm asking you to put up or shut up. Prove to me that Carper is a racist (something that has nothing to do with your diary, but it is what you yourself brought up with no prompting from me) or retract your statement.

by JRyan 2006-05-27 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I said you can review his voting record at http://www.senate.gov

For example, he voted to create onerous tax burdens on immigrants, siding with the Republicans who were attempting to dilute the compromise bill debated on the Senate floor.  Because that is an unfair burden assigned to a specific group of people who are serving as the scapegoats for the GOP, I view it as, and I will quote myself, a "veiled form of racism."  I did not say it was racist, I said it was a veiled and displaced form of racism, which it is.  If you are uncomfortable with my defense of overexploited Mexicans and Chicanos who are treated unfairly because of their dark skin color, I can only say that I will not apologize.  Voting to give them an unfair burden is to be reprehensible.

Review the voting record.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

"Review the voting record."

If I made an accusation, I'd back it up with proof instead of making the guy I was talking to do all my dirty work. Have you even reviewed his voting record? You have one vote which you disagree with, and you've twisted it into a caricature of what it is. The amendment reduces the potential for fraud and was passed to make immigrants meet their obligations anyway. Count me unconvinced. I also can't find any other bill that I find particularly repulsive. That's not to say I would vote the same way for all of them, but I certainly don't see it as a form of racism, veiled or otherwise.

"Citing his press release is not necessarily the type of evidence I find very compelling."

At least I cited something. What exactly did you cite to prove your argument?

"If you are uncomfortable with my defense of overexploited Mexicans and Chicanos who are treated unfairly because of their dark skin color, I can only say that I will not apologize.  Voting to give them an unfair burden is to be reprehensible."

Is this a joke? What, because you wrote one diary in opposition to Pete Sessions' fence bill (which one person besides you commented on), you're the heroic defender of poor immigrants? Why should I be uncomfortable? You're inventing a record/reputation for yourself that isn't backed up by reality.

"And I thank you for putting up and shutting up when it comes to my vigorous defense of Mexicans and Chicanos.  There is no excuse for Carper's votes."

When did I put up and shut up about this? What the hell are you talking about? Do you believe calling someone a racist is a vigorous defense?

A lot of people tell me that fighting with someone online is like competing in the special olympics, and I'm starting to believe them. You don't address my points, you either ignore them or write numerous paragraphs designed to be anything but clear on the issues (what the hell are you writing about above on your so-called vigorous defense? Where did that come from?). You troll-rated me, and then you complained about harassment. Whatever. If you so badly want your pronouncements to go unchallenged, fine. Somebody else can do that from now on. If you so badly want to win an argument, fine. Consider it won, not on the merits, but because I've lost hope of having an honest debate with you. I forfeit. I'll leave you in peace now so you can tell everyone how evil the DLC, Senator Carper, Senator Obama, soon-to-be Rep. Duckworth are. Have fun, just leave me in peace.

by JRyan 2006-05-27 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I was a poor immigrant, and perhaps I have a personal investment in this issue.  And the record is available is http://www.senate.gov

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

I assumed you watched the debate on C-SPAN.  I did, and I noticed how he continuously voted with the GOP as they desperately presented amendments that would compromise the Senate bill.  Again, you can view the roll call votes at http://www.senate.gov if you need further clarification.  That is my source, and it is a legitimate source, unlike the one you presented, which is Carper's attempt to market himself to his constituents.

And I doubt Duckworth will win her race.  Thus far she has proven to be incompetent and somewhat cavalier with her campaign.

by illinois062006 2006-05-28 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

And I thank you for putting up and shutting up when it comes to my vigorous defense of Mexicans and Chicanos.  There is no excuse for Carper's votes.

Period.

Review the record and stay with the facts at http://www.senate.gov

Citing his press release is not necessarily the type of evidence I find very compelling.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

Four people recommended my diary.  Although I thank you for your input, four other readers found my diary interesting and edifying.  But if you want to discuss my analysis, I am willing to entertain any thoughts you may have.  

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

You earn a one for writing ad hominem statements.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

And of course Jay has to rate him a three, for Jay has to denigrate everything I do on MyDD.  I sometimes wonder if Jay and JRyan are the same person.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

They aren't, you just come off like a moron to many here in almost everything you contribute.

by Epitome22 2006-05-27 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

Ad hominem statements warrant a rating of one.  And I am pleased to see four readers recommended my diary.  That the same three people who engage in public harrassment simply because I disagree with Tammy Duckworth have undertaken to invalidate me and this diary reveals that it is they and not me who are not real contributors to any discussion on MyDD.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Centrists

And that is why many of my diaries are recommended.  Get a life, and get out of my diaries.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC

Let me get this straight: you're pissed at the DLC because they linked to an article you don't like? It's about their book for Christ's sakes! They're promoting their product, something this blog is no stranger to. Some of the review might be pure b.s., but it's not a DLC manifesto.

And the DLC doesn't neglect domestic issues. They've slammed the Bush budget and the ridiculous House immigration plan. The reason they're tackling national security issues is because there are many Democrats who feel that national security is a threshold issue. If voters don't believe that Democrats will protect them, it doesn't matter what our plan for education or health care is. The DLC is doing what progressives have been doing since Kerry lost: trying to fix our branding problem. You may disagree with some of their prescriptions, but it's something we need to be talking about.

by bluenc 2006-05-27 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC

They do not just link to it.  They are proud of it.  And by linking to it on their front page, they endorse the ideas articulated therein.  And no, that is not the point of the entire diary;  perhaps you need to reread it.  The point is simply that they are engaging in a farcical repetition of a Republican strategy and calling it a Democratic foreign policy.  And they refer to the anti-war current of the Demcoratic party as "one-dimensional."  Even more egregious is their disdain for "special interest groups," which is not surprisingly shared by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.  Claiming that they and only they are capable of producing unity, they dismiss groups who have legitimate concerns, and they disingenuously claim they are the cause of the current crisis in our electoral system.  This is obviously wrong, and it allows the DLC to avoid accountability to those who have legitimate concerns about problems they encounter on a quotidian basis.

Regarding their foreign policy, it is quite stale.  We must learn how to cohabit with our political systems, not engage in overseas interventions in order to create false hegemonies and more and more disgust with the United States.  Why the United States and the DLC in particular want to adopt a failed foreign policy of the past should be questioned and challenged, for if we are to become a county that is part of a broader and more productive global network, such colonizing desires must be jettisoned by the party's who desire to run our government.

But if one wants to feel safe...

 

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

"I could not locate a list of members on the DLC website.  After performing a search on Google, I located a list maintained at Democratic Underground, the link to which I provide above.  The link Democratic Underground provides to the DLC's website, however, led me to a DLC page that claims the webpage is presently unavailable.  It seems as if the DLC is acutely aware of the disgust many of us have for their policies.  But why must they be so secretive?"

So essentially you are arguing that the DLC is secretly, subversively, hiding the members who are affiliated with them? My goodness, it's like the Commies or Opus Dei!

"The following members of the 109th Congress are also members of the DLC:"

I see you've tracked down the infamous members of the DLC, the DLC will have to get more effective at hiding their membership from crack researchers such as yourself.

Almost none of the members you listed are "Members of the DLC" they are not affiliated with the DLC in any meaningful way. The only "members" of the DLC are  Al From, Bruce Reed, Will Marshall, Ed Kilgore, and the guys that make up their policy wonk teams like Stephen Rose.  The only elected officials affiliated with the DLC are Gov. Tom Vilsack, Sen. Tom Carper, Sen. Hilary Clinton, Rep. Arthur Davis, and some State reps.

Many members are part of "New Democrat" coalitions the "House New Democrat Coalition" or the "Senate New Democrats" but they are not affiliated with the DLC, they do not take marching orders from the DLC any more than the New Democrat Network or Third Way, the DLC doesen't have that kind of power, never has.  

"Indeed, Melissa Bean and Rahm Emanuel are included on this list.  Embarrassments to the Illinois Democratic Party, they are more dedicated to the problematic policies of the DLC than they are to their constituents in Illinois."

Since neither are members of the DLC, just exactly how do you verify that claim?

"Will Tammy join if she wins her election this November?"

Who knows? Since she demonstrated such poor academic focus by quitting school to serve her country in Iraq, maybe she doesen't have the drive?

by Epitome22 2006-05-27 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

All of you are rehashing old debates.  And I have reported all three of you for your continued harrassment and your continued attempts to invalidate everything I write.  Thank you for once again interrupting the great conversations we have here at MyDD with your petty and childish games.  I hope all of you will grow up, JRay, Jay and Epitome.  And yes, I suspect all of you are the same person.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

To clear up any misconceptions you have, none othr than Chris Bowers has written some pretty informative posts on this very site about the DLC, separating fact from fiction that you might want to read sometime.

by Epitome22 2006-05-27 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership

All the usual suspects dive into my diary on the DLC in order to invalidate my viewpoint.  That it is the usual suspects, many of whom have contributed little to nothing to this website's discussion, should reveal how little import their comments have.

by illinois062006 2006-05-27 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC Membership and the Ideas DLC Members Endor

Hmmm...

Chris Bowers wrote in March:

Since the rise of the DLC and the "third way" the progressive activst base, which actually delivers the money and the volunteer hours to the Democratic Party has been all but eliminated from the national political discourse.

Mr. Bowers does not sound like someone who favors the DLC.

The third way encompasses NAFTA and all the foretold hemmorhaging that has followed in its wake including the wholesale exporting of capital built on the backs of American labor and the outsourcing of well-paying American jobs that are replaced by poor-paying service sector jobs. For this one crime alone I claim that the DLC is nothing but a Republican organization masquerading as a Democrat organization. It is a cancer on the Democratic Party whose purpose is to assure that no candidate of the people is ever nominated to the presidency.

Of course that is just my opinion after studying economics for about 20 years.

by lobdillj 2006-06-11 12:57PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads