Hey soul-searching Dems, check out who runs your party
 

This isn't intended as a dig, rather a call to arms. When is the grassroots finally going to step up and take back your party? These guys are freaking creeps that must be stopped.


Published on Friday, December 3, 2004 by the New York Press
No More Moore: The DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
by Matt Taibbi


We've got to repudiate, you know, the most strident and insulting anti-American voices out there sometimes on our party's left... We can't have our party identified by Michael Moore and Hollywood as our cultural values.
— Al From, CEO, Democratic Leadership Council

You know, let's let Hollywood and the Cannes Film Festival fawn all over Michael Moore. We ought to make it pretty clear that he sure doesn't speak for us when it comes to standing up for our country.
— Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute, the think-tank of the DLC

THE FIRST THING I thought when reading these passages—both taken from a "soul-searching" roundtable held by the Democratic Leadership Council—was this: Who the hell is Will Marshall?

I couldn't remember seeing his name at the top of anybody's ballot. I didn't remember which, if any, elections he had ever won. I was a little mystified, in fact, by the nature of his popular support—who he meant, exactly, when he used the word "we" to talk about whom Michael Moore does and does not speak for.

According to the last data I could find, Moore recently made a movie that was seen by tens of millions of people around the world and has grossed nearly $120 million in the U.S. alone. Furthermore, it was, according to exit polls, a much better demographic success than the actual Democratic party. A Harris poll conducted in July found that 89 percent of Democrats agreed with Fahrenheit 9/11, along with 70 percent of independents. That means Moore outperformed John Kerry among independents by about 19 points, if we are to go just by the data presented by bum-licking power-worshipper Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times at the DLC roundtable.

Moore's revenues come from millions of ordinary people paying 10 bucks a pop to see his film. In contrast, only about 200 people a year visit the DLC at the box office—only they pay thousands of dollars per ticket, and they all have names you'd recognize: Eli Lilly, Coca-Cola, Union Carbide, Occidental Petroleum, BP and so on.

Like Moore, Marshall is a media figure. He is one of the chief contributors to Blueprint magazine, the flagship publication of the DLC. Despite the fact that subscriptions to this magazine are included free with membership in the DLC, its annual circulation still lags slightly behind the gate for Fahrenheit 9/11, with about 20,000 readers per year.

An unfair dig, you say: Blueprint is a trade magazine. Seen in that light, it indeed appears a much better market performer, with only about six times fewer readers than the industry bible for horror makeup artists, Fangoria.

While it is not exactly clear who else Marshall is talking about in this quote, it is fairly clear that he means that Michael Moore does not speak for him personally. Which makes sense, of course.

In addition to his duties as the president of the PPI, Marshall kept himself busy in the last few years. Among other things, he served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization co-chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain whose aim was to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq.

Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the conservative Social Democrats/USA group on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SD/USA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."

One of just a handful of Marshall's co-signatories on that letter was Bruce Jackson, who also happens to be the head of the PNAC (whose letter Marshall also signed) and the founder of the aforementioned Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Jackson is not only a neo-con of high rank and one of the chief pom-pom wavers for the war effort. He was also a vice president in the weapons division of Lockheed-Martin between 1993 and 2002—meaning that he was one of the implied targets of Bowling for Columbine, which came out in Jackson's last year with the company.

Clearly, Marshall was thinking about the good of the Democratic Party, and not the integrity of his grimy little network of missile-humping cronies, when he and Al From made the curious—and curiously conspicuous—decision to denounce Moore, Hollywood and France at the DLC meeting in early November.

There were a number of things that were strange about the release of this obviously coordinated series of sound bites from the DLC heavies.

For one thing, people like Al From, Donna Brazile and DLC president Bruce Reed—event speakers who are all high-level political heavyweights whose instinct for spontaneity died with their souls 100 years ago, and would never say anything without first calculating its potential impact—would seem to gain very little by mentioning Moore's name at all in the conference.

To say openly in front of a roomful of reporters that the party has to disavow Michael Moore is to remind a roomful of reporters that the Democratic party is still currently linked to Michael Moore. This would be like George Bush Sr. using the word "wimp" in public, or John Kerry using the word "effete" or "snob." No alert political operative would recommend it, under normal circumstances.

Furthermore, as both Marshall and From surely know, there was no effort whatsoever even this time around by the Democratic Party to associate itself with Michael Moore. Excepting the brief and mostly unrequited love affair between Moore and Wes Clark, most of the party candidates recoiled from the fat director as from a diseased thing throughout the entire campaign season. They've already kept him at arm's length—why talk about the need to do it again? Why bring him up at all?

Well, that's easy. It's one thing to avoid public appearances with a Michael Moore, and to accept his support only tacitly. But it's another thing entirely to openly denounce him as anti-American, which is what Al From did last week.

What From, Marshall and the other DLC speakers were doing last week was not just ruminating out loud about the need to shy away from certain demonized liberal icons. They were, instead, announcing their willingness to embrace the other side's tactic—I hate to lean on this overused word, but it is a McCarthyite tactic—of branding certain individuals as traitors and anti-Americans. What they were doing was sending up a trial balloon, to see if anyone noticed this chilling affirmative shift in strategy and tactics.

Well, I noticed. I also noticed that unless something is done about it, this unelected bund of corporate pawns is once again going to end up writing the party platform and arranging things to make sure that no antiwar candidate is allowed to compete for votes in the primaries. It will push one of its own—probably Harold Ickes, or Brazile—in next year's election for the chairman of the Democratic Party. And when that person wins, the tens of millions of Democrats who opposed the war will have to get used to people like Will Marshall referring to them as "we" in front of roomfuls of reporters—Marshall, who this year wrote, in Blueprint, an article entitled "Stay and Win in Iraq" that offered the following view of the progress of the war:

"Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor."

Uh-huh. And Michael Moore and Hollywood are the problem with the Democratic Party.

© 2004 New York Press

This is a common theme in politics: subversion of the party ideals by bureaucratic opportunists and ambitious used car salesmen. Also see: Tony Bliar's New Labour.

Yes, that's exactly what has been going on with the Dems. These corporate shills have hijacked the party over the last two decades, and all you have to do is examine the results; the Dems lost the Congress, then the White House two times in a row by running bland centrist visionless automatons. Yet the DLC has the bald-faced audacity to proclaim loudly that the party keeps losing because it's not sufficiently bland, centrist and visionless--WTF???

Z,
I agree the party has nominated bland candidates. But centrists?! Kerry's record is as far left as can be measured by any current standards. If you want to go further left, what is the goal? Absolute socialism? Inquiring minds want to know.

They lost because the majority of the country isn't Leftist liberals any more.

Keep pushing the DNC to go Further left.....please......I want more republicans in office than are right now.

There are "extremist" at, or near, the top of both sides and their existence merely mutually fuels their existence and power positions. It's the ability of those segments to deliver votes and money that keep them there.

Just take an objective run through the party platform, or more appropriately, through the vote tallies of Congress. I don't think you'll find even a hint of Leftist, let alone Liberal policy promulgation anywhere. It's fine to get all huffed up on partisan rhetoric during the election if you must, but I'm trying to maintain a discussion about the nuts n' bolts intersection between principles and policies. The Dems used to stand for some long-held principles that have all been put out to pasture by the goons at the DLC and a calcified party hierarchy.

I'm not a Dem, but I do see the need for citizens who count on that particular party to "represent" their interests and values to take a good hard clear-eyed look at your "emperor"--do you honestly like his attire?

Do you know how hard it is for me to stay out of these political threads? Anyway, we DID try and the masses folded. His name was Howard Dean. Take a look at what he did in his home state. I believe, with all my heart, that had he been President we would be stronger than ever as a nation AND as a people. The facts speak for themselves when you look at them.

He owed not ONE group a single thing... and that's just for starters.

I'll stay out of here now.

; Pete

Yes, we in the "grass roots" DID try, but I think more properly his name was Wesley Clark. A fiscal conservative, social liberal, and a retired General and military expert, he was and is exactly what the US needs right now! We mounted a huge effort in Oklahoma and he did win our primary. I spoke with a member of his immediate family right before the primary, and sensed that something had gone wrong, nationally ---- as if some expected support had failed to materialize. Whether this is right or wrong, his campaign just died after Oklahoma, and he withdrew shortly thereafter.

Oklahoma is a Republican stronghold, though strangely many of our Republicans are registered as Democrats.(?) Clark had a lot of support from this group, who later switched to Bush after Clark withdrew. I can't help but believe that Clark would generated the same sort of cross-overs nation wide, had he been nominated.

One of the strange things all Michael Moore bashers should note. Mr. Moore was one of the earliest Clark supporters! Now, how much of a "leftist looney" can Moore REALLY be if his first pick for President was a General?

Thanks,
Richard :) :) :)

Kerry's biggest error was in not picking Clark as a running mate. Edwards turned out to be ineffective and wrong for the times. The biggest problem with the ticket was Kerry himslef - he just was not a man who inspired anyone. Believe it or not I think the Democrat's best nominee would have been a Republican, John McCain. McCain may regret he did not take a shot at it.

You guys are talking about mere candidates. The article is about the meta-politics behind the scenes within the party. A candidate does not make the party. A nice home paint job frequently hides rot and structural damage, and it's no different for an organization -- see Clinton.

The prime question for those who self-identify as Democrats is to ask themselves if they know much about the administrative folks that make the trains run on time. These folks also decide where those trains stop and who gets left behind...or just run over. The hapless voter just rubber stamps 'their' choices. If you've never heard of the DLC, then you really owe it to yourself and the nation to bone up, cuz they're running the show...and the party straight into the ground.

Old 2000-era link still relevant today: http://www.progressive.org/nich1000.htm

Other people have mentioned that.

http://www.londonstimes.us/toons/car...dave_nader.gif

...sigh.

May I ask a question without being accused of being a troll?



Why does everyone assume that the DNC's majority "group" is made up of people with a Globalist European Liberal mindset? That is the drift I get from the Soros/Hollywood/Moore/Schumer/Finestein group, anyway.

I always thought except for the vocal-yet-dont-vote protesting youth groups, the DNC majority group was the easily-manipulated/gullible-yet-core-valued Ma & Pa Democrat. :confused:

...try re-phrasing with more value neutral terms.

It certainly doesn't look like he is on an objective search for truth.

I am not sure I can put it in more neutral terms.

same way I do.
I percieve that the Hollywood/Soros/etc group of leftists are setting policy for the DNC. Because these people have the largest voice, and are the most popularized as the voice of the DNC through the media, many others feel the

Then you have Ma & Pa Democrat, who have down to earth values like family and doing an honest days work for an honest day's pay. They are the numbers behind the DNC, but not the dollars like the aforementioned hollywoodetc group. I say that they are easily manipulated because, well, you rarely hear anyone in said mainstream Ma & Pa DNC America question the "popular" opinion on the TV/Newspaper, and they doesn't know that they have a reason to mistrust the media, no matter the large company putting it out (cBS, NBC, ABC, Fox). Like many on both sides of the isle, they only question what they are told to question. :inquisiti



Now why doesn't the DNC listen to its people instead of its dollars? They can have all the money in the world, but it wont buy them votes, as proven by the highly partisan and highest costing election in history of 2004. I think Kerry signified the glaring problem with the DNC: It wasnt listening to its people, it was listening to its money. Hell, I would have voted for Dean if he ran a convincing enough campaign! He seemed infinitely more down to earth with Ma & Pa DNC than Kerry did. He could have pulled a couple states in the South that Kerry wrote off, IMO.

I am legitimately seeking an answer, and hope that my somewhat partisanly jaded view wont put you off of giving me a legit answer.


Upon further inspection, it appears I answered my own question... Money. It makes the world go 'round...:( :pukeface:

The Dems have lost the propeganda battle. The Reps don't really care about "the common man" nor do the people you describe set Rep policy, but they have convinced the country that they do. That's why you get such widespread support for elimination of the estate tax and capital gains taxes and dividend taxes by people that don't have estates, capital gains or dividends. It's just masterful marketing. The Reps have done the impossible by getting people to vote against their interest.

I don't think it's a matter of the Dem machinery is too conservative. I think it's a matter of media incompetence. Howard Dean was a pretty conservative candidate. Next to Liberman, maybe the most conservative running, but the Reps painted him with the dreaded L word and the Dems couldn't rebut it. Dean being too liberal to get elected was the most absurd analysis of the election but it was accepted as fact. IMO the RNC picked the Democratic nominee by playing on the Dems fear of losing.

You don't have to be wealthy to get burned by an estate tax........

Problem is many places like PA have a pretty horrible STATE estate tax that will gobble up 50% of you poor dead relatives assets before you even get them.

And that applies to a person who has $300,000 in total assets as well as a rich person. My mom is hardly confortible much less rich. And she is working hard to tie up assest so the state won't grab them before me and my brother get anything before she passes on. Which I hope will not be for many more years. And PA is a heavily Democrat state run by democrats, adn has one of the worst Estate taxes in the country.

Reps............they do far more than minorities than the dems do......look who tries to appoint Minority Judges etc, then look who tries to block them.

Look who had minority cabinet members etc......Dems talk big about minorities, but talk is cheap. THe Republicans actually do far more for them.

I'm heading out the door to an all day business meeting in Seattle, but do please try to keep the focus of this thread on matters of policy and principle, not rhetoric--we've had enough of that for two lifetimes lately.

Questions for discussion:

What is a Democrat?

How are/should they be different than a Republican?

If the public is trending conservative, should the party abandon long-held principles and policy positions so as to follow the votes?

Maybe so. The Republican Party of today is not that of the 50's, even the 70's. In some ways the Democrat policy and principles have not changed since the time of FDR. Any organization that does not change is bound to stagger and fall sometime. Being a Democrat used to stand for something that the everyday man could believe in. Nowadays, it appears, at least from the outside, that the fringe element and special interest groups that most average people don't agree with are in the driver's seat.

I'm not sure I see many long-held principles among democrats. Other than getting their power back, and possibly blaming republicans for all the evils of society, I do not see much by way of principles. Sometimes it seems they will make any claim, or take any position if it seems popular. President Clinton was famous for using polls before making almost any statement.

Still here for a second...

Change is not the issue, rather what is the scale and scope of the change--and who does that change serve?

You'll need to further define the terms "fringe element" and "special interest". To my unjaundiced eye, those would appropriately apply to the corporations and industry lobbies that have captured hold of the party establishment.

I think I might like this Will Marshall guy....I must learn more about him! :P :D

Mike

Zeitgeist:

My post about Wes Clark was not made for the purpose of saying he was the best candidate. Too late for that. The purpose was to report, from my position inside Clark's Okla. campaign, that something was done "from above" after Clark's Olka primary victory and strong showing elsewhere, to derail his campaign. So rather, my point is that "strings were pulled" by the DLC or DNC or somebody to stop Clark, regardless of what the voters wanted, and therefore I agree with your statement that the Dem party is being run from the top down, and poorly so.

Thanks,
Richard

The democratic party needs to behave in a more aggressive manner. Seems the democrats are always on the defensive instead of the offensive. I think the populace will vote for which ever party acts the strongest and most aggressive. And of course who most loudly screams when the spin must be spun. The republicans have this down pat.
The answer for the democrats is risky, but they need to find a new voice and stop following the republican lead. I do think there is some serious dysfunction within the party. You may be correct saying the body does not agree with the head. So many of their choices seem to contradict their actions. Reminds me of the way GM now works, or doesn't.

On a good note, let the republicans sink themselves. They always do. Sooner or later the everyman gets frustrated with the poor economy and votes for a change. Right now we are in the screw the everyman cycle.

The Dem party needs to quit being cowardly about saying they JUST MIGHT be a little bit LIBERAL. IMO, the Repubs have become so far right that Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave. The Dems need to stand up and shout against intertwining of government and religion, cuts and non-funding in social programs, and turning our country into the "international policeman". And they need to stand up ahd shout for some concrete program to bolster our sagging public education system, and some feasible program to fix our healthcare system, which is the joke of the first world.

Thanks,
Richard

Well, the Democrats are so far left they Make Stalin and Lenin look conservative.

And social programs.......let the liberals fund them out of THEIR paychecks not mine.

Meanwhile, Libertarians, and anyone else with any sense, need to stand up and fight against (in no particular order):

1. The intertwining of government and religion.
2. The continued funding of social programs that are not working.
3. The continued funding of our public education system that is not working.
4. The desire to "fix" our healthcare system by socializing it--refer to #2 and #3 and note the "not working" part.

Mike

Boneheaddoctor:

As I understand your poliitical stance, to which you are entitled, you may view the Dems now as being left of Stalin. But from my political stance, they came off as a bunch of wishy-washy candidates in the last election, compared to FDR who offered program after program to at least try to fix a broken economic system, or JFK who fought for civil rights legislation to fix (IMO) a broken social system. Kerry and Edwards weren't liberals at all, compared to these guys.

Thanks,
Richard

Kerry is by his colleges the most liberal senator in office today..and the pubic...Even more so than Hillary Clinton-Lenin.

His voting record proves it.

Civil rights? THe was the republicans who voted that legislation into effect when the Democrats were still the good-ole-boys who were firmly against such integration.......Like Strom THurmond, and Al Gores old man.

I'd much rather fund the social programs than a non-operative and misguided missile defense system, along with a dozen other porkers for the military. Even though my salary gets paid through this mis-use of funds!

I'd rather fund NONE OF THE ABOVE, thank you.

Mike

Not me................if we didn't have a strong military, we would not be the free nation we are today......You would be speaking Japanese, bowing to the emporer, or goose stepping saluting der fuer, or Living under the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

You can make the Demorcats pay for 3rd generation welfare bums to sit home and have baby after baby.......................Or pay for medical insurance for the illegals rather than deport them.

I say stuff the social program entitlements..............or make registered democrats foot the bill for them.

My point is it doesn't really matter what the message is if the Dems can't control the transmission of it. No matter what what the issue it seems that the Reps grab it, spin it and control it before there can actually be any debate.

Next you are going to call NPR CBS, and Dan Rather pawns of the republicans.....................get real...........take you meds...........your symtoms are back.

Not quite, here is the 2003 Penn estate tax. It starts at $700k. The rate for 10 million is about 15% Further, I was not refering to a state tax but rather the fed estate tax which affects approximatly 1% of US families.

Pa. Estate Tax Amounts and Rates in 2003 under Act 89 Taxable
Estate Tax


Taxable
Estate Tax Marginal Rate AverageRate
$700,000 $0 0% 0%
$750,000 $18,500 4.80% 2.47%
$850,000 $25,200 4.80% 2.96%
$950,000 $30,400 5.60% 3.20%
$1,000,000 $33,200 5.60% 3.32%
$2,000,000 $99,600 7.20% 4.98%
$3,000,000 $182,000 8.80% 6.07%
$5,000,000 $391,600 11.20% 7.83%
$7,000,000 $638,000 12.80% 9.11%
$10,000,000 $1,067,600 15.20% 10.68%

Its prety easy to hit the minimum if parents own a house etc.....

add state to federal and anyone who has not put everything into a revokible living trust ( anyone wealthy already has) Well my mom says me and my brother would owe substantial taxes on our inhearitance as it is (nearly half).

Now those rates you posted don't count as substantial, how much she is worth? I don't know but doubt the figures are that high. And She has a lawyer working on estate issues since my Father is deceased 9 years now, me and brother are only heirs. So I know those quotes come from someone who knows what the total rates would be. Personally I only have 3 realatives who would count as wealthy, and none that are rich.

OK basic math, your mom has a $300k estate (according to you), 300k is less than 700k. The PA estate tax bottom rate starts at 700k. Therefore the PA estate tax does not affect your mom, little less take half of her estate as you asserted.

And the Fed estate tax does not affect estates of $300k.

And this is perfectly indicitive of my point. The Reps have just owned the "DEATH TAX" issue. Neither you or your moms estate are affected by an estate tax but you have been spun around so much you just know, even in the face of facts, that the democrats are taking half of your money.

EDIT you didn't say your mom's estate was 300k but did say that the state would take 50%. That is clearly not true. If your mom's estate is over 700k it will be taxed but not at 50%

Agreed. But I'm talking specifically about the missle defense system that old300d is talking about....It's archaic, unneeded, and is a money pit. That money could be spent MUCH more effectively elsewhere in the military budget.

Mike

Russia still has Nukes, and Now thanks to Clinton China Has MRV warheads.......explain why its archaic? Any of those could be retargeted to our cities if they aren't already.

IMO, you are absolutely correct. I don't know why Z is bothering to ask these questions - since when was the last election about issues anyway? Sadly, the Democrats real problem is how to build a propaganda machine to match the Republicans. Their stand on issues has little to do with anything anymore. We have entered The Age of Propaganda, where months of Swift Boat lies go unchallenged by what used to be an independent media, and where the GOP can push a button on its propaganda machine to dessimate an explanation for anything that only has one message - its not their fault, the liberals are to blame. The winners from now on will be the ones who can market their lies in the most effective way. Look what's happened to bonehead - half of what he posts are outright lies, yet he truly believes them, because he believes the GOP propaganda machine is the only source of truth. That's happened to millions in this country. The Democrat's biggest problem is that their idealistic nature has prevented them from engaging in politics in the same manner.

Just because all the Dems can come up with is propaganda, what makes you think the republicans can't talk real issues............

:laugh3: :laugh3: :laugh3:

What Happened? was you Blinded by the Light? News flash...the Dems motos operandi is if you can't match them in wits, then you attack them to take the attention off the fact that the Dems have no issues to stand on.

I like these questions, Z. From the recent election, it appears that a Democrat is a NotRepublican and a Republican is a NotDemocrat. From the various partisan posts on this thread, I can make no further distinction.

Both major parties recognize that the most effective way to gain and hold power is to appeal to the most people (duh) and mislead the people into believing their opponent is 'out of the mainstream'. They gain power exactly as Bill Clinton taught them--by taking a poll and jumping in front of the largest mass of people, claiming that as leadership and accusing the opposition of misleading the people. It is no wonder that voters feel betrayed or let-down one or two years post-election.

It is also no wonder that just less than half the voters never give the winner of an election a chance--they are so alienated by the process that they believe they've been lied to or mislead, etc. Neither side recognizes itself in its opponent. Instead, they say angry things very loudly about each other as though loud anger is truth.


To your last question, I think the answer depends on what the party seeks. If all they want is power then they should follow the Bill Clinton Model. It will work if they have a candidate with fewer flaws than the Republican's candidate. However, if they want to stand for something, then they have to risk losing a few elections, consume themselves in self-emolation to burn-out the unbelievers, then build on the core that is revealed. That's what the Repos did from 1950's until Reagan. The Repos began losing their way under Gingrich--the Repo-Clinton. They seem to be back to their roots with Bush II.

Bot

Remember "mutually-assured destruction"?.... It worked quite well as a preventative back then, and I'd imagine that Russia and China STILL don't want to have their entire nation incinerated.

Besides that, there's also the fact that the missle defense system in question DOESN'T WORK! Testing has gone horribly, and pouring more and more money on it has not helped.

Mike

Mike and doing nothing is not going to help get a working system either........and we need that for these Islamonuts who really don't care if we turn their entire coutry into a glass parking lot if they can get one shot at us.

Tell her attorny that......................................these people who work with this every day tell her thats exactly whats going to happen...........Now I will admit, I only know what she relays to me.....

We don't need an elaborate multi-billion-dollar missle defense system to fight the "Islamonuts". :rolleyes: Are you serious?....

We need to spend more of that money on our efforts to make the "Islamonuts" dead. ALL of them.

Mike