Preserving the Open Internet

DLC (0.00 / 0)

So, you aren't prepared to give up your membership, nor defend the DLC.  The issues you mention like community policing, tax reform, and early-childhood education aren't really what the DLC stands for are they?  The DLC is a subversive, right-wing element in the Democratic party that is totally against progressive values.  It would seem that anyone who cares to carry the progressive label would want nothing to do with them.  Sorry, but we are all judged by the company we keep. 

---

by: concorde @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 14:58:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey Corporate $$$$ (0.00 / 0)

is a big deal to too many of our "Democrats".

---

by: TrueBlueCT @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 17:55:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

damn, you came back for another round... (0.00 / 0)

Okay, let's be fair. The DLC says that the way to win elections is to steer to the middle.

The only problem with the is that the GOP has been steering to the far-right. By steering Democrats to the middle, there has been a lurch in public perception that has created a new "middle" that is further to the right.

This leaves people thinking that a sell out like Lieberman is actually a centrist and that Lamont, a centrist is to the left.

The DLC has done more to hurt progressive policies since their inception than the GOP has done by moving the perception of the center further to the right.

Progressives know that vouchers take funds from public schools and reduce the ability to provide a fair, equal and quality education to every student. The DLC position is that voucher create choice. That's bullcrap. Choice is always there. People can choose to not send thier kids to public school if they so desire. What they can't do is use public money, paid by all the people to provide a common education for all the children, to do so. The problem with the DLC taking a pro-voucher position is that the debate moves from the raping of the public treasury to support private schools that cherrypick the "easy to teach" kids and leave the schools with the kids that are harder to teach and with less money to do so, to which private schools should be able to take vouchers. The debate shifts from progressive issues about educating every child equally to the separation of church and state.

THe bebate moves to the right. It becomes a starwman that allows the debate to NOT be about what it should be about, the progressive ideals of every child getting the best public education, and that is just one example of the DLCs overall failure.

The DLC likes to think that they are responsible for a number of electorial wins. Hell they like to take credit for Clinton in the White House. But the reality is that GOP-Lite does NOT win elections. Give a choice of voting for the GOP or GOP-lite the people will always pick the real thing. Clinton was an aberation on the political scene, it was HE that created his options, not the DLC. Since the DLC has come to prominance we have lost the House, the Senate and the Gvernorship majorities. They have presented Democrats with false choices, and the core of the party has been unmoved to work for and support Democrats that the DLC has promoted as the answer to GOP wins.

What needs to happen is that Democrats running for office have to go back and find their roots. They have to remember that Democrats like FDR and Truman put in place the programs and the vision that make the 1950's the time of the greatest middle class growth in America. That New Deal programs that looked like boondoggles when started allowed the country to be more prosperus than ever before (or since). THat the economic engine that drove capitalism and brought this was consumerism, and that wouldn't have been possible without the new economies created by expanding the middle class and getting more people into it. That progressive values created expansion, and that was good.

So, what progressive values does the DLC support? None. THey support a program of "meeting in the middle" that sells out progressive values and move the percieved middle to the right.

That is why so many here are asking you to follow CA Democratic Candidate for Governor and divorce yourself from an organization that hurts Democarts and progressives. And the concern is, if you can't see that the DLC is part of the problem, then you may not be able to recognize problems.


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 15:48:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something to remember about Bill Clinton's victory (0.00 / 0)

It's surprising that the DLC is still clinging to the fact that Democrats won the presidency with Bill Clinton as though it's some type of evidence of their competence. In 1992, Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote since Ross Perot split the Republican vote taking 19% of the vote, leaving 37% of the vote for Bush Sr. Although we can't know if Perot voters would have not voted if Perot wasn't running, it's quite possible that if Perot did not run, Bush Sr. would have gotten his vote and won the election by 56%. In 1996, Clinton won with 49% of the vote with Perot taking 8% of the vote, and Dole taking 41% of the vote. It's quite possible that, had Perot not run, the 1996 election would have ended in a statistical tie.

I don't think the Democrats have won an election by over 50% of the vote since maybe Jimmy Carter...and, God knows, times were different back then.

Given the three way nature of the 1992 and 1996 elections, I think it is ridiculous for the DLC to claim Bill Clinton's victory as some kind of "proof" that they have competent strategies for winning elections--because they clearly have none.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 16:12:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RENOUNCE YOUR OFFENSIVE MEMBERSHIP TO THE DLC ALREADY!!!! (0.00 / 0)

None of those things are as significant as the blatant right-wing tactics the DLC employs.  They are defined by people like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton who refuse to be honest about Iraq and think that there is always a "third" way , even when the choices are obvious.  Com'on Dan, gimme a break.

If you are such a progressive, RENOUNCE YOUR MEMBERSHIP ALREADY!!!! Trust me, it'll do you a lot of good to be not a part of the DLC.  I wouldn't be able to make pictures of you with Lieberman and put DLC on top anymore. 

Just do it, please.  Renounce your membership in that bullshit subversive pseudo-progressive hack group.  If you don't, you're just another DLC hack, DLC Dan.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

---

by: bartletispresident @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 17:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A couple of comments (4.00 / 1)

Mayor Malloy,

When I first heard about the US Supreme Court's decision regarding New London and eminent domain, the first person that I thought of was you. I am sure you know why. It is known that Stamford is extremely pro-business under your administration and aggressively does whatever it takes, a lot of times at your own citizens expense. I have attended many meetings in your city and was constantly reminded by your city employees in a boastful manner that Stamford is more a part of NYC than CT. Why then do you think that you could represent the rest of Connecticut? Do you really understand the needs of the average citizen in the rest of the State when your main focus has been on businesses and looking toward NYC instead of Hartford?
In any campaign, I have always known from the starting gate, the candidate that I would support and have never been one to sit on the fence, but this campaign has been difficult for me. I must admit that I was still considering you until I read this week how you would pay for your health plan. An extra ninety-five cent tax on a pack of cigarettes? I laughed out loud when I read that. Please get real.

---

by: Missy's Brother @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 20:33:32 PM CDT

DLC Website -- Clearly no regard for CT Democrats (0.00 / 0)

From www.dlc.org

"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism
A party with no room for Joe Lieberman is a party with no prospects for a majority. It's the worst possible time for Democrats to make that choice."

From the followed link

"This phenomenon is best illustrated by the nationally driven campaign to deny re-nomination to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), with MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (an organization founded by DNC chairman Howard Dean and now run by his brother, Jim) playing an especially active role in recruiting money and volunteers for the challenger, Ned Lamont."

'Nationally Driven'? I know some local Dems who drove the nation to this cause.

'Playing an especially active role'?  Since... Since...May 26 (end of MoveOn Primary)?

"We deplore this purge effort because Joe Lieberman is an outstanding and respected U.S. Senator. He is a man of utmost integrity who speaks and governs by his values and principles, even when they lead him against the popular tide -- as he did when he went to Mississippi to fight for civil rights in 1964. He is a man who always puts his country above his party or his personal interests. Those are qualities we should cherish, not disdain, in today's far too polarized politics. We need more, not fewer, people with Joe Lieberman's character in the Democratic Party."

You read it here folks.  DLC deplores democracy.  Also, they are stuck on the Joe of 40 years ago.  Heck, 20 years ago most of us supported him. I am a Connecticut voter.  I am a Democrat and I believe in democracy.  DLC, shove off!

Dan Malloy: I read your response regarding DLC and find it inadequate given the offensive right wing totalitarian meddling displayed front and center on www.dlc.org
I too ask you to renounce your membership in DLC.

---

by: joemustgo @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 20:56:35 PM CDT

Malloy and DeStefano both disagree with statement (0.00 / 0)

Both Dan Malloy and John DeStefano have endorsed Joe Lieberman.  But they both have also said they will support whoever wins the Democratic primary in August.  Therefore, they both disagree with this display of disgust for democracy -- they are both agreeing to uphold the will of the Democratic electorate on August 8.

---

by: Maura @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 21:54:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DLC Dan and DLC Joe, we're so proud of both of you! (0.00 / 0)

[IMG]http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g289/WonkishNedHead/ConnecticutsDLCDouchebags.jpg[/IMG] If Dan Malloy doesn't want to have this kind of affiliation, he better renounce his DLC membership OR defend the DLC in his next blogpost. But here is my take on Lieberman and Malloy. Some people say that Lieberman is worse than him - which is ideologically obvious. But you gotta give Lieberman credit for having backbone. He's an imbecile, moron who does not represent us. But, he doesn't pander. He doesn't change his mind because it's political advantageous for him to do so. He's wrong and we need to get rid of him because he doesn't represent us, but he at least believes in what he believes. Dan Malloy, is a political opportunist. He is now for universal healthcare because DeStefano is. He is now saying that he wants to increase the cigarette tax to pay for his bullshit healthcare plan even though legislative Democrats have been saying for YEARS that the cigarette tax hurts the poor. Dan Malloy, don't pick on people just to hold up your political standing. To me right now, you have much less backbone that Lieberman. I will take that back and praise you honorably IF you stand up for what WE democrats believe and renounce your membership in the DLC. Or, defend it mightily, don't say that bullshit you said before, that's not an answer. Answer us, WILL YOU RENOUNCE OR WON'T YOU?

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

---

by: bartletispresident @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 21:37:39 PM CDT

Sorry folks, messed up the picture (0.00 / 0)

If Dan Malloy doesn't want to have this kind of affiliation, he better renounce his DLC membership OR defend the DLC in his next blogpost. But here is my take on Lieberman and Malloy. Some people say that Lieberman is worse than him - which is ideologically obvious. But you gotta give Lieberman credit for having backbone. He's an imbecile, moron who does not represent us. But, he doesn't pander. He doesn't change his mind because it's political advantageous for him to do so. He's wrong and we need to get rid of him because he doesn't represent us, but he at least believes in what he believes. Dan Malloy, is a political opportunist. He is now for universal healthcare because DeStefano is. He is now saying that he wants to increase the cigarette tax to pay for his bullshit healthcare plan even though legislative Democrats have been saying for YEARS that the cigarette tax hurts the poor. Dan Malloy, don't pick on people just to hold up your political standing. To me right now, you have much less backbone that Lieberman. I will take that back and praise you honorably IF you stand up for what WE democrats believe and renounce your membership in the DLC. Or, defend it mightily, don't say that bullshit you said before, that's not an answer. Answer us, WILL YOU RENOUNCE OR WON'T YOU?

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

---

by: bartletispresident @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 21:40:51 PM CDT

Smoking hurts the poor (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, bud, a cigarette tax doesn't hurt the poor.  Sure, it disproportionately impacts poor people, as ANY tax on goods does.  But, frankly, I'd support a twenty dollar tax on cigarettes.  A hundred dollar tax per pack!  Cigarettes are not food.  They're not a necessity for anyone.

Smoking hurts the poor.  Smoke-related illnesses kill the poor and hurt poor children who are exposed to second-hand smoke.  And uninsured smokers cost us hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, in the cost of treating smoking-related diseases.  A  health care plan which is partially funded through taxing a product that causes health problems sounds like a good plan to me, as long as there is a long-term strategy to replace the revenue which will (hopefully) be lost as fewer people buy cigarettes.

---

by: Maura @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 21:51:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not to change the topic, but (0.00 / 0)

Smoke-related illnesses kill the poor and hurt poor children who are exposed to second-hand smoke.

Please point to one scientifically validated study that supports this.

(I'll be more than happy to point to a WHO study that does not support this and was burried after the WHO paid for it because it didn't validate their message.)

Yes, this is a sore point for me. I believe that the amount of carcnogyns released driving your kid to school far outweighs any they might get from "second hand smoke" and believe that this anti-smoking boogyman is total bullcrap. Yeah, there are a lot of real health issues from taking tar and nicotine into your body, so don't start the habit. But, the second-hand smoke arguement is total bullcrap and is totally unsupported by fact. There was one flawed study in which a person would have to be in a smoke filled room of 10x10 for 24 hours a day for two years (or some such fictional numbers) for them to have the same exposure as the study (remember cyclamates?) and there have been no validated studies, and the closest validated study showed no connection For the details see this Wall Street Jounal analysis http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm or view the data yourself http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract .

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 22:30:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Asthma, allergies, and smoking (0.00 / 0)

If I wasn't heading off to bed I'd go searching for some abstracts, but when I was in college I remember reading a lot of research on childhood asthma correlated to parental smoking.  I also remember studies that showed correlations between parental smoking and school absenteeism.  Of course, those are correlations, not causations. 

I'm not a medical expert, nor do I play one on TV.  ;-)

---

by: Maura @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 23:21:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not a medical expert either (0.00 / 0)

and I'm also a cigar smoker who doesn't feel that my choice is a crime against humanity, children, or small animals.

It's a dirty vice. It is bad for my health. It stinks up my clothes. And my wife is right about me not doing it in the house because it stinks up the house.

But, that has NOTHING to do with the bullcrap about second hand smoke.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

That's the conclusion of a massive WHO study. "no association". Asthma? I'm sure if we did a study of 500 random kids from Ridgefield and 500 random kids from NY City we would see statistical differences in asthma, more so than taking 500 kids from Rigefield and New Milford where 250 live with a parent smoker and 250 don't (I lowered the numbers because it might be hard to find 500 kids in that area that live with smoking parents :-) ).

As for school absenteeism, I am sure I can produce studies that show a high correlations between absenteeism and financial levels, and my guess is that we can also show a higher rate of smoking in lower class homes, therefore, we can show that absenteeeism causes smoking and poverty.

And for those that don't know, when smoking a cigar a person is burning 100% unaltered tobacco. When smoking a cigarette a person is smoking man-made tar and man-made nicotine (and a whole bunch of other chemicals that are not in a cigar). There is a very big difference between the smoke byproduct produced by these two products.

Sorry to get on a rant about this, but it's important that the public be educated (sort of like the difference between what the Bush Administration said about Iraq and what the situation in Iraq really was). You can buy into the lie, or you can find the truth.


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 03:07:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Taxes on "not food" (0.00 / 0)

Let's tax tea and stamps, they're not food! Oh yeah, they tried that and it didn't work.

---

by: concorde @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:59:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its still faulty logic (0.00 / 0)

You can't have your cake and eat it too though.  You say you'll finance something with increased receipts from the ciarette tax - but in the same breath you say you hope it discourages smoking.  That is not being intellectually honest, if you want to discurage smoking do it to discurage smoking.  If you want to do it to pay for some huge - expensive - and important - program, hope you have a plan B!

---

by: beckyb @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:21:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Money up in smoke (0.00 / 0)

So what is Dan Malloy's longterm strategy to replace the cigarette tax money once the high tax leads to lower sales?
I heard him say, essentially, "we will have to find another source in the future." I felt as soon as I heard it that his plan sounded shaky, if it succeeds in lowering smoking it will fail in funding healthcare.  Plan B for funding should be part of the concept right now.

---

by: joemustgo @ Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 03:10:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

irony? (4.00 / 2)

bartletispresident,

I find it strange that after asking Mayor Malloy repeatedly about going negative, and saying how important you felt it was that he did not, you would post something like this. If Dan were to say another candidate "had no backbone", you'd probably call that going negative, right? What if he were to sarcastically put "Democrats" in quotes, or call someone a "political opportunist"? To me, that's negative.

Dan answered your question about health care, and explained that he is on record before any other candidate saying he is for universal coverage. That isn't to take anything away from Mayor DeStefano or his plan -- because frankly who did it first is unimportant. What is important is that we have two strong candidates for Governor talking about an issue that all Democrats should care about. In my opinion, we can choose to join them in that discussion or we can fight amongst ourselves and go another 20 years without a Democrat as governor.

Finally, I wanted to mention to everyone that Dan should be able to come back on later this afternoon to answer questions he couldn't get to yesterday. Thanks everybody.

---

by: Brian Durand @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:40:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's talk about healthcare (4.00 / 2)

I was counting down to when one of the anti-negative campaigning people would go negative on Malloy. Looks like it took less than 12 hours.

I think net neutrality is a poor choice for conversation. The solution is simple (status quo) and the sentiment is unanimous. Of course people would rather talk about the DLC.

Health care, on the other hand, is a nicely complex little puzzle, with several possible solutions (short of universal), with a lot of things we could contribute discuss: plans, strategies, political framing, etc.

And besides, the DLC thing goes nowhere. Mr. Malloy is a politician, and sees the DLC, for all its faults, as a political ally. That's not really a discussion, its just going to be a pointless argument. For better or worse, we know where we each stand.

Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. - L. Cohen

---

by: inkadu @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:55:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The DLC "issue" is a non-starter (4.00 / 2)

inkadu has it right, insofar as the DLC "debate" is concerned at least.  Rather than quibbling - and it would be nothing more - over what particular interpretation of past Presidential elections or haggling over what the decisive factors were that delivered control of the House and Senate into the hands of the enemy, we really need to keep our eye on the ball.

So, what is the ball?  I suggest it has everything to do with policy choices and how one approaches governing.  Please step back, everybody, and ask yourself if you could, not will, but could agree with these two points.

Point one: The Republicans are great at getting elected, but terrible at governing.

Point two: The Republican Party and its government are driven by a bankrupted, disproven ideology and propped up by a coalition of extremely self-interested groups, each of which represents a minority of the population, and whose clutch issue lie outside the mainstream of American opinion.

Can we concur about those two things?

---

by: Chris MC @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 21:31:03 PM CDT

I Concur (3.00 / 1)

I also agree that the DLC issue is much ado about nothing. Sure, I was angry that people from the DLC called all of us a bunch of liberal extremists. But, when I walk into the voting booth, I'm more concerned with the individual record of a candidate than the clubs they belong to. Dan's record shows that he's a true progressive Democrat and he's been a very successful mayor. If you spent time in Stamford 15 years ago and again today, you'll see it's a totally different place - a much better one.

Yes, being part of the "party machine" has probably helped his career, but I'm not going to punish him and the citizens of Connecticut for that. Working the system is part of politics. Failure to come to terms with certain realities of politics is a major reason why us liberals are often marginalized. We must keep pushing for change and a better agenda, while still functioning within the realm of reality.

In concept, the an organization like the DLC is a good idea. Perhaps the execution has just been poor; probably because a few extremists often take leadership roles in any organization. Maybe with more good progressives like Malloy, change can be initiated from the inside.

---

by: Neal Fink @ Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 22:52:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

core values (4.00 / 1)

In concept, the an organization like the DLC is a good idea. Perhaps the execution has just been poor; probably because a few extremists often take leadership roles in any organization. Maybe with more good progressives like Malloy, change can be initiated from the inside.

The DLC's business is to triangulate the middle. That means that they take the topic of the day and find out where the middle should be and then aim for their 50%+1 of the bell curve. In doing this they start the debate at the settlement point. IF I wanted you to pay me $1,000,000 and started the negotiations at $500,000, where I was willing to settle, what are the odds that I will get my $500,000?

THat is what the DLC has done to the Democratic party. They move the starting point to the right, to capture the bell curve by moving to the center of the bell rather than making a decent argument on why the center of the bell should be moving to the left.

Let's say we are debating public schools. Now I think we can all agree that we want better schools. But the right side is that what people really want is educational choice and the state should pay for whatever they choose. The "middle ground" would be that each student get a voucher to use to go to a non-denominational school. And that is where the DLC starts. I believe that Democrats should start with "We want to double funding on K-12 education, add free breakfast programs, have after school free tutoring programs, and make 2 years of pre-K available as well." Now, let's start horse trading. My goal is a 20% increase in funding to K_12, 1 year of pre-K and a mentor program established between the State and local businesses that gives them tax credits for participating in a mentoring/tutoring program after schoool, and hot breakfast at cost for any student. But if I start with the DLC position I can kiss all of that program goodbye. If there are DLC candidates in my party using the DLC as a starting point, I look like the looney left and I should be happy with things as they are. Worse than that, the DLC talking points will be used by my GOP opponent against me.

The DLC is not a good idea any more than going on Faux News and giving them a platform of ligitamcy is.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 12:13:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

DLC (0.00 / 0)

A Democrat that is tied to corporate money is inherently unrepresentative of the PEOPLE, and is as bad as a republican.  They will never inspire me or a large majority of disenchanted citizens to get up and vote.

I think that keeping people uninspired is the agreed upon tactic to keep voter turnout low and Joementum's low information voters in charge of elections.

Until we insist that the politicians we support meet a higher standard than claiming to be a democrat we will continue to get Lieberman and GOP-lite. 

I don't agree that any dem is better than any republican. For the same reason mentioned in this post that these GOP-lite dems pull the center to the right. 

Applicable quote:

It's a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it.

  W. Somerset Maugham 

---

by: concorde @ Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:52:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a little late to this party but . . (0.00 / 0)

Welcome Dan!  It is good to see you introducing yourself to the blogosphere.  I hope you visit here often.  See you on the trail.  Fiona sends best regards to her Mayor.

---

by: Kim Hynes @ Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 09:58:04 AM CDT