Talk:Democratic Leadership Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Blog links

I added a link to my blog, Democrats Against the DLC. I'd be fine if somebody wanted to get rid of all those blog links, but as long as everyone else is doing it...



~~Hi, I got rid of it because it was essentially nothing more than an advertisement.Bobbyd100 02:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archieved Discussion

I tried to distill the discussion down to topics that seemed to be ongoing. I hope that's ok. Ryan Utt

[edit] Jimmy Carter???

Concerning the top of the article: ...a goal which had eluded the Democrats since the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter.

am i missing something or is this saying the dems haven't taken (or retaken) the white house since carter? if so, that's pretty incorrect. Sorry if this has already been discussed. gbinal

In 1984 when the DLC was founded, the Democrats has lost the election to Ronald Reagan. Obviosly Clinton was elected President later on. That particular claim of the sentance is correct, but the sentance could be improved: losing to an incumbent president while dominating the House and the Senate doesn't indicate to a crisis within the Democratic Party. --Ryan Utt 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Characterization of DLC as "Centrist"

Behind The DLC Takeover

I think it is a misnomer to refer to their policies as "centrist" or "moderate." The policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (ala Teddy Kennedy) are centrist by any global measure. The DLC is better described as center-right.

Within the framework of American politics, their policies are center-left, centrist, or moderate. I'm sure even Ted Kennedy would not refer to himself as a "centrist". -- Mattworld 20:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the characterization of the DLC as "centrist" is POV. Certainly the DLC describes itself as "centrist" but people across the spectrum will disagree, and, in fact, a glance at the history shows that many different adjectives have been employed in this articles first paragraph to describe the DLC's position. This issue is complicated by the fact that "centrist" doesn't have any solid definition, and varies across time and across the globe. I think we can objectively agree that the DLC advocates a right-ward shift of the Democratic Party. Can we agree to this? Ryan Utt
I think "shift from the left" keeps the DLC squarely where they feel most comfortable. I wouldn't use "right" to describe them so I changed "right-ward shift" to "shift from the left". I also changed "modeerate" to "more modeerate" ,again because "moderate has an absolute connotation that doesn't really describe anything. Tbeatty 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

Compared with the Marxist Socialists who run the "anti-war" faction of the Democratic Party, the DLC is centrist. The DLC is a liberal organization on many issues, but Centrists are characterized by their refusal to walk any sort of ideological litmus tests. To call the positions taken by Moveon.org or International ANSWER centrist is absurd. --146.145.70.200 18:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Shut up, you inbred, ignorant right-wing shill.--75.25.28.65 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-DLC Bias

As with the vast majority of things on the wiki, this has a very noticeable leftist ideological viewpoint. There is no discussion of the successes of the DLC, the broad-based support of its positions amongst the voting public, and through the use of buzzwords, it tries to tar the DLC as a bunch of turncoat apostates who might as well be conservatives. For instance, why is noteworthy to note that they criticize Michael Moore? It is only noteworthy if you start from the assumption that he isn't a crazed crackpot. Bascially, this entire article is written in the tone that there is something a good liberal democrat is supposed to be and these guys aren't it.

The DLC has never used the words "loony left" to describe Moore and Dean. This article is full of criticism with nothing good to say about the DLC from someone who knows a little more about what they stand for. I intend to change this once I gather my thoughts.

Hmmmm... the DLC never used the words "loony left" to describe Michael Moore? I'm going to have to disagree, because when I go to dlc.org and search for "loony left" I get an article by Marshall Wittman entitled (in Wittman's typical Garanimal posturing) "Moose on the Loose". Inside, Wittman makes the statement:

"Contrary to the conspiracy theories of Michael Moore and the loony left, Bush did not invent our enemies."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252914&kaid=127&subid=173

So go ahead and share your expertise on the DLC and give a positive perspective. I'm certainly not in a position to do that. But make sure your facts are right.

Wittman using the phrase is not the same thing as the DLC as an organization doing so. But all the same, thanks for pointing it out. BTW, you may have noticed the article has changed and now contains a more positive depiction of the DLC as well as criticism of it.

Wittman didn't just use the phrase "loony left" while speaking on his own, he said so in an article written in BluePrint, the DLC's primary organ. So what Wittman writes in BluePrint is representative of the DLCs stance.

All these edits aren't so much giving a positive perspective of the DLC as white-washing the negative perspective. This claim that the DLC "opposed" Bush's tax-cuts is particularly galling considering the explicitly cautioned politicians from opposing those tax-cuts lest they appear far-left.

Okay, I was wrong about Marshall Wittman. Kudos to the one who pointed that out. But as for the tax cuts, the DLC has consistently opposed Bush's tax cuts FOR THE WEALTHY, but at the same time has warned Democrats against opposing MIDDLE CLASS tax cuts. Agree or disagree with the DLC's view as you see fit, but anyone who doubts this should read these:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3023

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3060

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3107

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=3191

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251787&kaid=125&subid=162

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251924&kaid=127&subid=900056

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252295&kaid=127&subid=900056

-I'm here with little knowledge and more interested in querying a single sentence. I do want to add this, to this conversation. Please, let us all do keep our editing talk civil and patient, otherwise what wikipedia can be will not be. All of us would agree that wikipedia has great potential. In the best pursuit of that, long-term, I hope that no one will "shout" as above. Would the following not be NPOV and true: 'Some see the DLC's as advocating traditionally conservative points.' or such. As far as the inclusion of certain points such as conservative criticism of Moore or Dean, even if they were added with an agenda, a true NPOV statement should be welcome at wikipedia and only sought to work into the article more flowingly and clearly. Facts should never be excluded for any political reasons, even if they were added for political reasons. Let's continue talking and contributing. - gbinal


The phrase "Some see the DLC's as advocating traditionally conservative points" seems to already be made in the third paragraph of "Criticism". However, if you have specific policies in mind, please feel free to contribute them.


The sentence about the DLC advocating "abandoning progressive principles" is not accurate...The DLC website references progressive ideas multiple times, and uses the word "progressive"....A more accurate characterization might be that the DLC calls for a more centrist party or advocates progressive centrism...

Yes, and look at how well Kerry did. Personally I attribute the utter mess of a campaign that was 2004 to the DLC and their movement towards a more centrist democratic party. 69.231.202.228 00:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal, because of Dean's position of capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden instead of illegally invading Iraq, The DLC dismissed other critics of the Ignore Bin Laden, Invade Iraq policy such as filmmaker Michael Moore as "Anti-American" and members of the "loony left" [7]. This seems to be pretty blatant in it's bias. I'm going to edit it to be more NPOV.Jaguar84 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This entry on the DLC has to be changed. It sounds more like an editorial page anti-DLC essay not an objective statement defining for readers what is the DLC and where did it come from. Clearly this violates the Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view). The bias is too obvious to allow this page to remain unchanged. I've never read anything so slanted as this on wikipedia.

[edit] DLC Anti Populist?

The claim is made that the DLC says that Democrats "should shift away from traditionally populist positions".

No evidence whatsoever is presented to support this declarative statement. That is because there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the opposite is true. In an article entitled "[ http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=114&subid=236&contentid=254075 How to Grow the Middle Class]", the first pillar of the DLLC's "opportunity agenda" is:

Every American should have the opportunity and responsibility to go to college and earn a degree, or to get the lifelong training they need.

Pretty musch puts the lie to the idea that the DLC argues against populist policies.

--Gatordem 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

True, that sounds like a pretty populist position, but I've heard many a DLC acolyte complain about the "populist" leanings of various Democratic candidates. The DLC leadership even criticized Al Gore--one of their own--on the grounds that his 2000 platform was "too populist" and not "New Democrat" enough. The DLC may claim to support equal opportunity to attend college, but they oppose most plans to publicly finance such college educations for needy students, such as the one John Edwards started in eastern North Carolina and is proposing on the national level. Typically, the DLC uses the word "populist" to describe a leftist or "old fashioned liberal" position on any economic issue. I think it's pretty safe to say what the DLC is all about is making the Democratic Party more palatable for more affluent people, which is in stark contrast to a truly populist agenda. --24.107.35.146 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With the definition of "middle class" changing along with the majority of formerly middle class jobs evaporating with each Labor Department report, it is not a lie that the DLC has moved the Democratic Party away from its progressive roots. Look up the entry on Progressivism in the United States and read it carefully. The New Democrats of the DLC don't seem to put as much into supporting labor union movements, eliminating poverty through social change, taxing the wealthy in order to create more wealth equity, creating universal health care and giving assistance to those stuck in the gears of grinding poverty even after "graduating" from welfare through Welfare to Work.

Progressive politics is anti-war, pro-labor, pro-education and supportive of all those being oppressed by big business. The DLC was behind the atrocious Medicare Part D plan that gave more money to private health insurance and pharmaceutical conglomerates. Meanwhile, those who are elderly and not quite destitute enough to qualify for "extra help" have to pay hundreds of dollars per month on medications--many of them deemed "lifesaving" by their doctors--that they cannot afford once they hit the Part D coverage gap. How is making Part D this way thought of as "progressive"? Regarding their stand on education from their own site[1], there is not one word about abolishing the horrific tragedy known as No Child Left Behind.

Also, look into the Center for American Progress website [2] if you want to honestly compare what the DLC has actually done and what Progressivism means today. An honest look into what the DLC stands for has very little to do with what it means to be a Progressive. Also, the Democratic Party has been really good about keeping real progressive Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich out of the televised debate right before the most recent Iowa Caucus. These are valid observations, and as such show that the DLC is anything but progressive.Kulturvultur (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critics and "Weasels"

I think that the section that Tallicfan20 and 8bitJake are disputing could be improved by replacing the "weasel" phrase "critics point out" with direct quotes from specific critics. Some critics of the DLC have highlighted the loss of "Congressional and gubernatorial seats during the '90s" and others have contrasted Dukakis' vote share with Clinton's. The authority of unnamed "critics" is not worth fighting for. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would love to add some sources such as the Center for American progress and others. --8bitJake (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But to imply that Dukakis did better than Clinton is misleading, as it takes everything completely out of context. Only the far right and left wings actually use the talking about about Dukakis getting a higher percent. But that ignores that in 1992, there were THREE candidates, and in 1988, there were only two. Bill Clinton also got a higher number of total votes than Dukakis. Also, having 3 candidates in a race increases turnout, and the denominator of total votes, thus each vote will be less of a percentage. The criticism is not a common one, only a fringe one. I'll also point out that exit polls showed the pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Perot taking equally from Clinton and Bush. Clinton clearly would have gotten higher than Dukakis in percentage if 1992 was a two way race. So the misleading needs to stop.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring in the article, let's talk things over here. If 8-bit Jake can produce sources for his criticism, we can compare them to the sources that Tallicfan20 brings and come up with a compromise. This shouldn't be decided on the strength of personal arguments, but on the basis of what notable sources have published on the matter. In the mean time, I'm tagging the section for weasel words, since the appeal to unnamed critics is at the heart of the problem. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not making personal arguments. HE is the one doing so. Just look at his talk page as I lay out my argument to him, he doesn't respond until later, when he calls me a "Freeper" citing my former talk page, which has NOTHING to do with the article. Then he starts trashing the DLC, not responding even to my criticism of what he is putting in the article. HE is the one with the POV. I am just trying to make the article better, by not allowing a misleading statistic in the argument, as it ignores that 1992 had 3 candidates, 1988 had two. Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
By "personal arguments" I mean ideas that come from any of us as editors, rather than from a reliable source. Why don't we compile a list of the sources for each of the points of view here: A list of sources that make Tallicfan20's point, and a list of sources that makes 8bitJake's point. The sources will be much more valuable if they directly make the point in contention, in order to avoid an improper synthesis. Once we have a list of the sources, along with the exact text of what they assert, we can work on a summary that expresses what specific critics have said. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well to start, while he DOES point out that Dukakis got a higher percentage than Clinton, he leaves out that the 1992 race had 3 candidates, the 1988 race had two. Second, exit polls showed that Ross Perot drew equally from both candidates. When you have 3 candidates in a race, people are going to vote for the 3rd candidate, and turnout was higher on 1992 than 1988. That is why I think it is fundamentally misleading and dishonest to cite that Dukakis got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton. Clinton also got more total popular votes than Dukakis and more electoral votes. I just don't believe such a misleading statement should be in the article.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallicfan20's POV, Needs 3RR and RFC ASAP

We need to start a RFC for Tallicfan20 blind POV edit waring. Feel free to report him to 3RR and the many personall attacks that he will engage in today. --8bitJake (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'M not the one with personal attacks. You are the one citing a meaningless stat in the article. You imply that Dukakis did better than Clinton in an election, when that is clearly false, and more of a personal attack than anything. When did I ever personally attack you? You are the one injecting your anti-DLC opinion into the article. Bill Clinton won more votes overall than Dukakis, but got more votes than his opponentS, Dukakis didn't. It is misleading to cite a percentage as doing better when 1988 was a 2 way race, and 1992 a 3 way race.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of Tallicfan20 personall attacks against me. I am sure that it is not going to be the only ones. "I get you now, you're a radical Clinton hater" "you obviously hate Clinton, and can't face that a moderate won. you are misleading people. Clinton did better than Dukakis. if you were such a progressive, as you claim, you'd respect the Clintons.)" "You're clearly injecting your anti-DLC rhetoric into the article and your anti-Clinton bias" --8bitJake (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You called me a Freeper on my talk page. That is a personal attack. You started the fire by doing that. I also only said those things because YOU were the one putting the POV into the article my citing a highly misleading statement in the article. You are the one badmouthing the DLC on your talk page.Tallicfan20 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1988 there were six parties that had ballot access and in 1992 there were nine. If you want to continue to rant about Perot make sure to include mentions of all the other statistically insignifigant parties, LaRouche and the Commies. --8bitJake (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

can you stop playing games? its OBVIOUS I or anybody else does not include minor parties. Its so obvious you are clearly trying to mislead people. perot was NOT statistically insignificant. He got 18.9 percent of the vote, the highest since Teddy Roosevelt for a 3rd party. You are the one who keeps trying to make Dukakis look better than Clinton. Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your the one opening up the can of worms. How can you argue that Perot was a factor but the other six other presidential campaigns in 1992 had no impact. Plus there were six parties with presidential ballot access in 1988, including Ron Paul and LaRouche! Ha! --8bitJake (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Perot got over 1 percent of the popular vote, and none of the other 3rd parties did. I'm trying to make a decent article and you're just trying to mislead people. Clinton did better than Dukakis. PERIOD. And nobody out there EVER calls 1992 a nine way race. It is always referred to as a three way race, and 1988 as a two way race. You are clearly playing games here. Tallicfan20 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Perot got a whopping zero electoral votes. If 2000 has taught us anything is that is the only thing that matters in electing a president.--8bitJake (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you insist on writing how Dukakis got a higher percentage of vote, despite the fact not only did he come in second in votes and get less than Clinton, but he got far fewer electoral votes than he did? Clinton got over 270, Dukakis didn't. Sounds like hypocrisy to meTallicfan20 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dukakis got a higher percentage of the vote. That is an undenyable fact. I don’t think we should have an unfair level of inclusion on all the candidates of the 1988 and 1992 elections that had ballot access. I think either they all get mentioned or they don’t get mentioned at all. You can’t say that Perot simultaneously did and didn’t matter and that it really changed anything in the election. It all pointless really and I think the mention should be removed.

I never called it false, but called it misleading, I did that because saying Dukakis got a higher percentage, while is true, may make many think he somehow did "better" when he didn't, because many people mistakenly think that elections are about getting to 50%, when in fact they are not. Its about getting the highest number of votes, not solely over 50% cast, and being done in enough states to garner 270 electoral votes or more, which Dukakis didn't do. The reason I mentioned him was because usually, a winner gets higher than 43 percent. It would make some heads spin, so I figured why not explain that his presence distorted the percentage candidates got in that election. Other 3rd party candidates usually don't have such an effect. I think its best that the edit war end, and hopefully it has.Tallicfan20 (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1992 also had a much higher turnout than 1988. I live in Washington State and we have had some super close elections where the margin of victory is well within the vote total for other campaigns besides the Democratic Party and the Republicans. Other parties matter when it comes to a general election, just ask Dino Rossi, and Al Gore

Well 1992 did have big turnout, but one should not automatically think because a 3rd party margin is bigger than a margin of victory it means spoiler. When the margin is as large a one as in 1992, and the exit polls indicate Perot voters were split evenly between Bush and Clinton, than its meaningless. But the point is that it is fundamentally dishonest and misleading to compare Dukakis' vote percent with Clinton's because 1992 had 3 viable candidates in terms of vote getting, and 1988 had 2. I think I laid out my arguments pretty well above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment from Nwwaew

I am sorry that Nwwaew's Wikistalking and harassment of me has lead him here and that he was temporarily successful in shutting down this page. I've started an ANI discussion about his harassment of me [3]. --8bitJake (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)