Posted on 06/11/2003 9:44:05 PM PDT by DPB101
"The sellout of progressive politics has been a total disgrace for the Democratic Party. Not only is it morally wrong and politically cheap, but it doesn't even work." - Rev. Al Sharpton
'We're gonna rebuild America's cities and we're gonna do it with America's steel .... Medicare for all, money pulled out of the Pentagon budget to pay for schools and other domestic programs, and total nuclear disarmament .... This war was wrong! This war was fraudulent! We must expose this administration!" - Rep. Dennis Kucinich
These are the voices of the Democratic Party's base, the voices that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is sworn and determined to smother in a sea of corporate dollars.
They are those voices that brought down the house at last week's Take Back America conference, in Washington, organized by the Campaign for America's Future. These are the messages that rocked the house of labor at AFSCME's Democratic presidential candidate forum in Des Moines, Iowa, last month, and have energized the party's core constituencies at gatherings across the nation. Words like these, and the struggles they evoke, are the reasons that blacks and progressives remain Democrats.
The DLC's mission is to erase the last vestiges of social democracy from the Democratic Party, so that the corporate consensus will never again be challenged in the United States. Acting as a Republican Trojan Horse in the bowels of the Democratic machinery, the DLC claims the "real" party lives somewhere off to the right, where George Bush dwells, and that minorities, unionists, environmentalists, feminists, men and women of peace - virtually every branch of the party except corporatists - must be purged or muzzled . . .(snip)
Republicans have nothing on the DLC when it comes to slinging code words. In truth, this "rump faction" has no soul. It's just a big, white corporate pocket. . .(snip)
The Democratic Leadership Council is the mother of all corporate Trojan horses, and despite its incompetence at persuading Democratic voters to come to the polls it has come to dominate today's Democratic Party. These "New Democrats" bring their corporate assets to Philadelphia, July 19, for what they call a "National Conversation" - one in which money does all the talking. Look around for the black faces - they're under contract or, as DLC founder Al From puts it, "on display" . . .(snip)
. . . the employment of black Trojan horse Democrats opens up new opportunities for the Right. It is in fact cheaper and easier for the corporate Right to flip an incumbent black Democratic city councilman, state legislator or congressman than it is to bring up stooges through its own farm system. Given the choice, the Right would rather buy a black, than groom one.
A new crop of "black leaders" - appointed, anointed and financed by corporate cash - is being foisted on the community, some of them old faces transformed by new infusions of capital. An ominous and confusing period is upon us as these newly minted or recently transformed black elected spokespeople are trotted out by the corporate media as evidence that the Black Consensus no longer exists, that African Americans have shed our "outmoded" habit of groupthink everywhere that it differs from the purported White Consensus . . .
Just what do black elected officials get from affiliating with the DLC/New Democrats?
They don't get "new ideas." Memphis Rep. Harold Ford doesn't have any ideas, other than to pledge allegiance to the Bush war policy. Georgia Rep. Denise Majette has none, and Cory Booker is just a shill for private school vouchers. They are essentially empty suits . . .(snip)
And what if corporate money cannot be removed from the process any time soon?
The time may be near when the Black Consensus and other parts of the Democratic Party's historic legacy will have to find temporary or permanent homes elsewhere.
In 1948 the Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry Wallace, in which Paul Robeson played an important part, posed a significant enough threat to Democrat Harry Truman's chances that he was forced to move to the left to keep that Democratic base largely intact. This was why in the weeks before the election Truman found the spine to veto the infamously anti-labor Taft-Hartley bill and desegregate the armed forces by presidential decree. Without a high-profile Progressive Party presidential campaign in 1948 the US armed forces might not have begun desegregation until the mid-1950s or later. Though legal barriers to ballot access are higher than two generations ago, and access to coverage in the corporate-owned media harder to come by than ever, this is another avenue that may have to be explored . . .(snip)
Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, seemed confident that the DLC can be beaten back this primary cycle. "We've been preparing a long time for this," said Neas to the Hartford Courant, "and we are going to block any right-wing nominee."
The right-wing nominee's name is Joe Lieberman. If he wins the nomination, it will be time to head for the exits of the national Democratic Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackcommentator.com ...
The right-wing nominee's name is Joe Lieberman. If he wins the nomination, it will be time to head for the exits of the national Democratic Party.
On the surface, this looks merely like the childish foot-stomping of your typical Democrat cupcake.
I don't trust this stuff.
It is not beneath the Scumbag Party to orchestrate this kind of "dissention in the ranks" in order to try to paint the candidate they actually want to boost as somebody who is conservative and therefore acceptable to mainstream America.
Bruce A. Dixon, editor of the Black Commentator, is another matter. A true believer. Nothing devious about him.
"....the DLC claims the "real" party lives somewhere off to the right, where George Bush dwells, and that minorities, unionists, environmentalists, feminists, men and women of peace.... must be purged or muzzled...."
What the author meant:
"....the DLC claims the "real" party lives somewhere off to the right, where George Bush dwells, and that minorities, unionists, environmentalists, feminists, men and women of peace, welfare mothers who have babies like flies, and all the rest of society's losers and parasites.... must be purged or muzzled . . ."
This kind of statement will make great fodder for a Lieberman mailer. See, Lieberman is not a liberal; he's a mainstream moderate! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Actually, Bill Clinton was one of the originators of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). He sought to move the Democratic Party to a centrist position in order to win elections. He was able to get welfare reform, hated by the Democratic leftists, approved by Congress. He also championed a tax cut to the middle class, but that was defeated by his Democratic Congess before the takeover by the Republicans in 1994. Bill did not look out for the traditional constituency of the Democratic Party, the poor, but championed causes that would gain support from his base in the treasonous corporate world (those advocating opening up trade of sensitive equipment to China) and also the social left, represented by Hollywood. His first significant executive actions were to advocate for gays in the military and to grant tax-exempt church status to Scientology, both playing to Hollywood special interest groups. Clinton sought to weaken America; his recent comments directing America to learn to live in a world where we are not the strongest power are indicative of his philosophy.
That is the Clinton's real threat to this country, IMHO, a disdain for the military and incompetence in foreign policy which led directly to 9-11.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but welfare reform was a product of a Republican congress. Clinton signed it because he was afraid, after the debacle in 1994, he would not be reelected in 1996 if he didn't.
(Clinton) also championed a tax cut to the middle class, but that was defeated by his Democratic Congress before the takeover by the Republicans in 1994.
Clinton ran on cutting taxes. He lied. Once in office he pushed to raise taxes. Gore cast the deciding vote which passed the Clinton tax increase.
There are still a bunch of people who are moderately conservative but still vote Dem out of tradition or habit. Sharpton would be the wake-up call that this is no longer the party of Harry Truman.
Lieberman would alienate the activist base, but Sharpton would send MANY moderate Dems over to the Republicans
My (NYC Jewish ex-govt employee) mother-in-law is a moderate Dem. If Lieberman was nominated, and the Black base put out a bunch of anti-Semitic stuff about him, she would bolt. She would also stay home rather than vote for Sharpton. Either one will cause a civil war between the Black and Jewish components of the Dem Party, which is why I think the Dem leadership will try hard to make sure each bows out early in the primary season
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.