If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why is saying that the DLC is still in charge taboo?

Michael Wilk's picture

I've been banned from a few political blogs and forums in my day, mostly from right-wing ones on which the site owners pretend to be liberal, but by their words and their actions reveal their utter devotion to defending all that is right-wing — be it in the form of enforcing false civility to protect scum who call us terrorists ad communists from getting their non-existent feelings hurt, or by defending policies implemented by Obama but which these same people denounced when done by Bush-Cheney. These include FireDogLake, Daily Kos, Smirking Chimp, Liberal Forum, On the Left, and Open Left.

All of the above-named sites have certain things in common: site owners and moderators who masquerade as liberals but are decidedly right-wing in their political beliefs, the same owners and moderators abusing their authority to remove dissenters, and a clique of sycophants who defend whatever these people do. The message sent is clear: the left is tolerated only so long as it abides by the terms of discussion set down by the far right. Any deviation from this rule is swiftly and irrevocably penalized.

The last poseur blog I found myself banned from was Smirking Chimp. I still peruse the site from time to time to see how some of the people, namely, those who rose to my defense when I was posting, are doing.

Yesterday I read a couple of entries by someone who understands that the DLC, despite their name-change last year, is still in charge of the Democrats. This same person wrote an entry asking what it would take for Democrats to abandon Obama and the DLC. I was unable to post any reply, having been banned, but I sympathized with the poster, who immediately came under attack from Jeff Tiedrich, who deliberately lied by claiming that the DLC ceased to exist years ago.

No surprise, therefore, that I returned today to find that both entries had been deleted and the poster's account removed.

The thing is, though, that Tiedrich's false statement is a verifiable lie.

For one thing, The phony dissolution of the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council took place only last year, in February 2011. This is the end of April 2012, roughly fourteen months. It hasn't been "years", as Tiedrich lied.

(A link I saw posted and which I managed to save before the entry was removed tracks the political connections of the powerful.

The rebranding of the DLC under the Clinton Foundation was compared in one of the deleted entries to the renaming of Blackwater first to Xe, and now to Academi. It's still the exact same group of homicidal, war-profiteering maniacs, with the exact same purpose: to profit from mass murder and protect the interests of the super-wealthy. The only things different about the outfit are the logo and the name.

Likewise with the DLC, many of whose members are members of the Obama regime.

But see, here's the thing, and it's a pretty big one. Even Tiedrich, in denying the DLC's continued existence, acknowledged that the same people who operated under the DLC continue to dictate policy in the Obama White House. His only real problem with the entries appears to have been of semantics. And then, without any notice apparently given, both of the entries were sent down the memory hole.

Which brings me to ask the question: Why is it taboo in some circles to point out that the DLC and its leaders are still around and in charge of the Democrat Party, albeit under a different brand logo?

Because if we all agree that the same people are dictating policy within the Democrat Party, then it shouldn't be a crime to point that out. It shouldn't be a punishable offense to show that, as with the renaming of Blackwater, it's a shell game the DLC is playing by folding into a right-wing foundation run by its own members, the Clintons.

There's got to be some other reason why it's forbidden by some people to point this out. What is it?

I can only offer up a guess, but I think it has to do with public disgust. Remember how in 2004, 2006, and 2008, voters were so fed up with Bush and Cheney that they were looking for someone — anyone — to replace them with? The depraved and evil policies those subhuman savages are so destructive that the public wanted the fuckers out, and we made it clear that the same policies dressed up in prettier packaging would not be tolerated.

So what did the DLC, which earned equal levels of disgust from the public for having spent decades supporting and enabling these far right policies, do in response? Did they slink off to a corner of the Democrat Party, never to dare be heard from again? HELL no! They just picked one of their rising pretty-boys, dressed him up in nice-looking wrapping, and sold him as the Big Change. Of course, what was inside the packaging was always just more of the same.

The voting public was so desperate to be rid of the GOP in 2008 that it ignored the warning signs and elected Barry Obama anyway. Boy did THEY get a wake up call! After two years of watching as Barry Obama stacked his regime with the old DLC crowd from the Clinton years and proceeded to continue and expand all of Bush and Cheney's policies, voters threw up their hands, stayed home during the midterms, and didn't vote at all. They weren't about to forgive the Democrats for having betrayed them yet again. All the promises of hope and change were lies, and Obama did everything he could to prove that they were lies — and neither he or his DLC buddies were even remotely subtle about it.

But then the polls started showing that no matter how far to the right he moves, Obama's chances against any of his Republican counterparts aren't nearly good enough to secure him a second term as dictator. The polls still show going into November that the margin between Barry and Mittens is still well within the ability of the GOP electoral fraud machine to cheat its candidate's way into the executive mansion.

You'd think by now that the DLC would have learned an important lesson from 2010: that shell games are a losing strategy. No one gives a damn about what letter a politician has after his name. If that politician keeps pushing the same extreme right-wing policies, it won't matter how many times he and his party change their packaging. Voters will keep on punishing the DLC at the polls. No one wants Democrats who act like Republicans competing with actual registered Republicans for the right to implement the same policies for Wall Street's benefit.

But no, the morons running the Democrat Party are too stupid to realize that as long as they keep supporting and enabling the GOP, they'll always lose elections they ought to have in the bag. So last year they pulled another shell game, hoping against hope that they can fool the public one more time.

Apparently some people have decided to join the DLC in promoting their latest re-branding. The Holy Meme dictates that the DLC be declared dead, like an Internet troll returning to his favorite blog to flame us all again under the pretense of being someone else, and for the DLC to successfully remain on the political stage the Holy Meme must be obeyed at all costs.

That's my best guess, and it's the only one that makes any sense to me.

No votes yet


Submitted by Hugh on

I would take it as a badge of honor to have been kicked off the same list of sites. I agree it scarcely matters whether the DLC formally remains around or not because the same players and ideas continue to dominate the Democratic party. Personally, I do not see the Democratic party as salvageable. I do not see the Democratic leadership particularly caring whether they win elections or not, precisely because their agenda and that of the Republicans are indistinguishable. And the system of corporate welfare for political losers regardless of party will soften any blow. As long as the political duopoly holds sway, where can disaffected voters go? If they are sick of Democrats now and Democrats lose, in time they will become sick of the Republicans and return to the Democrats. This is how party leaderships think.

Rangoon78's picture
Submitted by Rangoon78 on

"The rebranding of the DLC under the Clinton Foundation"

America’s Mad Cow Crisis -JOHN STAUBER

Good rundown on the lack of safety in our food supply- until the part where the otherwise level-headed author  (Progressive author) reflexively  blames Bill Clinton :

  "…It doesn’t matter if the President is named Clinton, Bush or Obama because their bureaucrats in the USDA and FDA stay the course and keep the cover up going."

Unfortunately this is apparently still par for the course for a segment of the Left. 

Does Clinton bashing enhance their credibility with their peers?  

I dunno…

Dec. 24, 2003
 The first apparent case of mad cow disease in the United States has been discovered, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Tuesday.

This parody in response to the above is illustrates  the logic:

"So I assume this mad-cow scare will be blamed on Clinton right? -

I heard it takes 4-5yrs for mad-cow to develop in the cow. The cow who tested for it in WA was 4yrs old. So that means the cow had the disease since '99, when yes, you guessed it, Bill Clinton was pres. He should have known in '99 that this cow would develop or had mad-cow. I can't believe another lapse by the Clinton Admin. that has put Americans at risk. This tears it! Just like w/ the Lincoln assassination. Clinton clearly ignored the warnings from his own secret service that were telling him John Wilkes Booth would likely hurt Lincoln. Nothing. This is after the debacle at Calvary where Jesus ended up on the cross. The State Dept "clearly" warned Clinton, while he was on vacation at Martha's Vineyard, that the Romans were targeting Jesus for crucifixion and going to let Barrabas go. He did zippo on that one too! I'm beside myself!!!"
Is a puzzlement!

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

...go well beyond anything the DLC could cook up. It's also to be expected that organizations will change over time. Christians didn't start off as a worldwide mega church. Their mission was much more grassroots and out of the box for the establishment. NOW started off as an advocacy group for women. Now it has mission creep and women are not its primary focus, IMHO. It seems to me that some bloggy types have demonizes the DLC and have given it much more credit than it deserves. Back in the 90s the DLC just seemed like a business friendly Democratic organization, neither the party itself or some mysterious illuminati type group. Over time, it appears to have morphed into something else. But if you blame the DLC for the failures of the party's individual members, I think you are letting them off easy. After all, now those reps can hide behind its skirts and say, "don't blame me, the DLC made me do it". See what I mean? Reps and Senators seem to be deprived of agency. Everything bad is the fault of the DLC. And if you relieve these guys of agency, they'll just serve the highest bidder no matter who that person is. You'll get much farther if you hold each congress critter personally responsible for their actions. After all, they are just one vote, not some puppet of a nebulous business group.
Stuart Zechman and Jay ackroyd frequently make a big deal about the DLC and the Third Way. It's intensely boring. It makes the Democrats sound like they took some kind of satanic oath. The truth is frequently much more mundane.
Don't blow up these groups in your mind or you will spend your time tilting windmills. You can't unseat a group, which may survive even if all of its members disappear. But you can unseat the member who doesn't vote like a Democrat no matter what faction he/she belongs to.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

If you get bounced from a site for making a reasoned argument while remaining courteous then what are you gong to do? I have found, though, that if I take the time to edit myself, for the purpose of getting rid of any nasty asides before posting, I end up making further revisions in my draft and coming up with a finished product that is, invariably, a more effective one (and a more welcomed one, too).

My theory is that I can't expect people to admit the error of their ways in the midst of a back and forth realizing as I do that that's not when I would be inclined to change my own mind. You might try using an unemotional tone while making as strong a case as you can about whatever it is you're contending, and while keeping in mind that your audience is not so much the person with whom you are arguing but rather anyone else who might, at some point, be reading through the thread. If you're making a point that others at a site have not heard before, or have not heard often enough, you should not be expecting to carry the day. A truckload's worth of patience has to be in your rhetorical arsenal, sometimes all you can do is chip away at whatever stone wall you're up against. Whether or not it takes a village, persuasion often does take time and repetition.

Submitted by lambert on

... no amount of patience would have persuaded them on single payer. Ditto FDL and single payer. Ditto Kos and Obama, especially as the latter was IMNSHO, infested with paid trolls.

Here's the comment that Bowers banned me for at Open Left. It's well within the parameters of, say, scholarly controversy in the letters column of the New York Review of Books.

So while I respect your theory, I don't think it works where the proprietor has rigged the site against persuasion. Better to lay down a marker and get the fuck out; I hope to hang the dead, stinking albatross of Open Left and single payer around Bowers' neck for the rest of his career.

Submitted by lambert on

I've only been banned from FDL, Daily Kos, and Open Left (the proprietor of the latter, Chris Bowers, is working on Warren's campaign... )

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

There are very few sites where we can say exactly what we think. Happily, this is one of them.

I blog at FDL, Kos, and too. At the last site they just ignore me. Ay Kos I've had some fights with trolls, but have never been picked on by staff or anyone in power over there. I don't know why. I say what I want. I've said hostile things about the Dems and President O many times. Maybe I'm not popular enough for them to notice. I don't worry about getting banned. In fact, I kind of expect it at some point, because I'll say what I want to say, and not worry about it.

As for FDL, I feel pretty much the same about it. I've debated Jane a number of times, over Medicare for All, though our paths haven't crossed lately. I've had disagreements with Bill Egnor, that have gotten pretty deep a number of times. I defended Rusty 1776 there when the mods banned he/she at FDL, but also posted this defense here, without also posting it at the other sites, because I thought it would certainly get me banned there; and I didn't feel quite ready to leave yet.

So, that's my experience. I do agree with Michael's analysis above, and also with the conclusion that the owners of most of the so-called progressive sites are pretending when it comes to upholding progressive values of transparency and free expression.

par4's picture
Submitted by par4 on

Liberals are not of the Left. Communists and Socialists are of the Left, Liberals are not. Scratch a Liberal and find a Fascist.