MyDD :: Congressional Voting Loyalty, Part Two: The DLC

Congressional Voting Loyalty, Part Two: The DLC

by Chris Bowers, Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:21:21 PM EST

Today I present the second installment of my investigation into the voting habits of members of Congress: the DLC. Using the criteria I developed yesterday, I have compared the voting patterns of the 39 members of the House of Representatives who are also members of the DLC with the 164 members of the House of Representatives who are neither Republicans nor members of the DLC.

The 39 DLC members in the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 76.6% of the time on the eight important, party differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. The 164 non-Republican and non-DLC members of the House stayed with the Democratic Party majority 82.8% of the time on the eight important, party-differentiating votes so far in this session of Congress. So, while DLC members were somewhat more disloyal than the rest of the party, they were not dramatically more disloyal.

More than anything else, and just as my girlfriend suspected, this study has revealed to me that the DLC is hyper-disorganized and does not seem to have either a clear policy thread or a noticeable amount of influence among its membership. Check out the diversity of the voting habits of the thirty-nine members on these eight votes:

Opposed Eight Bills: 9 (Capps, Carnahan, Davis (CA), Holt, Millender-McDonald, Inslee, Schiff, Smith (WA), Udall (NM)
Opposed Seven Bills: 9 (Berkley, Crowley, Emanuel, Engel, Israel, Larson (CT), Price (NC), L. Sanchez, Schwartz)
Opposed Six Bills: 8 (Ethridge, Harman, Kind, McCarthy, Moore (KS), Moran (VA), Tauscher, Wu)
Opposed Five Bills: 8 (Baird, Case, Davis (FL), Davis (AL), Higgins, Hooley, Larsen (WA), Meeks)
Opposed Four Bills: 2 (Herseth, McIntyre)
Opposed Three Bills: 2 (Chandler, Ford)
Opposed Two Bills: 1 (Scott (GA))

Quite frankly, the only pattern here is that there is no pattern. I defy any organization with members that vote like this to tell me what it stands for, as something separate or "new" from the Democratic Party as a whole. Here are how these voting patterns compare to the non-DLC members of the caucus:

Percentage of Members Opposing Various Numbers of Legislation, 109th Congress
    DLC   Non-DLC
8    23     52
7    23     16
6    21      7
5    21     10
4     5      5
3     5      5
2     3      4
1     0      1

The DLC has a significantly lower percentage of the "shining loyalists," those who opposed all eight bills, than the rest of the caucus. However, once we start getting into the "problem children," "those who opposed four bills, and especially those who opposed three or fewer bills, the DLC actually features a slightly lower percentage than the rest of the caucus. Where the DLC is over-presented is in the five to seven range, all of whom voted better than every single Republican during this session of Congress.

What I believe all of this says is that the DLC has somehow managed to turn a loosely connected, ill-formed network with an indiscernible voting pattern into a reputation for ideological centrism and rigidity. Further, considering the chaotic voting patterns of its membership, I think it is pretty safe to conclude that the DLC has very little influence over its members. Further, I also think it is safe to conclude that it receives far too much blame for moving the party to "the center," and receives far too much credit for being an influential mechanism of party leadership.

No wonder the DLC only seems to receive press for bashing other Democrats. They don't seem to do much else.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 55 Comments :: Post a Comment

oh no (none / 0)

who will be the scapegoat for everything that Democrats do wrong now?

by johnny longtorso on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:36:13 PM EST

What Does DLC Membership Mean??? (3.00 / 0)

This just points up the underlying guestion of what does DLC membership mean? My intuitive impression has always been that it's quite malleable.

In many places, I think it's simply ideological cover. Real Democrats join the DLC so that they can mollify moderates, countering the decade of GOP demonization. But then they go ahead and vote like real Democrats anyway.

This is fine with the moderates (including moderate Republicans) because the Democratic Party is actually far more in tune with moderates than the GOP or even the DLC, which are significantly to the right of mainstream America.

Others really are DLC true believers--such as Harman (as I know from local experience over the years)--but for many of them, the GOP votes simply don't make sense to them, esepecially given their constituencies. So the DLC brand ends up meaning more than anything inside the box, at least when it comes to floor votes, even for them. But there is certainly more to life than that--as Harman showed, for example, with her gushing endorsement of Negroponte the very day his appointment was announced.

Others aren't true believers but are responding to perceived constituent pressure--such as Herseth--which they might not do if the DLC didn't exist, but the Dems had a cagier strategy overall.

These figures would seem to support that impression. Some of the members named are pretty solid Dems--some, such as Capps, even notably progressive.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:45:43 PM EST

Re: What Does the DLC do? (none / 0)

Yesterday Liebermanlives suggested that the DNC was responsible for party strategy and message, which I think is laughable.

Somehow the DLC has become the power brokers and decision makers in the Democratic party. I'm not sure how they dictate the direction and policy positions of the party, but they do. How much do we know about how they operate and exactly what they really do as an organization?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Straws (3.00 / 1)

"Somehow the DLC has become the power brokers and decision makers in the Democratic party. I'm not sure how they dictate the direction and policy positions of the party, but they do."

Doesn't it seem like you are grasping at straws here man?

by Chris Bowers on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Straws (none / 0)

I don't know. Who are the decision makers in the Democratic party? Reid and Pelosi and Biden all came forward after Deans election to DNC Chair and explicitly said that Dean does not speak for or represent the party on issues. No problem. McAullife didn't speak for or represent the party on issues either.

The unanswered question is, who does speak for, represent and make policy decisions for the Democratic party? Nobody? Maybe that's the problem.

Is the Big Tent of the Democratic party that it has effectively become a party of Independents with no coherent voice and no coherent policy?

I'm just askin'.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Straws-Now your making sense (none / 0)

Garyboat,

Now your making sense ! Instead of using the DLC as your scapegoat for all the ills of the Democratic Party in pretty much 90% of your postings.

Chris's study on the comparison between DLC & Non-DLC Democrats PROVES that it is not the monster that you always like to potray Gary.

76% vs. 82%. Does voting 76% of the time with our party sound like being a closet republican to you?

No matter how much the DLC & the Progressives clash on issues, Chris's #'s PROVE that at the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of all democrats vote on the same side on issues.

That's why I DISAGREE 100% with your emotional outburst of destroying the Democratic Party temporarily by getting rid of all DLC's/moderates & convert this party into an All progressive/liberal membership.

You have absolutely NO basis except in your own obsession with using the DLC as your scapegoat.

60% of ALL Democratic Governors in the Nation are DLC with majority of them in Red states. About 35% of All House Members are either part of the DLC or the Conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
40% of all Democratic Senators are DLC.

The only Democratic President we have to show in the last 30 years is a DLC.

Majority of names mentioned as leading candidates for the 2008 Presidential elections are DLC
such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, Gov. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. John Kerry, Gov. Bill Richardson, Gov. Tom Vilsack, Gov. Ed Rendell,etc

And you want to kick them all out ? LOL

by labanman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Straws-Now your making sense (none / 0)

Thank-you labanman. Allow me to continue making sense. I don't want to kick them all out. I want to disband the DLC. If we disband the DLC, then political power would devolve into an organization within the Democratic party.

The DLC is a rogue organization that has no legitimate role in the Democratic party. One reason the Republican party is so much more effective than the Democratic party, is that the RNC is a central focus of both political power and developing the party message. I believe the DLC is a major source of the confusion within the Democratic party about vision, issues and message. The DLC creates a duality that should not exist, by their very existence.

Eliminate the DLC and you eliminate the primary source of the Democratic split personality. The members of the DLC would have to seek legitimate channels of influence within the Democratic party structure.

Why is that such a radical idea? Just seems like common sense to me.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Straws-Now your making sense (none / 0)

if i can jump in. my question is who are you to decide that a political network(DLC) of elected democrats is bad for the democratic party?
just because you do not see eye to eye with dlc'ers doesn't mean that they're wrong and your right??? It seems that just because you are a liberal and the DLC happens to be composed of centrist democrats, you want to disband them?

That sounds to me like what we democrats accuse christian conservative republicans of doing within their party.

but my biggest problem with your proposal is you seem to Ignore the last 12 years of Democratic Party Primary results in both National and State levels. Results clearly have shown that majority of democrats have chosen centrist democrats to lead our party. In other words, you may be a Loud activist in our party, but my no means do you speak or represent the majority of rank and file democratic voters.

let me give you clear, precise, and factual examples. Not subjective opinions.

lets start with 1992, a DLC Centrist Bill Clinton won the nomination by defeating prominent Liberals like Tom Harkin, Jerry Brown, Paul Simon and Paul Tsongas. Clinton went on to win the Presidency in 92 & 96.

fast forward 2000, DLC Al Gore defeated Liberal Bill Bradley in the democratic primary.

lets talk about 2004, DLC John Kerry together with other centrist democrats John Edwards, and Wes Clark all defeated the Liberal favorite Howard Dean. despite a united, angry and highly motivated liberal base across the country behind howard dean, all 3 centrist democrats did better than Dean.

same thing in the Senate. 20 DLC Senators elected. In the House, 40 DLC Senators elected.
in the very important Governorship. 13 of the 22 elected Democrat Governors are DLC. I am not even counting the centrist Governors who are not aligned with the DLC but have very similar stands.

without the DLC, do you realize what the democratic party will look like? we would literally be a small minority party with absolutely no power.

and you want to disband the DLC? it seems like the DLC is producing lots of winners while you are imposing your "out of touch" beliefs to the rest of us moderate democrats in the democratic party. i don't think so !

never forget that you are preaching to the choir in this site. majority of the people here are liberals. but come voting time, the silent majority of democrats always speak up.

work to elect all democrats instead of being so negative about an organization that has proven winners!

by fightingLadyinblue on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 02:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What does the DLC do? (none / 0)

Welcoome back FightingLadyinblue. I hope you have learned to mind your manners since the last time you visited MyDD. Allow me to refresh your memory about a couple of points. I am not the boss of anybody and I don't decide anything. I simply express my opinion.

I want to disband the DLC for the same reason that I left the Democratic party in the early 80's. The Washington Monthly summed up the reasons for my discontent then and now in Party Down. The DLC has returned to the bad old days of Democratic hubris and corruption.

Here are two specific complaints I have with the DLC:

(1.) The DLC was the prime mover in giving Bush victories on Class Action law suit restrictions and Bankruptcy restrictions. Harry Reid and the DLC have been either unable or unwilling to oppose Bush and the Republican party. They have not effectively opposed Bush's tax cuts. Their biggest accomplishment so far this session is that they might be able to block Bolton's appointment to be U.N. Ambassador. Whoop dee doo! That's big time politiking. Blocking a U.N. Ambassador!

Summary: The Democratic party, i.e. the DLC, has been ineffective as an opposition party for the last five years.

(2.) The primary business of the DLC is raising campaign contributions from corporate scumbags and voting for them instead of their constituents. Their second major function is criticizing liberal Democrats. When was the last time either Al From or Joe Lieberman criticized a Republican?

You have not offered any substantive accomplishments of the DLC. You provided a chronolgy that proves the DLC existed at the same time Clinton was elected President. One of your accomplishments is curious. Two DLC Democrats, Gore and Kerry, have gotten stomped in the election by one of the most unpopular Republicans in American history.

That is one of my complaints with the DLC. They bask in their defeat and pretend it is a victory, because they came so close to not being losers.

Let's consider the title of my comment. What does the DLC actually do? They exist, they take corporate campaign contributions and they criticize other Democrats. Please itemize what the DLC actually does that has a positive impact on the party.

without the DLC, do you realize what the democratic party will look like? we would literally be a small minority party with absolutely no power.

Why would disbanding the DLC have a negative effect on the party? The members of the DLC would have to join the Democratic party instead of functioning outside of the party structure. If we disband the DLC, their power would probably devolve to the DNC. The Republican party does not have a DLC type cancerous organization outside the party that exercises corrupt inifluence.

The RNC dominates the message and the issues for the party as well as assisting in fund raising. The RNC is clearly a more effective model than the DLC. The Democratic party should abandon a failed structural model and adopt the successful RNC structural model.

Since you are the DLC expert, perhaps you can answer another question I have not been able to answer. Did Kerry ever run the USA Today ad he was raising money for from the netroots? I've googled the internet, USA Today and Kerry's Senatorial website. Did Kerry rip off his contributors again, the same way he did on the Ohio Vote Challenge Fund?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 12:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does the DLC do? (none / 0)

gary, you know what the problem is? you are so obsessed with the DLC & are now trying to backtrack after Chris's #'s just proved you wrong!

and you know what else is the problem gary? you like you to always use BLANKET generalizations such as ALL DLC politicians are BAD, John Kerry lost so DLC is a failure, All Corporations are Scumbags, Kerry or DLC has NO Netroot support, Majority of Democrats are Liberal,therefore, we can kickout the DLC, FightingBlueLady is a DLC expert, a DLC member because she is a moderate, blah this, blah that!

it looks like you have so much disagreement with the Democratic Party that i would not be surprised if you bolt the party AGAIN. your left of left mentality will never be happy in a mainstream Democratic party. i don't know why you came back but if you came back because of one person, howard dean- sorry to disappoint you but the Democratic Party is Bigger than any one person.

Why don't you obsess instead with how Liberals Michael Dukakis & Walter Mondale both got whacked
by the Republican party? And that a centrist named Bill Clinton came in & stopped the losing streak at 12 years!

why don't you obsess on How the National Democratic Party can CHANGE the deep PERCEPTION & the Image in the eyes of millions of mainstream americans in the midwest & rocky mountain states & southern voters as a National Party of " Liberal Tax & Spend democrats, Soft on Crime, Soft on Terrorism, Pro-Welfare.

you should obsess with how to change the SPLIT TICKET VOTING PHENOMENON which is prevalent in Red states where mainstream voters in these Red States are more than happy to vote for Moderate/Centrist Democrats for Governor or Senator in places like MT,IN,ND,SD, WV,AR,LA,AZ,NV,CO,VA,TN,NC,OK,FL,NM,KS,NE. BUT run away from voting for National Democrats for President because they perceive the Democratic national party in Washington as WAY TOO LIBERAL for their cup of coffee!

see Garyboatwright, if NOT for these DLC Democrats, DO you think we would have Democratic Senators & Democratic Governors in ALL These Red States I just mentioned?

YOU TALK A LOT OF BULL CRAP without ever Offering PROOF nor SOLUTIONS! You like to GENERALIZE about DLC, Moderates, Centrist, Pro-Life Democrats within the Democrat Party without EVER SHOWING us any Track Record of Success with your proposal of turning our party into an All Liberal Political Party.

i am sorry gary but it is people like you who are SO OUT OF IT, who WILL NEVER understand NOR connect with "majority of southerners" and " americans who live in the heartland states of the United States". WE WILL ALWAYS BE THE MINORITY PARTY if we are to follow your mantra.

THE ONLY THING THAT IS KEEPING US IN THIS GAME IS THE EXTREME RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN FACTION & THE TOTAL INCOMPETENCE OF GEORGE BUSH! if we had even a notch better republican president than George, we would be in big trouble.

you seem to have this Ignorance that All Americans think & share the same values of your typical Liberal Californian or Liberal New York mentality.

yes gary, there are many " Loud " activist who think and act like you within our party. but make no mistake, being LOUD does not make you the majority of Democrats nor does it allow you to speak for majority of democrats. and being loud will certainly NOT give us back the white house or congress.

you're the one who is out of touch my friend ! NOT Harry Reid, Not Evan Bayh, Not Hillary Clinton, Not Mark Warner, Not Bill Richarson, Not Ed Rendell.

you're a fair weathered democrat anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if you leave AGAIN before '08. good luck.

P.S. FYI- the majority of moderate/centrist democrats are NOT DLC. Just like majority of Liberal Democrats DO NOT THINK LIKE YOU! You're way too obsessed that you can't even see reality.

by fightingLadyinblue on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 01:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does the DLC do? (none / 0)

Well, it looks like you still have some work to do on your manners FightingLadyinblue. Does shouting at folks work down south? I don't know why you insist on being so rude. Loud, vulgar shouting may be effective in your neck of the woods, but it won't persuade a lot of people here.

If you can't answer a couple of simple questions, just say so. It's OK to admit you're wrong. It's a sign of emotional and spiritual growth. Speaking of spiritual growth, did you happen to see my post about the reverends?

Christian Fascism Has The Power

You really should work on controlling your temper FightingLadyinblue. We're just having a polite discussion among friends about the future of the Democratic party. No reason to get all emotional and whacked out about it.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does the DLC do? (none / 0)

And when you're done with those two, you may wish to reflect on my diary about the nature of genuine belief.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:50:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Straws (3.00 / 0)

I don't think so. Think about it:

Our last three presidential nominees have been members of the DLC. In 2000, both men running for the nomination were members.
At the 2000 national convention, concepts that used to breeze their way into the platform, like universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich, couldn't even get enough votes to be debated, never mind put in the platform.
Seventeen years ago, Jesse Jackson, a black man who had never even run for office, won eleven primaries and 6.9 million votes. Last year, a congressman from one of the biggest swing states in the Union, with basically the same positions as Jackson, got less than 5% of the overall Democratic vote.
The biggest Democrat-majority caucus in Congress is the House Progressive Caucus, which has 52 members and absolutely ZERO power.

If the DLC wasn't the major power broker in the party, would any of that be true?

by craverguy on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looks like a good analysis to me (none / 0)

Clinton was definitely DLC. My take is that the 90's were when the DLC locked in their power over the Democratic party. Like any organization, power flows from money. The DLC is fundamentally a fund raising organization. They are the primary recipients of campaign contributions from corporate contributors and probably have some sort of mechanism for funneling contributions to their supporters and fellow travelers.

Liberals prefer to give their donations to environmental groups and hungry children in Africa. It looks to me like the primary beneficiaries of this type of liberal group think are the DLC as muich as the Republican party.

The two broad lobbying groups are the military industrial complex and corporate America. Both of those groups have deep roots in the DLC type Democrats. The progressive caucus probably doesn't get the bulk of corporate contributions. We have the best Democratic party that money can buy.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How do we know these are real DLC members?? (3.00 / 0)

As you probably heard on Daily Kos, the DLC has been taking credit for hundreds of Democratic elected officials on their website, claiming that they are "members" of the DLC.

Some, like Barack Obama and Phil Angelides, have since requested that their names be taken off the list -- because they are not members of the DLC.

While a few of these members you listed are openly proud of their DLC membership (like McIntyre and Tauscher, who are both Blue Dog Democrats), I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them are simply added to the DLC "membership" list in its pathetic effort to remain politically relevant.

That may explain why their voting record is not that substantially less loyal to the Democratic party line.

by Paul Hogarth on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:07:23 PM EST

DLC Is Bankrupt (none / 0)

A bunch of poseurs with zero power, little influence to affect any voting bloc, and its best shot is putting down Democrats clumsily and publicly. We haven't been winning and won't, until we get rid of this bankrupt K Street fiasco, and see a central,strong,vital, and clear message from THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. All of the democraic groups of clones each puts out their own message. Democrats haven't learned how to be loyal, savvy, disciplined, and get a CENTRAL message through to the American Public. We have over and over allowed GOP to co-opt our messages, to insult and smear without a cohesive,immediate and powerful response. Somebody, please....we need a leader. Then we need Marketing.

by morris1030 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC Is Bankrupt (none / 0)

morris,

the last time I checked, the DLC produced a man named Bill Clinton who is the ONLY democrat in modern history other than FDR to be a TWO Term Democratic President.

the last time I also checked DLC'ers Al Gore and John Kerry got MORE votes than any other Democrat in American history. In fact, Gore got more votes than George Bush.

the last time I checked, the TWO MOST HUMILIATING & CRUSHING DEFEATS of our National Party in recent memory were from Liberals Michael Dukakis & Walter Mondale.

the last time I checked MAJORITY of Democratic Governors our DLC such as Mark Warner, Ed Rendell, Bill Richarson, etc etc etc. In fact, many of them are Governors in RED STATES.

the last time I checked almost HALF of all elected Democratic U.S. Senators led by Evan Bayh, Hillary CLinton were DLC. Now if we add all the other Non-DLC but Moderate, Centrist Senators like Harry Reid, it would be an overwhelming majority of Moderate Democrats in the Senate.

I think you're either confused or have fallen for the Big propaganda by some Left Wingers in our party. whether you agree with the DLC, Moderates, Centrist Democrats or not, THEY HAVE PRODUCED WINNERS, its the Liberal Left within our party WHO has to start Producing winners in order to have credibility.

Last year, ALL THREE Democrats who survived the Presidential Race were ALL Centrist Democrats in Kerry, Edwards, & Clark. REMEMBER THAT! Results Don't Lie! In politics, its NOT HOW LOUD you SCREAM or MAKE NOISE, its Who Wins who takes control!

by fightingLadyinblue on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 02:09:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC Is Bankrupt (none / 0)

Uhhh.... Clinton won because Ross Perot split the republican vote

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:55:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC Is Bankrupt (none / 0)

REMEMBER THAT! Results Don't Lie! In politics, its NOT HOW LOUD you SCREAM or MAKE NOISE, its Who Wins who takes control!

If you really believe your own words, would it be too much to ask that you stop screaming?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

I question I asked yesterday, when I posted this list of NDOL Congressional Dems:

Senators

Max Baucus (MT)
Evan Bayh (IN)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Tom Carper (DE)
Hillary Clinton (NY)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Diane Feinstein (CA)
Tim Johnson (SD)
John Kerry (MA)
Herb Kohl (WI)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Joe Lieberman (CN)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Debbie Stanenow (MI)

Representatives

Brian Baird (WA)
Shelley Berkley (NV)
Lois Capps (CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Ed Case (HI)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Joseph Crowley (NY)
Jim Davis (FL)
Artur Davis (AL)
Susan Davis (CA)
Rahm Emmanuel (IL)
Elliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Harold Ford Jr. (TN)
Jane Harman (CA)
Stephanie Herseth (SD)
Brian Higgins (NY)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Diane Hooley (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Ron Kind (WI)
Rick Larsen (WA)
John Larson (CT)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
David Price (NC)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Allison Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (GA)
Adam Smith (WA)
Ellen Tauscher (CA)
Tom Udall (NM)
David Wu (OR)

This is a list I put together from the NDOL site of Senators and Reps. Are there some gaps to fill in? It does not include Biden. Isn't Biden DLC? Is this list from the NDOL a complete list of the DLC?

Another curious feature of the NDOL list is that it includes State Reps, Mayors and City Council members. What role do they serve?

Does the DLC have open meetings? Do they have closed meetings?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:07:29 PM EST

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

I doubt they even have meetings of any kind

by Chris Bowers on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

Every organization has executive committee meetings. They may be open meetings or closed meetings, but they have to have meetings. No organization can run effectively or even ineffectively without meetings. Even anarchists have to have meetings. Otherwise they are just isolated individuals.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

They ARE isolated individuals. Period.

by morris1030 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

Maybe not exactly individuals period. Source Watch seems to think they have common goals:

Nowhere was the excitement [for Clinton] keener than in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and its modest half-thought-tank, the Progressive Policy Institute. back in late 1992, at a dinner held to honor Clinton, the council took in $2.6 million. Among sponsors of the $15,000-a-plate affair were the American Bankers Association, the Tobacco Institute, Merrill Lynch, Coca-Cola and Occidental Petroleum. The Council was designed by Clinton, Charles Robb and other souther politicians to extract money and political endorsements from these corporate bigwigs, while simultaneously selling to the ever-receptive pundits of the Fourth Estate the notion that here at last was an outfit prepared to do battle with the hated "special interests", otherwise known as the base of the Democratic Party--working people in unions, blacks, Hispanics, greens and so on.

That last sentence sounds almost like The Ahnold, if you add special interests like nurses, teachers, Firefighters and Police Officers.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

Oops. Forgot the paragraph about the DLC's link to the military industrial complex:

With regard to the budget, a New Democrat editorial in 1994 proposed reducing federal spending by $225 billion over the next five years. Not one of the recommended cuts would affect the military budget, a posture pleasing to such DLC donors as Martin marietta, General Dynamics, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

...

As Ellen Miller of the Center for Responsive Politics puts it, "The type of donors that give money [to the DLC] are expecting something in return, in this case favorable policies from an influential institution. And they [the DLC] are able to get money from these corporations because of the positions they take.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

Yeah they do.

They just had a huge pow wow recently in Colorado with the Salazar boys.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:57:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who is the DLC? (none / 0)

Udall may be a member of the DLC, but that means nothing, as proved by Chris' chart. He is a member in good standing of the House Progressive Caucus and he's Mo Udall's nephew. Being in the DLC is probably just for show to his constituents.

by craverguy on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here are Dem Senators who are not NDOL (none / 0)

Akaka (HI)
Biden (DE)
Bingaman (NM)
Boxer (CA)
Byrd (WVA)
Corzine (NJ)
Dayton (MN)
Dodd (CT)
Durbin (IL)
Feingold (WIS)
Harkin (IA)
Inouye (HI)
Kenney (MA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Leahy (VT)
Levin (MI)
Lincoln (AR)
Mikulsky (MD)
Murray (WA)
Obama (IL)
Reed (RI)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (C)
Sarbanes MD)
Schumer (NY)
Wyden (OR)

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are Dem Senators who are not NDOL (none / 0)

And it warms my heart to see that my senator, Tom Harkin, is not in either group.

by craverguy on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are Dem Senators who are not NDOL (none / 0)

I wonder about Biden, Byrd and Dodd. Maybe one or two others who I have always considered DLC.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Minor Point (none / 0)

"L. Sanchez" could mean either Linda or Loretta. I would guess that it is Loretta in the above list.

by fwaltman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:08:03 PM EST

Re: Minor Point (none / 0)

Loretta

by Chris Bowers on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

about right (none / 0)

that's right membership in NDC [new democrat coalition] of the House or Senate is at will and there is no policing how they vote. They suggest how they would like them to vote but really since they can't give them money or endorse them (or run ads against them), they have less sway than say LCV.

The DLC is all about building up the next generation of leaders, so they find city councilmembers, state representatives/senators, mayors etc. The idea is that today's state rep could be tomorrow's mayor, and might be next year's congressman/senator/governor. (Like Kwame Kirkpatrick ex state rep now Mayor of Detroit, or Gavin Newsom ex city councilman now Mayor of San Francisco).

The National Conversation is anual event where all these electeds can get together (not all come) and it is a closed door meeting for DLC members only. But the DLC hold public events all the time on their papers (via PPI), polcies, strategies, etc. They often let the press come to some semi-public events, like the speeches at the National Coversation.

But no Naderesque anti-war group was allowed to come into national coversation meetings, if that is what you are asking.

by DaveB on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:18:54 PM EST

I wonder if voting patterns ... (3.00 / 1)

are the ways to get at what the DLC really is.

I guess I'd say that the DLC is about attitude and about PR habits and strategies. It's like the whole Lieberman thing: he votes OK but he is killing the party.

I think this study is worth doing, however. Indeed, seeing the lack of substantive legislating raises questions about the substance of the group.That's worth knowing.

But I think it would be wrong to look at this data and draw the conclusion, "Well, I guess we don't need to worry about the DLC after all." And absence of horrific voting does not add up to reassurance.

by Thresholder on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 04:24:26 PM EST

EXACTLY (none / 0)

It's like the whole Lieberman thing: he votes OK but he is killing the party.

The only power they really have is trashing the party.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:01:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC sucks (3.00 / 1)

Personally, I support candidates I believe in, not corporate whores.

The DLC has no role in the future of our Party other than doing more to help the other Party.

They are done, they are a joke. Any candidate who cares about getting netroots and/or grassroots support should act now to distance themselves from the DLC.

Stand with Obama, stand with future Governor Angelides, stand with the future of our Party and cast away the dead weight that is holding us back.

When it comes time to ask for donations, membership in the DLC will be a values test that candidates will not want to flunk.

by blogswarm on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:19:20 PM EST

Re: The DLC sucks (none / 0)

Here's a socialist critique of the Democratic party from Lefthook, How the Democratic Party Creates Conservatism.

Is M. Junaid Alam a MyDD regular? Some of his themes are very familiar.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 12:03:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just a guess . . . (none / 0)

But I think that the DLC Democrats were more likely to vote for the bankrupties bill, budget, Class action bill, or repeal of the estate tax while. Non DLC Democrats especially more conservative ones like Holden of PA or Taylor of MS were more likely to vote for the Schiavo bill or Real ID Bill.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:00:00 PM EST

I think that's the point... (3.00 / 1)

... the problem with the DLC is not these Congresscritters per se... it is From and Reed. They are the problem. They are a disease, a cancer in the party. Someone with power and influence needs to tell them to shut the F up or convince their funding to dry up so that they are forced out and someone that actually has something worthwhile to say (and is willing to work with other Democrats against Republicans) can take their place.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:07:01 PM EST

DLC (3.00 / 1)

I am a huge fan of the DLC's organizing strategy - the whole "party within a party" concept. Third Way politics really mean something and can be very effective both for getting elected and then getting things done once in office (Clinton). That said, the DLC has become stale at the top and needs new leadership to be reinvigorated.

by Friedman 19129 on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:24:06 PM EST

Re: DLC (none / 0)

I agree with you 100% Friedman. The DLC needs new leadership. Its time for Al From & Bruce Reed to step down.

With that said, #'s don't lie. People can say this & that about the DLC. But come election time, 60% of All Governors are DLC ( many in red states), 18 DLC Senators. And of course, Bill Clinton!

DLC candidates attract millions of Independent Moderate voters especially Fiscally Conservative/ Socially Moderate Independents in every election. Especially with the "Tax & Spend" reputation that Liberal Democrats have in WAshington, the DLC balances that out.

by labanman on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC (3.00 / 1)

I may get flamed here, but I have seen some well-thought out policy proposals at the DLC site. I was fairly impressed.

The problem with the DLC is that they have been criticizing other Democrats needlessly in my opinion, and was not as effective as it should have been during the Clinton Presidency with regards to supporting Bill and helping the Democratic Party in general.

As for how DLC members vote, well, the DLC is not the mafia (or the Republicans). Members will vote as they see fit. The DLC can't tell them how to vote.

by v2aggie2 on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 02:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC (none / 0)

True...but no good deed goes unpunished.

Clinton's willingness to reduce the size of the military in peacetime has translated to the Republican's ably hanging that "soft on terror" thing around our necks. (I don't think keeping the Cold War size force made sense either, or that the Republicans in Congress are in less to blame, however).

Clinton's willingness to expand the scope of globalization and marketplace for American products gave us these terrible trade deals like NAFTA, has chewed up any increase in the real wage, and has destroyed the union base in America while doing nothing to tamp down illegal immigration.

And don't forget Clinton's desire to let Al Greenspan and Robert Rubin vastly deregulate several industries so that the ensuing spate of consolidation fueled a giant bubble in the stock market ostensibly creating wealth but in fact generating the current Enron-esque corporate atmosphere where CEO's are lining up for millions in executive pay, whine about Sarbanes-Oxley, and can't even bother to honor the pension plans of their retired employees.

Votes follow the money. Now that the corporations feed at the Bush-Cheney trough, there's not much incentive for vote discipline among DLC members. But make no mistake, if Al From could harvest Soros-style funding from his cronies, the DLC would again rule the roost.

by risenmessiah on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 04:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC (none / 0)

Did the DLC have that much discipline in the 1990's? I don't know the answer to this question.

Also, the union base was reducing well before Clinton took office.

And at the end of the day, CEO's have to take responsibility for their own actions. They broke the law, and at the very least, were extremely ethically challenged. They took advantage of their employees. The "atmosphere" is not an excuse. These same guys were also lining up for millions in executive pay long before Clinton

by v2aggie2 on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 02:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC (3.00 / 1)

risenmessiah,

let me point out some false assumptions and misconceptions that you had on the Clinton Presidency. You make it sound like Clinton & the Democrats were bad for america. Your criticism sounds verbatum like what Republicans love to say about the prosperous Clinton times in order to belittle the ONLY two term Democratic President since FDR.

first of all, yes Clinton was for reduction of the military. But let me elaborate so you understand. Clinton was for the reduction in military size based on actual personal. ( which we all agree made sense financially since we were at peacetime). However, Bill Clinton was big on Investing Millions in Advanced Technological Weapons which would be how modern wars would be
played out. less soldiers but much more advanced weaponry. The overall military budger increased under Bill Clinton to continue to modernize the military. So don't repeat the GOP Bullcrap.

you said " Weak on Terror" tag. We as Democrats have always been LABELED by Republicans as being WEAK,SOFT and LESS PATRIOTIC for the last 30 years even before Carter. The Iran hostage did nothing but reinforce that.
These SOFT label has been tagged on the Democrats for way before Clinton. The anti-war stance of many democrats back in Vietnam certainly added to that label. So dont blame clinton for that.

secondly, as viggie pointed out, the Unions has been on a decline since the 80's under Reagan. It has continued to lose both members and influence way before Clinton came to office. Look at the factual numbers. and that's based on a combination of GOP controlled anti-Union initiatives, partly NAFTA, and partly because of the Global economy and competition.

third, you sound exactly how Republicans try and Falsely DEFLECT the Clinton administration & Robert Rubin success story. Deregulation & Heavy Investment in Research & Development resulted in RECORD number of New Jobs, 8 years of Balanced Budgets, All Time high in Homeownership, largest number of African-Americans moving up to the Middle Class, largest Trade Export of American products overseas, Record Stock Market Highs, Lowest Welfare rolls in decades, and of course, More WEALTH CREATED than at any time in History.

get the facts and not the Misrepresentation by right wing Republicans. Bush's numbers would be an embarassment to Clinton's.

and pls don't blame Enron's, MCI, Tyco's abuse to the Clintons. What do fraudulent, dishonest, and greedy Corporate Officers in these co's. ( Who by the way were almost all heavy Republican donors)have to do with Clinton?

wealth was created for millions of americans. As a Free Market economy, that's all you can pray for. Obviously, these high level executives also benefited from that. That's the free market system. Now if they became greedy & engaged in illegal activity, thats an individual choice and have NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS! There are Dishonest people regardless of party affiliation.

Lastly, DLC has a 76% partisan number based on Chris Bower's #. Non-DlC has 82%. So what's the Big Deal? Even Chris just concluded that its a very small difference.

Its funny how SO MANY here in this board complain about the myth of the DLC voting more like Republicans. NOW that the leader of this website Chris Bowers just basically destroys that myth,
some of you cannot believe how wrong you were.

We as a Party will never be like the Republicans since our coalition is much more diverse in Ideology. We as a party cannot even agree as a whole on some basic issues. and frankly, that's fine. I'd rather have diversity.

Let me end with this classic example of what Republicans easily display to the public on their unity of themes & issues that pretty much 9 out of 10 Republicans agree on.

Lower Taxes
Right to Guns
Pro-Life/Family Values
Strong on National Defense

These 4 issues along pretty much unites
the GOP. Ask a rank & file GOP on the street in any state on what the Republican Party Stands for & guarenteed
3 out of 4 or all 4 of these would surely come-up.

while with our party, go to rank & file Democrats & you are likely to get MANY Answers on "what do the Democratic party stands for. It will most likely depend on the respondent's Educational background, his being a White Collar or Blue Collar working class person, if he lives in a Red State or a Blue State, the resondent's religion or being a non-believer.

our party will never have the discpline that the GOP has. You got to accept that!

by fightingLadyinblue on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 06:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC - Actually They Do Tell Them How to Vote (none / 0)

As evidenced by telling Kerry to play "nice" when the Swift Boar Liars did their thing. Kerry should have fought back against the lies about his combat record - the DLC's advice was ill-bred and resulted in Kerry "flip-flopping". "Nice" got them nowhere.

While Bill Clinton was able to "sell" DLC type policies, the DLC cannot take credit for his victory in 1992. The point of that was the fact that (a)Americans were pissed at Bush, Sr., (b) Ross Perot took 19% of the vote that would have gone to Bush, Sr. and (c)Clinton was good at having the right people around and articulating the issues. If the DLC had that much punch, they should have been able to maintain a Democratic Majority in both Houses of Congress. Two years after Clinton's election, their policies and advice to "centrist" candidates facilitated a Republican Takeover of both Congressional Houses, as well as gave birth to Newt Gingrich and "Contract with America".

Let me be clear - I have no problem with a Democrat that may be more conservative in their views, as long as they continue to embrace and support the core values of the Party; otherwise they don't need to be in the Party. DLC takes too much pleasure in bashing their own in order to gain credibility with their collegues across the aisle. Do you see the moderates in the GOP bashing their own members? Not until lately, and that's because (a)mid-term elections in 2006 and (b) no fear of reprisal because Bush can only serve two terms (unless they decide to eliminate the Constitution).

If the DLC wants to survive, they need leadership that has common sense - from where I sit, From and Reed do not demonstrate this and even DLC members are not spouting off proudly that they are. The fact that they still try to take credit for Barack Obama and Phil Angelides indicates their relevancy - which is non existant. Especially if Obama and Angelides had to demand for at least three years that their names be taken OFF their list.

by Political Junkie on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

blue dogs (3.00 / 1)

Chris, you should check out how the results are for the Blue Dog Democrats. They were practically unanimous regarding the bankruptcy bill. I was surprised how much worse they were than the DLC.

I think the DLC is unfairly stomped on in the blogosphere. I think that the DLC tends to be more about a certain set of principles of just trying to come at things with a fresh perspective, challenging old false choices. The problem is they just happen to have some real idiots speaking for them sometimes. There's nothing about DLC that says that you have to describe other Democrats using Republican frames, but some of them do anyway.

Anyway, the Blue Dogs might be more of a problem.

by tunesmith on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 05:43:04 AM EST

Re: blue dogs (none / 0)

AMEN TUNESMITH!

i commend you and several others like viggie for finally seeing the light. THANK YOU CHRIS for coming out with those numbers! as someone here said, numbers dont lie!

Many misguided people here in this board since the Kerry defeat last november have unfairly attack the entire DLC when it is the poor judgement of several DLC leaders.

they have used the DLC as their scapegoat for the Democratic party ills when we many many people of all stripes within the party are at fault.

lets get this straight. the DLC did not pick John Kerry to be the nominee. they supported him but It was democratic primary voters who pick Kerry as its nominee. He defeated two other moderates who came in 2nd & 3rd- John Edwards, and Wes Clark.

many here have Repeatedly said that the DLC & the GOP are one and the same. while moderates in this board have defended the DLC.

Chris shows a 76% vs. 82% difference in partisan voting pattern between DLC & non DLC members.
Now people are starting to REALIZE the Biggest Bull that some Left wing people have tried to demonize an entire organization.

Our Diversity as a Party is both our strength & our weakness. The GOP has discpline, one voice, and one idealogy. That's also their strength and their weakness.

we accuse the GOP of being one track minded right wing idealogues, YET, some here want to turn the democratic party into the same model.

Not only has the DLC produced the ONLY Two Term Democratic President in Bill Clinton since FDR, but the DLC has produced 22 current Democratic Governors( more than non DLC Dems)with many in Red States, 20 U.S. Senators, and 19 House members.

they're doing their part in winning. Certainly rank and file Democrats across america are supporting them in primary's in order for them to run in the general.

so lets end this misguided propaganda!

by fightingLadyinblue on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 06:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Significant Others (none / 0)

The strength of your thesis is undercut somewhat by your use of the phrase "just as my girlfriend suspected."

by sparkyfry on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 11:40:11 AM EST

The DLC Needs a Wake-Up Call ... (none / 0)

My knowledge of the DLC is just from my own experience. Every time I read a DLC article, it seems the writer is doing one of five things:

Misunderstanding and then denouncing Liberalism.
Telling me to be quiet and be patient in the face of some political disaster or other.
Defending some indefensable business practice that negatively affects everyone around me.
Justifying government inactivity in the face of a major social problem, usually by arguing that the problem doesn't exist.
Justifying the Iraq war.

Now, this is just my own experience, so I probably have some things to learn. Still, all I have is my experience. Based on it, I'd say the DLC is wrong on too many issues and tactically inept. They make too many basic political assumptions that are just plain wrong. It looks to me, that all this has led to a string of political failures that no Democrat needs to be silent about.

Politics isn't just casting votes in the House. It's also about forming policy, exercising leadership, setting goals and communicating ideas -- and just plain being right on a regular basis. Whatever the DLC thinks they're doing, I think their overall wrong-headed behavior over the last ten years has really helped Republicans more than Democrats. I don't hate them, but DLC members do not get my time, money or support.

by scribble on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 01:27:01 PM EST

I wonder (1.00 / 0)

If Chris Bowers thinks the DLC doesn't do much, why are so many of you guys going ballistic? You cry, whine, bitch and moan everytime the mere mention of the DLC or any of it's members go against you. As the old saying goes, methinks you doth protest too much.

by liebermanlives on Sun Apr 24, 2005 at 07:53:03 PM EST

The Republican Jones in NC is Walter, not Vernon (none / 0)

Walter--not Vernon--Jones is not a moderate Republican; he is simply a consistent Republican: fiscally conservative and socially conservative. He does not support privatizing Social Security because it would cost too much, and usually votes against increased spending unless it pertains to the military (his district is made up of a great number of military personnel--he is no dummy). He wants to abolish the Department of Education--costs too much, provides too little, in his view. On other issues, he is "mainstream," authoring a bill to permit churches to talk politics and proposing that all children's books in schools that have anything close to homosexual content be labelled. He was the congressman who proposed changing French Fries to "Freedom Fries," mere pandering to his military base.

He ran in 1992 as a Democrat (his father was a congressman for many years) and lost in the primary to Martin Lancaster, the incumbent. In 1994 Jones switched to Republican and was elected.

by Glen Bowman on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 12:48:51 PM EST

Read this (none / 0)

http://www.newdonkey.com/2005/04/triple-loaded-statistics.html

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 02:48:19 PM EST

Kerry DLC?? (none / 0)

I thought he was the most "consistently liberal" voting Senator? Something doesn't jive here.

by jdavidson on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 04:27:47 PM EST

Check out The Black Commentator (none / 0)

If you really want someone's take on the DLC

www.blackcommentator.com

by Political Junkie on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:09:00 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.