Ready, Aim, Fire ...

I can think of a million better things for Democrats to engage in this political off-season, but allow me to highlight what a complete horses-ass David Sirota is. Since he wishes to engage in not a mere crank on the DLC, I think it's incumbent upon me to inflict as much damage as possible.

Source Doc: Debunking 'Centrism'

CLAIM: The CEO of the corporate-sponsored Democratic Leadership Council and his wealthy cronies are in their regular postelection attack mode.

FACT: Here's a challenge for Dave ... identify one segment of the party the DLC has frothingly attacked after November's loss. Secondly, as one who is ideologically predisposed towards more than a handful of policies pushed by the DLC/PPI, I have to seriously take offense at the phrase "wealthy cronies." I'll offer a dare to Sirota to compare tax returns in a few weeks and then we can see who the wealthy crony of whom is. Up for it, Dave?

CLAIM: From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash.

FACT: David Sirota is coming off a stint with Center for American Progress, where he started the daily email notices. Actually, better than average fare for the ideological among us. But for anyone to hail from a Soros-funded think tank to call another group into question for large contributions is utterly ridiculous. Still, here's a few contributor-to-candidate pairings I'll offer as a counterpoint to this silly point (all from a quick scan of OpenSecrets.org):

Nancy Pelosi - Edison International, PG&E, Charles Schwab, UBS Americas, Nat'l. Assn. of Realtors
Barbara Lee (California's most liberal Representative) - Clear Channel, PG&E, Nat'l. Assn. of Realtors
Jesse Jackson, Jr. - Nat'l. Assn. of Realtors
Sheila Jackson Lee - Ken Lay's personal choice to overtake then-incumbent Craig Washington over a decade ago.
Want more? Send me a check for my time. Oh, and if you really want an eye-opener, check the DCCC's contributor list.

CLAIM: The American Heritage Dictionary defines "centrism" as "the political philosophy of avoiding the extremes of right and left by taking a moderate position." So to find out what is really "mainstream," the best place to look is public polling data.

FACT: Check that sentence again and tell me what part of it made sense. Any takers? By comparison, I guess I could say something like the following .... the definition of a good passing football team is one that accumulates a better than average amount of passing yards, so in order to find out what is really "a winning team," let's look at the win-loss records. The conclusion does not even attempt to prove or disprove the claim established. But who here is really surprised that Sirota would rather debate a straw man.

CLAIM: Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich--they are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

FACT: Earth to David ... Earth to David:

The administration has no economic plan, no fiscal plan, and no security plan to accomplish this paramount goal. Instead, it remains committed to the bizarre and disreputable goal of becoming the first society in the history of the human race to make tax cuts for its most fortunate citizens its top wartime priority.

The most maddening aspect of the administration's marketing campaign for these and other tax cuts for the wealthy is its effort to denounce any criticism as "class warfare," as the president has personally done in comments to the press. We are second to none in our opposition to class warfare tactics among Democrats, and we have the scars from intra-party fights on the subject to prove it. But if there's anything worse -- much worse -- than old-fashioned Democratic schemes to "soak the rich," it's Republican schemes to redistribute income from the middle classes to the comfortably rich, at a time when we are fighting a war on terrorism and are facing a huge fiscal crisis associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

All the talk in the White House that its "stimulus" proposal is focused on the "investor class" is an amazingly brazen admission of its class warfare tactics. Those tactics are clearly aimed at bribing just enough middle-class and retired citizens to join the wealthy in chowing down on tax cuts to constitute something like a political coalition.

...

Instead of attempting to outbid Republicans by offering their own tax cut or spending "bribes" to key voting groups, Democrats should make the big picture of values and priorities the centerpiece of their critique of the president's economic policies. It's time to emphasize the national interest in security, fiscal discipline, and long-term economic growth, instead of continuing to sacrifice it to the narrow special interests of the Republican Party and its hungry constituency groups. The GOP's weird and inverted agenda of class warfare, aimed at encouraging people to strengthen their bank accounts by weakening their country, contradicts every word the president has said about American pride and unity in the face of threats domestic and foreign. It's long past time to demand that the administration and the Republican Party make their policies match their rhetoric and their promises. At a time when we are at war with terrorists, we should not be at war with our own commonwealth.

CLAIM: The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image.

FACTS: Curious what part of this blurb Sirota disagrees with:

Government has to develop better tools to fight corporate misconduct. What makes Enron's collapse so noxious at the core is that those who broke the rules and shredded their side of the social contract made out like, well, bandits, while those who played fairly lost everything. We can't allow this episode to add to the long list of cases in which white-collar criminals are treated with kid gloves. We must make clear to corporate America that the same law will govern the chief executive officer and the mail-room worker, and that it will be enforced with equal vigor for all. Whatever the color of your collar, if you break the law, you'll go to jail.

We also need to ensure that the members of boards of directors truly uphold their fiduciary responsibilities. Serving on a board is a job, not a reward. When board members consistently fail to satisfy their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, the Securities and Exchange Commission should have new disciplinary powers to remove them from any and all boards on which they serve.

We need to increase the independence of Wall Street analysts, whose incentives too often seem to make them into stock salespeople rather than stock watchers. We need to ensure that credit rating companies are using the inside information they have access to more aggressively to anticipate and protect the markets, not just react to them. And we have to curtail the non-audit work that accounting firms can do for the companies they audit, and create a strong and independent disciplinary body to oversee this critically important but currently tarnished profession.

People who have 401(k) plans deserve more control over their money and more freedom to buy and sell their stocks. They shouldn't be locked in by age restrictions or other unnecessary barriers while highly compensated executives are free to sell their stock whenever they see fit.
..... Joe Lieberman

Of course, the DLC was pimping Arizona Governor Janet Napolatino for her own white collar crusade years before Spitzer was making headlines. And nevermind the criticism that Eliot Spitzer gets from his own left flank for not sticking the fork into corporate evil-doers moreso than he already does. Oh, no ... facts would be too much for a competent David Sirota column ... wouldn't it?

CLAIM: On taxes, self-described "centrists" like Senator Joe Lieberman, a senior DLC leader, attacked proposals to repeal the Bush tax cuts to pay down the deficit.

FACT: Oh, so we want to go there, do we? Yes, challenge the Texas State Convention's Lieberman delegate on MoJoe trivia. Wise move, Dave. Had you done your homework, however, you'd note that Joe, along with every other candidate running for the Democratic nomination, favored repealing or scaling back at least some of the Bush tax cuts. Joe was no different.

Via Issues2000.org ...
Q: What will you do with the Bush tax cuts?

A: Unlike some of my Democratic opponents I would not repeal all of the Bush tax cuts. I would keep the ones that help the middle class and those trying to get into it including the child care tax credit and the reduction in the marital tax penalty. But I would repeal the tax cuts on higher income Americans. I am the only candidate who is proposing tax reform and tax fairness and that means a new tax cut for 98% of income tax payers, which is most of the middle class that really needs help today. Unlike Bush, I would favor these tax cuts by putting a surtax on the highest income Americans. That would be real tax fairness and tax relief for the middle class.

CLAIM: On healthcare, we are led to believe that it is a "liberal," "left" or "socialist" position to support a single-payer system that would provide universal coverage to all Americans. But if you believe the Washington Post, that would mean America was some sort of hippie commune. The newspaper's 2003 national poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans say they prefer a universal healthcare system "that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers" as opposed to the current private, for-profit system.

FACT: The hippie commune has a few conflicts. The poll in question does back up the assertion, but there's a few cavaets. For starters, when asked "Would you support or oppose a universal health insurance program if it limited your own choice of doctors?" those who favored single-payer split 57-41 still remaining for single-payer. The net change meant that unless this very real hurdle is conquered, the balance is 55-35 favoring the current system. And on the natural comparisons to the Canadian system, the breakdown on "... do you think the overall health care system in the United States is better, worse or about the same?" is 29-37-23 (Better-Worse-Same). Maybe Sirota sees hippies. I just see a gaggle of Jimmy Buffet fans.

CLAIM: Same thing with prescription drugs. DLCers like Senators John Breaux and Evan Bayh, who both pocket thousands from the pharmaceutical industry, have vehemently opposed bipartisan legislation allowing Americans to import lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada.

FACT: Bald-faced lie! Bayh on cloture ... passage ... SCOREBOARD!

CLAIM: On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it--including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

FACT: The DLC does favor an alternate approach. It's called tailpipe emisions trading. Nowhere in the article in question, is the term "left" used.

CLAIM: Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists."

FACT: David Sirota is on the wrong side of history. Funny, though ... usually it's the DLC that's accused of using poll-tested messages in the hopes of selling something to voters. Yet, without offering any concrete economic case for increased trade protections, here's Sirota offering poll numbers and nothing more. Irony for ya.

If you thought it couldn't get any worse, brace yourself ....

MOST ABSURD QUOTE OF THE ARTICLE: Now an effort is under way to set this faux "centrism" in stone. One of the leading candidates for Democratic National Committee chairman is Simon Rosenberg, a former free-trade lobbyist and head of the business-backed New Democrat Network. His group is joined by even more organizations designed to push the party to the right.

REALITY CHECK: Simon Rosenberg has yet to offer any inkling of a quote to suggest this. Sirota, once more, makes a bald-faced lie. Strike two.

CLOSING QUOTAGE: "The answer to the ideological extremes of the right has to be more than rigid dogma from the left," said Senator Bayh, a leader of the new group and one of Washington's most highly trumpeted "centrists." But really, who is pushing a rigid dogma ...

ANSWER: David Sirota.

What else ya got?

ADD-ON: "Even the liberal" DailyKOS calls Sirota to the carpet on Rosenberg. Of course, being afflicted with the same aversion to factual quotes, Markos makes his own DLC falsities ....

He claims Simon Rosenberg is part of a DLC plot to set "centrism in stone". Nevermind that Rosenberg and the DLC hate each other, precisely because Simon has avoided ideological orthodoxy and embraced the grassroots innovations popularized by the Dean campaign.

If Sirota needed evidence of a DLC plot to take over the DNC, he could've taken aim at former Michigan governor James Blanchard -- the latest version of "anti-Dean" peddled by Kerry, Pelosi and Reid. Blanchard has long since left his native Michigan in favor of his K Street office lobbying on behalf of oil and energy interests (he should release his client list if he wants to run the party). When asked why he was running by the Detroit News, his inspiring answer: "I am preliminarily exploring it because I've had a lot of encouragement."

Sounds like a DLC winner right? Yup. A "DLC stalwarth" in fact, according to the DLC itself.

I'm tired of people painting the contest for the DNC chairmanship as one between "liberals" and "centrists". That's the battle the DLC wants to fight, and it's the battle the media wants to see fought. Perhaps it's a battle that Sirota (who I am quite fond of) wants to fight.

But that's not where we're at. It's reform versus status quo.

The crank on Blanchard is a bit comedic even though KOS at least offers a link to back up an ancillary point about him being a "DLC Stalwart." Blanchard has been met with early opposition due to his close ties to labor unions ... sorts that the DLC often finds itself at odds with because of it's "centrist" free trade views. Secondly, the DLC has stated it's view, and they favor reform. So which side is Markos Zuniga on? Well, naturally, I guess he'd be on the opposite side.

ADD-ON (HOLY CRAP EDITION!): Even the liberal Matt Yglesias debunks Sirota! I think Matt gets a much better rebuttal of Enron in particular. Beyond that, Matt even one-ups me on JoeMentum trivia ...

First off, Lieberman voted against the Bush tax cuts in congress.

I could just edit my own thesis and go back to insert this tidbit, but truth be told, I didn't even think about Joe's vote in the tax cuts. Too blinded with anger at the silliness that was Sirota's writing.

Regardless of when and where I agree with Matt (more often than not), I'll take a back seat to his writing skills:

The point here isn't to become a thoroughgoing DLC apologist, and I've offered criticisms of some things they've said. But I try to restrict myself to criticism of things they've actually said. Sirota is creating a disagreement that's 80 percent nonexistent. He and the DLC disagree about trade. I think he's right to accuse the DLC of downplaying the unpopularity of free trade agreements. I think the DLC is right to say that free trade agreements are generally good policy. The DLC's actual general argument about the election -- one that Sirota doesn't seem interested in confronting in any of his voluminous writings on the subject -- is that Democrats can't get a hearing for their economic message unless they do something to simultaneously cool the fires of the culture war and talk in a more compelling way about national security. My analysis is that a more compelling national security message along would do the trick. Sirota seems to think that Democrats can afford to just ignore national security and values issues. Or maybe that's not what he thinks. I would be interested in getting his take on this.

So there are some real disagreements about policy and tactics here, but they deserve to be debated calmly and, above all, honestly. Sirota's attacks are growing increasingly vitriolic and wind up having increasingly little to do with the actually existing DLC and its real merits and flaws.

Matt, I salute you!