View Story | 38 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Clinton was a plurality president not a majority president who won DESPITE his previous association with the DLC. Clinton's numbers shot up when he campaigned as an FDR Democrat + abandoned the DLC playbook when the elections were nearing.
All that the DLC did was put Newt Gingrich in charge of the House and GWB in the White House. Shame on them.
I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.
by davefromqueens on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 05:37:29 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
His acceptance speech at the convention sounded a populist message, attacking HMOs and oil and insurance companies. By October, his message was muted. Who got to him?
Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 05:43:39 PM PDT
by corvo on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:15:43 PM PDT
But who called their tune?
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:18:41 PM PDT
by corvo on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:20:39 PM PDT
Deep Throat was right. Rule One of politics is "follow the money." Always was, always will be.
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:29:51 PM PDT
This argument is posted here every week, stating that it was the "DLC's fault" that the Democrats lost Congres in 1994. That is simply not true. The Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 due to these three factors:
The 1900 redistricting resulted in the creation of minority-majority districts. These districts packed in populations that were 70%-80% minority in some places. These districts often looked like snakes, parasites, weird shapes, and intestines. They often ran across for hundreds of miles, connecting disparate populations whose only connection was race--cities and towns that had no real similiar geopolitical interests.
The results were that many white Democrats ended up with districts that were more Republican. The creation of one or two heavily Democratic districts basically bleached the surrounding districts into conservative white Republican bastions. Some of them lost in 1994, while others barely held on.
Secondly, in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the final wave of "old southern Democrats" left over from the Solid South era finally retired or died. Democrats like Claude Pepper, Charles Bennett, Jamie Whitten, Sonny Montgomery, William Natcher, Butler C. Derrick, Earl Hutto, Jack Brooks, Don Bevill, and Dante Fascell finally died or retired. They had been able to hold onto their districts even though the demographics had turned steadily Republican. What kept them in office was their own popularity even though their districts had been voting Republican for most offices for decades. When these districts finally became open they turned Republican, even though they should have flipped as early as the 1950s and the 1960s. What kept them Democratic was the popularity of the incumbents.
The first two years of the Clinton administration did not turn out well. The failed healthcare plan, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Somalia, the Branch Davidan siege, the Assualt weapons ban, the budget bill that had tax increases, environmental laws, the House Banking Scandal, and the death of Vince Foster all led to the GOP takeover. Those scandals, both real and imagined, turned the voters en masse against the Clintons.
So it wasn't the DLC's "fault" that the Democrats lost Congres in 1994. It was due primarily more to the 1990 redistricting and the long-term political realignment of the south to the GOP. Those two factors, plus Clinton's dismal first two years, turned the Congress to the Republicans. There were many more compelling causes at hand there.
by jiacinto on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 05:55:11 PM PDT
My biggest complaint about the DLC is that it seems to be trapped in a time warp, where it's still 1992 and the political ghost of Michael Dukakis is about to fly out of the crypt.
Under George W. Bush, the political center of gravity has lurched to the right. Job One should be restoring the status quo ante, not accommodating the Bushies.
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:00:18 PM PDT
They've achieved their mandate, which was to make the party acceptable to white suburbanites. They've done that. I used to support the DLC, but I agree with you that they remained trapped in the mindset that it is still somehow 1989. It isn't anymore.
by jiacinto on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:05:11 PM PDT
Another major problem the Democrats had was ineffectiveness. Their House and Senate majorities looked pretty solid, but they were internally weak. You still had a number of conservative or overly cautious Democrats who wouldn't go along on many of Clinton's more progressive proposals. This gave the public the sense that Congress couldn't or wouldn't get anything done. So, voters decided to give Republicans a shot.
by metal prophet on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:30:01 PM PDT
Jim Wright was an awful spokesperson for House Democrats. What voters didn't realize at the time was that Gingrich would be worse and that DeLay would be worse still.
by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:33:18 PM PDT
People like Rostenkowski didn't help, either. The ethics scandals were relatively minor compared to the massive Republican corruption of the past 12 years, but they were still arrogant and abusive. And it most definitely turned voters off.
by metal prophet on Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:57:12 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 38 comments