Skip to main content

View Diary: PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in '08 (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes and no, and the DLC/NDC nexus (3+ / 0-)

    but on the major issues of conflict with the neocons--preemptive war, international cooperation vs unilateralism--the Democrats are more unified than a lot of people probably think.

    In theory, yes. But in practice, on Iraq, owing to opportunism, many Democrats (29 Senate Dems, and some 81 house Dems voted for IWR, Vs 21 Senate Dems, 126 House Dems Opposed) failed to summarily oppose preemptive and unilateral warfare. And very clear arguments against such a war were already laid out in crystal clear terms, you know by whom by then.

    So, who made them do it? That question leads to one inevitable answer: The DLC/NDC nexus

    Introducing NDC into the mix here sheds good light. The
    NDC ("New" Democrat Coalition) is the congressional arm of the DLC).

    The Senate version of it was founded by Joe Lieberman (CT), Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Laundrieu (LA), John Edwards (NC), John Breaux (LA), Chuck Robb (VA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (AR), Bob Kerrey (NE) and Bob Graham (FL).

    Of these:

    1. Lieberman, Bayh, Laundrieu, Edwards, Breaux co-sponsored Lieberman's IWR (and voted for the essentially identical Hastert-Gephardt HJ 114). The other Dems to co-sponsor SJ46 were Max Baucus and Zell Miller both of whom appear to be DLC-brand too as I wrote in Sirota's thread.
    1. Lincoln did not co-sponsor, but voted Yea
    1. Graham voted against the IWR (he's a good guy).
    1. Kerrey, Robb were not in the senate
    1. Daschle did not co-sponsor S.J. 46, but was running around with his own S.J. 45, which was the whitehouse version of the resolution (Daschle seems to have strong DLC connection, but I don't have a link).

    On the house side, Gephardt, who was a DLC chair, of course co-authored (and co-sponsored) the Hastert-Gephardt's HJ 114, which was eventually passed.

    On the Iraq war, the Dems played hokie with the neocons, the whitehouse occupants.

    I suspect that it was Joementum who steamrolled the Dems into the supine position via the DLC channel, but the DLC/NDC connection is nakedly evident.

    •  Irrelevant to My Comment (0+ / 0-)

      My comment addressed the difference between the Neocon predeliction for unilateralism, vs the broad Democratic consensus toward international coalitions.

      And if you think Joementum has that much juice in the Democratic party...well, wow.  I'm flabbergasted.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Mon May 29, 2006 at 05:59:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Response (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexander G Rubio

        Fundamentalists (Neocons included) aside, very few people in their right minds would try to want to wage unilateral wars that'll cost billions to trillions of dollars and kill thousands of lives.

        Even Bush didn't really want to, as prima facie evidence indicates. Why do you think he went back to the UN pretending to seek their ratification? What do you think Bush-I (the 41st pres.), who assembled a broad coalition for Gulf war might have told Bush-II (the 43rd whitehouse occupant) at the dinner table?

        And from this clip posted elsewhere:

        From Right Web profiles DLC dude Will Marshall
        On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan.

        As you know, 2/25/03 was days before the hostilities commenced in Iraq.

        Which proves my point that even Bush was reluctant to go for it with a thin excuse for a coalition he managed assemble for the invasion.

        But, Bush went along anyway, apparently after being persauded the Neocon fundamentalists pushed him to do so.

        And many Democrats such as Kerry and Edwards thought that he did the right thing (until the polls flipped on Iraq) during much of 2003.

        Hence your point that only Neocons are to be blame for unilateralism is moot. The more pertinent question is, who are willing to be persuaded into unilateral (and unwarranted) warfare. Many Dems of the DLC/NDC membership are seem only willing (to further their career ambitions).

      •  Joementum's influence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alexander G Rubio

        And if you think Joementum has that much juice in the Democratic party...well, wow.  I'm flabbergasted.

        You're making a blanket assumption that Joementum is the only junction between the Neocons and the Democratic party. I strongly suspect that he is the ring leader of that dynamic, but where is your proof that he is the only one?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site