Skip to main content

View Diary: Time for the DLC to die (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is the TRUE reason Progressives hate the DLC (3.75)
    Because they feel the DLC slighted Dean. It doesn't have anything to do with policy or the beliefs of moderates and centrists. It's because they are still pissed about Dean and refuse to look to the Dean campaign for reasons he failed.

    Its the great fraud of the far left. They act like they want to include everyone but if you differ on even the smallest policy or position they call you "Republican-lite" or "Not a True Democrat". This is no different that the Delay Republicans campaigning against moderates like Specter. They want a bigger party but everyone has to be in their image.

    I tell you this, you represent about 30% of the electorate. I wish you luck trying to piece together winning candidates with that. I contend that at least 25% of those will threaten to bolt for a goofy 3rd party egomaniac at least twice a day during every campaign.

    There is bad rhetoric on both sides but the reality is moderates can't win on their own and Progressives can't win on their own. Only a fool wouldn't see this. Unless you want to just be a vocal opposition party forever there needs to be common ground.
     

    •  I notice you jump all over the one post that... (none)
      ... supports your theory that "it's all about Dean."

      Wrong.

      There are plenty of people in the Party who have a real problem with the DLC for their kowtowing to corporate interests and their alignment with Bush on a number of key issues (Abu Ghraib being the most recent egregious example).

      The broad brush doesn't apply here, even if you want it to.

      •  Broad Brush (none)
        "Kowtowing To Corporate Interests"??

        Give examples of this. I'm not buying the typical rhetoric that comes from the left on this. I think this is the Progressives "You're not patriotic" phrase. Maybe explain what facts you have about "Kowtowing to Corporate Interests" that make the DLC such an enemy to Democrats.

        The only thing the DLC said about Abu Ghraib was it was a command and control breakdown with the military and should be handled as such. The only difference with what some Democrats said was that they do not believe the Iraq policy itself was responsible for the abuse. No one from the DLC or anyone speaking on behalf of the DLC ever said that Abu Ghraib wasn't attrocious or that the US shouldn't observe the Geneva Convention. They were just not as quick as other Dems that saw the blood in the water to attack the Bush Administration to score political points.

        The DLC only supported Bush when he said he was going to put together a coalition of countries and go to the UN for support. At the time of the vote on Iraq this administration was lying about the 9/11 connection, WMDs, and the "immenent threat" to the US. In hindsight its pretty obvious that they were wrong but up until this President we didn't have too many administrations that lied to America as blantantly and willingly as these guys.

        •  Wrong... (none)
          The only thing the DLC said about Abu Ghraib was it was a command and control breakdown with the military and should be handled as such.

          Here's a paragraph from the New Dem Daily of May 3:

          Moreover, the sense that nobody in particular is in charge of U.S. policy in Iraq has been painfully amplified by the global dissemination of photos of American troops torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners. This isolated outrage, which all Americans condemn, is but a pale shadow of the systematically barbaric behavior of Iraqi insurgents, who kill unarmed civilians and "collaborators" every day as a matter of deliberate policy. But it's hard to place these events in any kind of proper context given the overall drift of U.S. leadership in Washington.

          They use Bush-like rhetoric ("isolated outrage" replaces Bush's "actions of a few") and moral relativism ("a pale shadow of the systematically barbaric behavior of Iraqi insurgents" - ignoring, of course, that the prison abuses were not confined to Abu Ghraib and were "systematic" and systemic, themselves) to downplay Abu Ghraib while simultaneously ripping Bush's lack of leadership.

          Lieberman used the same two tactics and the same rhetoric in his every public statement about Abu Ghraib, aping the DLC.

          And this statement of yours may reveal more than you care to reveal about your feelings on Abu Ghraib:

          They were just not as quick as other Dems that saw the blood in the water to attack the Bush Administration to score political points.

          So you think attacks on the Bush administration about Abu Ghraib were merely chances to "score political points?"

          Talk about cycnical.  These events deserve real outrage, not political gamesmanship, and Democratic criticism on the abuses at Abu Ghraib came from a real sense of disbelief that our side would be engaged in such tactics.  Real outrage, not merely an opportunity to score political points.

          But the DLC echoes Bush's rhetoric in that while, of course, labeling the conduct atrocious, they attempt to minimize it by supporting the Bush lie about such conduct being "isolated" and nowhere near as bad as what Iraqis do to others on a day-to-day basis.

          It's not a matter of "comparison."  It's wrong.  Period.  But Lieberman and the DLC (seconded by Evan Bayh) attempt to downplay it's significance.

          That's backing the Bush line.

          •  I think its about context (none)
            Anyone involved in Abu Ghraib should be punished and the US should replace the leadership on the ground there all the way up the line to where it is reasonable to think that a commander willfully knew what was going on and did nothing.

            Is that Rumsfeld? I personally don't think so. Could it go as high as Gen Sanchez? Maybe but what I'm saying is this whole issue is a military problem that grew out of a bad command and control plan for this stage of the Iraq mission. I do not believe the Policy itself is what caused this.

            What I'm saying is be pissed about the lying about WMD and everything that lead us into the war. That is where Bush & Co are responsible but I think that what the DLC is saying is don't take your eye off the real reason these guys need to go. They lied to commit the US to an action that given none of the reasons we went are true have left us in a virtually unwinnable position that is costing the country billions of dollars we don't have. That's what Bush should be tossed out of office for.

            I guess the difference is some view Abu Ghraib as an isolated incident even if on a large scale. If it turns out that's what the US is doing all over Iraq I can see your point but I haven't seen any independent or mainstream source say that this is widespread like you say. I see stuff sometimes on places like Buzz Flash but they have an agenda too.

            •  What? (none)
              Look, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if you believe what you wrote, then you aren't reading a major paper.

              I guess the difference is some view Abu Ghraib as an isolated incident even if on a large scale. If it turns out that's what the US is doing all over Iraq I can see your point but I haven't seen any independent or mainstream source say that this is widespread like you say. I see stuff sometimes on places like Buzz Flash but they have an agenda too.

              Try here or here.  The Red Cross report noted that the prison abuse was widespread and not confined to Abu Ghraib.  This has been widely reported.

              If you do a Google search on "prison abuse" and "widespread" you will find dozens of articles on the topic.

              The DLC echoed Bush's pathetic and phony excuses about the prison abuse when all other evidence (including the Taguba report) suggested otherwise.

              •  You seem correct (none)
                That Oakland Tribune article was the first I've read that the abuse was also at other facilities. I can't imagine if the DLC has this info and it's correct they would have downplayed it as much as they did but if so then they are dead wrong on this issue.

                If that really is the stance of Al From then he should go. I don't believe that most New Democrats would support this stance if the Red Cross report proves to be true (and they are about as independent a source as any).

      •  Yeah (none)
        And I have a real problem with certain people in the party who claim the DLC is kowtowing to corporate interests.

        Tsongas was right.
        "How can you claim to love jobs, if you hate business?"

        Nice guy or not, if we're at war and I get to choose the guy in the foxhole next to me, I'll pick Kerry. At least I know he's gonna watch my back.

        by Steve4Clark on Mon May 24, 2004 at 08:48:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not about Dean (none)
      There are plenty of reasons to disapprove of the DLC without ever involving Governor Dean.  (Likewise, there are several other groups within the Party that deserve shame for mistreating him.)

      I think Kos' main point is right on--this isn't a time for infighting, and someone should therefore give the DLC a clueslap.

      •  And what exactly is the "Clueslap"? (none)
        That unless you lerch to the left out of the mainstream and support every little liberal special interest then we're going to vote for Nader??

        I would love to hear what the Progressive's plan is that would offer a choice to moderates. I don't agree with the DLC on everything but I like that they have a platform of issues that are realistic and in my view offer positive reform in a lot of areas.

        All I hear from the far left is Bush hatred, scapegoating moderates, threats to leave the party to vote Nader, and a laundry list of policies and politicians they hate or aren't good enough Democrats to support. I have yet to hear anyone outline a serious platform of ideas that people could support once they stop being pissed at Bush.

    •  Sorry, but no (none)
      I started hating the DLC long about November 2000--well before Dr. Dean came on the scene. They had their point, their 15 minutes of fame have been over for more than 15 minutes, so stick a fork in 'em, they're done.
      •  By 15 minutes (none)
        You meant the entire 8 years of the Clinton Presidency right?? You meant the 15 minutes that got the ONLY Democratic President elected in the past 30 years??

        Or are you going to use the old GOP trick of attributing everything that happened during the Clinton Prosperity to other things. I'm sure it was Newt Gingrich's House Republicans that lead us through the best economic stretch since the 1920's.....

        OK let's say they ARE done....what/who is the alternative and what do they stand for other than hating Bush and alienating moderate members of their own Party??

        •  Who's watch did Enron start On ? (none)
           Who bitch slapped Arthur Leavitt when he tried to implement accounting reforms? Holy Joe and Cal Dooley

           Check the skyrocketing personal bankruptcuy statistics thoroughout Bubba's two terms. Examine the chasm that opened up between the top 1%, and the rest of us during Bubba's tenure. Assuming you ain't in the top 1%, that is. Hard to tell given the economic snake oil you peddle around here on a regular basis.

           Furthermore, I am so goddamned sick and tired  of this pile of horseshit you and your Dems for the Leisure Class buddies keep shoveling around here about the " the best economic strethc since the 1920's." Telling you chose that decade methinks, and not the 1960's. The Roaring Twenties did have a lot in common with the Clinton '90's, namely weak unions, exploding consumer debt (radios and cars on time back then), and turbocharged productivity gains coupled with flatlined per capita income.

           Hmmmm? Big Business squeezing producitvity out of their work force like an Egyptian straw boss putting up the pyramids but not incurring higher labor costs. Sounds like a windfall to me. And guess where it manifested itself? That's right, their stock prices.

           Do you honestly believe that something happened mid January 2001 a la Cinderella and the glass slipper? That Bush's mere election killed the era of milk and honey overnight and ushered in the biggest wealth liquidation in the history of this country? Do you really beleive that Dumbya should have been on the case against Lay, Skilling, Ebbers, Kowslowski, Blodgett, Meeker, Quattrone and the rest of those bastards in 1998 and 1999. Lord knows he has hastened the destruction of this country in so many ways since, but what the hell he supposed to do in the face of crime in the suites and a derelict SEC? Call out the Texas Rangers?

           I got news for you jack. The seeds of this Judas economy were planted and assidiously cultivated under your boy Bubba. The NASDAQ high water mark was March 2000. It was a false prosperity and the aftershocks are just beginning. Check out this month's Washington Monthly on the coming housing meltdown. But then you don't really need to, because Gary Winnick and the boys at Global Crossing were good New Democrats. Hope they cut you in for a fat piece of the action.

          Put the jam on the bottom shelf, so the little man can reach it. Sen. Ralph Yarborough (D-TX)

          by yellow dog on Mon May 24, 2004 at 02:10:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton surplus (none)
            Bush Defecit.

            He pissed away the tax increases most Americans gladly gave at the payroll/income levels to make social security education and health care feasable.

            Even millioniares agreed to pay more  as they had vested interests in a better America.

            Yellow dog is really confused. Go read up your history you tort and  use facts. Lies  get noted and called out, stupid lies get the kind of treatment their low IQ espousers deserve.

            •  At Least I'm Smart (none)
              enough to know the word is "tout", as in "your (sic) history you tout", not tort. Tort is a legal term from the common law. Secondly, smart guy, the word "deficit" is correctly spelled the way I just spelled it.

               Millionaires didn't agree to "pay more", they were forced to by true Democrats like Dave Bonior and Dick Gephardt. And then Bubba went down to Houston and groveled before a bunch of rich Texans like the gutless coward he is and apologized for raising their taxes. So why don't YOU read your goddamn history hoss before getting in my grill.

               And now to the real crux of the matter. It would make my day to be "called out" by you, to the parking lot that is, of one of the many redneck bars I've traded hooks and jabs in over the years. We'd see then if you live up to your bad ass signature line, "Mr. Murder." (Mine is in honor of my grandad who called himself a yellow dog Democrat, ain't violent like yours) Maybe you would be able to live up to it, but that'd suit me just as well as taking shit from the sort of coward like you who shovels it out from behind the safety of a computer.

               Who knows, if things went your way you'd get the chance to show the prison guards how high your IQ is when you're doing 20 to life for 2nd degree homicide, "Mr. Murder."

              Put the jam on the bottom shelf, so the little man can reach it. Sen. Ralph Yarborough (D-TX)

              by yellow dog on Tue May 25, 2004 at 08:53:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site