The DLC electoral strategy

[CTLawGuy]

is to have a candidate who supports enough of GW's policies to get the "swing voters" while shaming and scaring the base into falling in line.

If this works, progressives will be permanently disenfranchised from the Democratic Party.

The DLC will use this to destroy the next Howard Deans and Dennis Kuciniches. They will claim only spineless corporate politicians are "electable", and will point to 2004 as evidence.

[Old and In the Way]

1. You think this up all by yourself?

[CTLawGuy]

2. yes

our views and idea mean nothing to this party. Our outrage at IWR means nothing to this party and now they expect us to fall in line.

[sangh0]

23. We don't expect you to "fall in line"

but you're about your outrage meaning nothing. That's because your outrage does mean nothing to them and nothing to most Democratic voters, who have made it clear they have no problem voting for a Dem who voted for IWR

[Scott Lee]

31. That's exactly what is wrong with the Democratic "soul"

Sure you could shunt this off as a simple will of the majority thing. But then again, majorities had no problems with cartloads of Jews going through their neighborhoods to points unknown in Nazi Germany, either.

That "principle" thing.

[sangh0]

37. Your thinking is what's wrong with the Democratic Party

The Democratic Party has NEVER stood for calling Democrats "Nazis"

[janx]

3. I wouldn't make any rash assumptions about that.

It's more of a question, really, than a statement.

It might be worth looking into. The DLC leaders most definitely did play a role in the early primaries.

[Nashyra]

4. And this is presented as fact

or opinion? I hope it is fact because that means the Dems will be successful in 2004. "Electable in 2004" if they are pointing it out as evidence then we will have won back the WH and if that is the case the progressives can get to work the morning after the elction to start to bring the party back to the left. There is surely no movement to the left if * is re-elected.

[CTLawGuy]

7. They can't bring the party back to the left if this happens...

because being that far to the right would have won the election. This fact could be used to crush any progressive reform.

[NWHarkness]

11. And how, exactly, are they going to do that?

Will they expel progressives from Congress? Purge them from the party rolls? Block them from organizing or running for local office? Outlaw MoveOn? Raid the offices of The Nation and Mother Jones? Throw Dean and Kuchinich and Sharpton in jail?

[CTLawGuy]

15. one word

"electability" "ELECTABILITY" "ElEcTaBiLiTy"!

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. How do you, as a Clark supporter, deny this is the case?

Clark campaigned as an outsider, against the corrupt "Beltway" system. The DLC and mediawhores shut him down sooner than they did Dean. The DLC rigged the game, in their own favor, from the beginning. I'll bet if you asked the General off the record he would tell you exactly that.

[Gman]

5. This line is getting very old and tired

and comes across as just so much crying because someone's candidate won't be the nominee.

[CTLawGuy]

8. then don't read it.

Im talking about the long term future of this party. When all you people whine about spinelessness and then fall in line, its really sad. It shows we can be trampled over.

[Gman]

16. Spinelessness??? There are a ton of us that agree with the DLC

as a way to bring balance to the party against those that are single issue like the IWR people, anti-corporate-no-matter-what crowd, etc. Someone that won't support the Dem nominee because of their IWR vote either 1) has too much money and never really worked in their life or 2) are really oblivious to the real long-term problems with this country.

Besides, in general, when it comes down to it, the Party has done very well over the years regardless of the attempts of the extreme left to hold it hostage. Clinton won in '92 and '96. Gore won in '00 despite the extreme left's attempt to bring him down. We really don't need the extreme left and, personally, I'd prefer we don't have them if they are going to try to hold the party hostage over the IWR vote.

[SaddenedDem]

25. Your revisionism is atrocious

The Democratic party needs MUCH more than the White House to claim a winning strategy.

Every year since Clinton's first election they have lost seats in Congress, the Senate and Governor's Mansions.

This is EXACTLY the problem with the DLC/DNC. They keep throwing out Clinton's "wins" as gospel, even when he didn't win a plurality of the vote. They continue to use a proven failed strategy and then browbeat the base into supporting their version of republicanism.

The voters have proven, without doubt, that a choice between the real thing (republican) and a cheap imitation (DLC/DNC Democrats) they will choose the real thing every time or just stay home.

[sangh0]

26. The majority agrees

For all the whining from their supporters, the candidates who made IWR and the PATRIOT Act a centerpiece of their campaign received the fewest votes.

For months we heard how the Dems that voted for these were going to pay in the primaries. Some prediction!

Now these same people, wrong as they have been, are telling us what the DLC thinks. These people don't even know what their neighbors think, and they think they are omniscient.

Yeah, right

[SaddenedDem]

27. No, the majority does NOT agree

When given the choice between the real thing (republicans) and the cheap imitation (DLC/DNC Democrats) they choose the real thing or stay home.

You try to neglect the statistic that shows more and more voters in this country - a CLEAR majority - simply don't bother to vote.

That's because the DLC/DNC is no longer an opposition party.

The majority says there's no reason to vote.

edit:
spelling

[sangh0]

38. Yeah, right

Non-voters don't get counted because their votes don't count.

The majority says there's no reason to vote.

So go join the majority

[SaddenedDem]

40. ROFL, admitting defeat

With all the grace of an elephant.

No, sorry, I'll be at the voting booth in November.

[sangh0]

41. Voting for the Dem or a loser?

.

[SaddenedDem]

42. I told ya - Howard Dean all the way

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. We're not to the convention yet

I'm waiting to see what happens there, who the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees are, and how much input from progressives is put into the platform. Will Kucinich have a role in the convention? What will Dean do?

After the Democrats are elected, we'll be watching what happens in the White House. If it is the same old same old, I predict the beginnings of a new progressive party from the grass roots level. I've seen the beginnings of it in my own county-everyone willing to vote Dem in the GE, but then working for a truly people-oriented party after that.

[Philosophy]

9. Kerry is already starting this

I know I have seen at least a few times where he as said something to the effect of "my position on this issue is exactly the same as *'s or Cheney's" (the gay marriage issue specifically, for one), as if that is a good thing.

[Guava Jelly]

10. Sounds like B.S. to me

I think a small portion of Deaniacs (Not all but a chunk of them) are old Greenies and Nader Supporters.
I'll call them Greaniacs.
Sabotaging the democratic party and Getting Bush a Second term is just retarded.
There will never be a pres Nader.Face it All that is going to happen is if The dems loose big this time They are going to think they went to far to the left and move towards the right.
This election is important We don't need judas nader phucking our nation up by getting the chimp 4 more years

[CWebster]

13. and if we lose

they will claim we have to move even further to the Right, while blaming Nader. Hey, can't blame Nader if people would rather vote for him than Kerry.

[wyldwolf]

14. Please Please Please prove it

And while you're at it, show us how the DLC has that kind of power and where it is derived from.

[shance]

17. The record/patterns/bias by DLC speak for themselves.

They are no friend to the real Democratic party and thats no new news.

Was it Al Fromm, cant remember, who was found donating to Bushs campaign.

I wouldnt call that exactly Democratic loyalty, would you?

[wyldwolf]

18. I don't know, was it?

Did Al From do that?

That is a serious charge.

And still, no proof of what I asked.

Show us the the record/patterns/bias of the DLC.

[Eloriel]

32. Here's some info for ya

DLC
LINKS - What every DUer and every Dem needs to know about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=4443&forum=DCForumID22&archive=

Let's be REALLY honest about the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23262&forum=DCForumID60&archive=


Outing the "New Democrats" -- Pukes in Progressive Clothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1435&forum=DCForumID34

Everyone who is a fan of the DLC, needs to read this post,
(Devils Advocate NZ's post is included)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=11323&forum=DCForumID60#114

Kerry, the New Democrats, and American Military Hegemony
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=326015#326061

Are you man enough to read all that and come back and report on it?

[Scott Lee]

34. No fair! Eloriel's using facts!

This is terribly unfair to the DLC puppets. Help! Mods!

[Lefty48197]

19. Darboy, I thought you were serious for a moment

"supports enough of GW's policies" - That's pretty funny. You should write for the Dennis Miller show.

[Iverson]

20. As my students say, "well, duh!"

Only some of them say that, not all of them.

[Iverson]

21. surely that can't be the last word on this topic

!

[RichM]

22. Exactly right. Not even controversial.

[redqueen]

24. Screw the DLC

After this primary seaason, and all their 'help' to Gore last time around, I doubt if many will be scared into supporting milquetoast candidates again.

I know I won't.

[Dhalgren]

28. After November, any "progressive" who stays with the

Dems is a fool. Win or lose. The Dem party wants to be the great Middle/Right Party, let 'em - but without my support (I've been a voting Democrat since 1972). I no longer can hold out any hope of true progressive politics coming from the Dems, and I've given 'em 30 years. It's over.

[redqueen]

29. Agreed

If progressives want to change this party, they need to wake up and realize that what they've been doing has failed miserably.

I'm switching my registration after the primary.

[Raya]

30. Nader's Entry forces Kerry to go after independent republican since

Nader will be taking the 2% on the left that would otherwise
go to Kerry.

[Eloriel]

33. Which suits him fine since that's where his votes for the last 3 yrs

have positioned him anyway.

[Scott Lee]

35. How is this different than Kerry's sucking up to Bush anyway?

Kerry has voted to support Bush on virtually all the major issues of this campaign. I don't see why you're worried about bringing republicans over to Kerry.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Utterly false premise...

Those whose favorite hobby is lambasting Ralph Nader and anyone whose mouth does not immediately begin to drip with venom at the mere mention of his name would have you believe that he will capture the same 3% of the vote in THIS election as he did in 2000. However, such a postulate is dependent on complete ignorance of the incredible changes in the past 3+ years.

For example, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 from NY, a safe Democratic state. I did so because I saw the corporate influence within the Democratic Party as destroying both the party and the national debate. I also did so with no idea that the world as I knew it would change profoundly in 10 months, or that those changes would unleash the utter ruthlessness of the most reactionary elements of the Republican Party upon us.

In fact, if 9/11/01 had never happened, I would argue that a Bush Presidency could have been the best thing that could have happened to Congressional Democratic chances. Just look at how he was already reeling by August 2001.

But, alas, we will never know what could have happened. We can only deal with what HAS happened.

I'm not a fan of Nader's run this time, because I feel it really cannot do any good -- but even he has outright stated that either Kerry or Edwards would be a vast improvement over Bush. He also claims that he is running to say things that neither Kerry nor Edwards could say -- not to attack the Democrats, but to attack Bush with a very pointed message that will allow the Democratic nominee to move slightly more progressive while still being able to portray themselves as "moderate".

Of course, only time will tell if he's telling the truth on this. And I don't plan to vote for nor support him this time around.

Just the fact that the entire world has changed so much since 2000 should tell any honest, thinking person that the vast majority of people who voted for Nader in 2000 will not be doing so this time around -- that they are ABB all the way, recognizing the importance of discharging this gang of thugs from power. I would be surprised to see him get close to 1% of the vote this time around.

Hell, even Michael Parenti recognizes this. Why can't you?

[redqueen]

39. Drama drama drama

it's not obvious?

Facts and stuff are so boring.