What are our true goals and objectives? Do we really want to win?

[wndycty]

Issue 1
We want to beat Bush in 2004. Many of us here, myself included, hate the DLC, however its completely possible that whomever is nominated (Dean, Clark, Kerry, et al) will at some point seek the DLC's support.

So the question is: By seeking the DLC's support and working with the DLC, should whomever the nominee is be considered a sell-out? (I saw people writing off Al Franken this morning because he is DLC friendly).

Issue 2
We hate the Patriot Act. We are concerned about airline screening. We HATE Bob Barr!!! We HATE Grover Norquist!!! But the ACLU (whom we all love, I assume) has lined up their support on today's panel on CSPAN, because they share our concerns over privacy.

So the question is: By working with Grover Norquist and Bob Barr the ACLU has put together a diverse coalition to fight the good fight on this issue, but are they now traitors for working with the enemy?

[HFishbine]

1. The Mature View

Why personalize the issues? To me, it is not a matter of who is "hated." It is a matter of what position people are supporting on a particular issu. In that regard, I attach no emotional filters to any group or people. I judge by their actions.

[demnan]

2. The old addage, "politics makes strange bedfellows"

is true. We occasionally have to work with those we don't agree with to pursue our political goals. Politics is by nature more negotiation than it is advocacy. If you don't believe me, read Paul Wellstone's "The Conscience of a Liberal" to see how this wonderful man worked within Congress.

[wndycty]

3. Thanks for comments 1 & 2

I think we are a critical time. I am an unelected partisan liberal Democrat! But I have to understand that while I will fight the DLC, I will welcome their support. While I hate Norquist and Barr, if they present themselves as allies on certain key issues, I need to work with them on those key issues.

[wtmusic]

4. Labels are not helpful

"Traitors", "enemy", "sell-out" etc. are oversimplifications.

You say we "hate" the Patriot Act, but how familiar are you with it? Do you hate all the provisions of it? In my case, I believe there are good provisions of it, but the bad ones far outweigh the good ones.

Just a few days ago there was a thread slamming the ACLU for supporting voting machines. In reality there are issues where the far right will be in line with the left and this is one of them. Answer? We're both right! I'm glad we agree on something, for a change.

[salin]

5. First, I think the DLC is growing desperate

and their random attacks at democrats (grassroots and candidates) looks like desperation due to shrinking importance. I have never seen/heard their spokes people get quite so shrill.

Those candidates following DLC advice in 2002 - didn't do so well. Why? Because they seemed to be bounded to one issue (privatization of Social Security) and not much else (even advised to go light on criticisms of corporate corruption). The new democrats in the eighties wielded some power (their ideas - as carried at the time by Gary Hart - were seen as 'fresh' and pragmatic policies) - but in an outsider sort of way. They grew to dominance with Clinton - and after the Gingrich takeover - they became a key in a strategy to leverage some corporate campaign dollars.

Imo, when Gore failed, they immediately distanced themselves from Gore (hence the attacks on his candidacy, his "populism", etc.) And somewhere after 911 some of their strategies seemed to emanate less from a position of strength (as they had during the Clinton years) and more from positions of fear (as in - we are afraid of x or y position because we fear that it might make our candidates less electable). I contend that working from fear never allows for the best strategic thinking - as it confines candidates and campaigns so much as to disallow growing themes that develop generically (re: in 1990/1 Sen. Woffard wins a special election on Health Care issues - and in 1992 over the course of the campaign - as the issue resonated more and more it became a center piece of the Clinton campaign).

As the DLC campaigns in 2002 were not seen as 'successful', I believe their power began to wane. No institution that went from relative outside of the power structure to becoming the power structure, cedes power/influence willingly. Fewer candidates were taking cues (hence the rhetoric of spokesman Evan Bayh is no longer the main rhetoric of folks on the Hill, nor of some of the major candidates) from the DLC.

And then the kicker - the main power/influence point - the ability to raise beaucoup dollars - was demonstrated by one grassroots campaign as not an absolutely necessary ingredient for successful campaigns. Note that the attacks on Dean and his supporters grew more intense after Dean demonstrated some impressive fundraising prowess.

I would guess that any candidate doing the same, without the DLC as the key conduit, will face similar attacks. And I believe that at the core it isn't about policy positions as much as desperations to hold on to their influence/peddling position.

At the same token, I believe that there will be some reconciliation and working together with the DLC, the DNC and the primary winner. And I think the reconciliation will come from both directions. The DLC will want to play a role in order to try to maintain a position of influence in other campaigns and future campaigns. The Candidate will want to work with the DLC - because the DLC still can raise a good deal of money.

How folks here respond to that - hopefully in a tempered and pragmatic way.

-----
Not sure about the last part - Norquist is far more dangerous than Barr. I really don't mind folks working with Barr and Army on fighting the Patriot Act (and PA2); BUT Norquist is another story altogether. He is one to be exceptionally wary around. His actions are all about exessive power brokering (forcing lobbyists out who have ever - in their nonprofessional life - given money to any democrat, for example).

[wndycty]

6. Thanks. . .I asked the question because. . .

. . .politics makes strange bed fellows and I just hope that we do not get so wrapped up in our distrust of the DLC that it prohibits some from being enthusiastic about a candidate because if its support.

I also would hope that the involvement of Norquist and Barr would not discourage some from supporting the efforts of the ACLU in regards to the Patriot Act.