Why take the DLC seriously?

[BurtWorm]

Read this article in The American Prospect, which makes the case that the DLC is over:

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V14/8/franke-ruta-g.html


From's Last Stand
Garance Franke-Ruta

Al From is quivering with rage. It's the end of a long day in late July at the Wyndham Philadelphia, and with a sheen of sweat coating his face, he gleams with emotion as he launches into the closing speech of the day at the DLC's annual conference. It's a grim speech, delivered in rousing, impassioned tones more vehement than any other speech that day. "We cannot allow our party to be hijacked!" thunders From, railing against the leftists who have been his bête noire since he founded the DLC in 1985. "The future of our party and more importantly the future of our country is at stake."

Surrounded by supportive state senators and fresh-faced New Democratic governors, From, CEO of the DLC, is in his element. His anger has been foreshadowed by other discouraging conference speakers, whom The New York Times found "glum," "combative" and tending toward "pessimism" and The Washington Post dubbed "defensive" and "gloomy." "What we're fighting for is the definition of the party," From later told The Philadelphia Inquirer. "And this is probably the most bitter fighting -- or maybe intense is a better word -- in nearly 20 years. But it's because the left wants to go back to the way things used to be."

Whether the left is truly trying to drag the party back in time is a matter of heated dispute in Washington. What's clear is that after two decades at the pinnacle of the Washington power hierarchy, From's ideas have triumphed beyond his wildest dreams, and the central role he's played as a policy entrepreneur in the 1990s is unquestioned. But by publicly involving the DLC in an increasingly nasty battle with Howard Dean, From is causing some of his erstwhile allies to wonder if he's finally lost his touch.

[jiacinto]

1. Change happens over time

The DLC was needed 15 years ago. After losing five out of six elections--four of which being 40+ state landslides, two of those being 49 state landslides--it was obvious that the Democratic Party needed to change. But it is a different world now. Part of me wonders if DLC has run its course.

[BurtWorm]

2. There is one thing I agree with the DLC about

The GOP is moving so swiftly to the extreme right, it's vulnerable to losing the center. But I don't the Dems gain the center by running right at the same time. I think class warfare would work at a time like this.

[jiacinto]

3. I think the focus needs to be on the middle class

That's the way to win.

[BurtWorm]

4. And the middle class needs to know that the Bushists

don't have their interests at heart, and the Democrats do. It's the Republicans who are waging class warfare. We need to answer them.

[Q]

5. It's the DLC 'hijacking' the party...

...and trying to emulate the GOP by making it the party of the 'rich'. Doesn't America need at least one party that represents the poor and working class?

- Plainly put...the DLC is full of shit. Which is why they can't admit that Gore won the 2000 election with more votes than any Dem in history.

- The Dem party doesn't need to 'appeal' to anyone but Democrats to get the votes they need to win.

[uptohere]

17. the party was pretty damn glad to see them for Clinton v Bush

and Clinton v Dole. Didn't work out so well for Gore v Bush2 but two out of three ain't bad.

[buddhamama]

7. we should start off by telling them

that if the economic determination were to be updated from the 60s, then they would find they aren't middle but low-middle to lower class.

[terryg11]

6. good replies

I would agree with Jiacinto that the DLC has possibly run it's course and new leadership is needed. obviously something needs to happen and mayhap fast. we do need both votes to win but how? I'm not sure if anyone of the candidates can do it- I llike them all to a degree yet wonder if they have the instinct to take out Rove and Cheney

[StandWatie]

8. take them seriously..

What they lack in numbers they make up in cash.

[uptohere]

9. take them very seriously

until further notice, they call the shots in the Democratic Party. And nobody likes giving up control.

[BurtWorm]

10. They call the shots?

Then why aren't grassroots Dems obeying their Dean bashing?

[StandWatie]

11. the disobedience will be punished..

The DLC love their kingmaker power and I think they will sit out raising money from business in an effort to punish their party. This needs to be combated with individual donations and volunteer work.

[rucky]

15. That'll Be Fine By Me...

Bring it on!

[ulysses]

12. they're probably asking themselves that very question.

:)

[piece sine]

13. $$$$$$$

next question.

[uptohere]

14. I have no real evidence that they have not

67% of democrats can't identify a candidate...

perhaps people are waiting to see who the leadership likes when it starts to matter.

Its VERY early days. Anything can happen, including the fall of the DLC (hey I can believe that its time for a change at the top), but so far its business as usual. Despite Dean's somewhat unique very early stumping.

[Jolene]

16. "Incapable of walking and chewing gum...deserves to lose."

"Any political party or candidate who cannot compete for both kinds of voters with both kinds of appeals is incapable of walking and chewing gum, and deserves to fail as well."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252019

Considering the fact that the DLC has been working overtime to alienate base voters, I'd say by the DLC's own rhetoric, they deserve to lose. Fine with me.

[Mairead]

18. "It ain't over til it's over"

Just channeling Yogi Berra for a moment.

[dpbrown]

19. Much ado over nothing

Ponder this:

The winner of the 2000 Presidential election got something like 51 million votes. The loser got something like 50 million, and then got himself appointed anyway (ultimate "enabler" Scalia finding he would have been "harmed" by not being crowned king after thinking he should be).

The loser of the 2000 Presidential election (subsequently crowned king) appealed to folks on the basis of "compassion" and "uniting" the nation.

Since being crowned king, the loser of the 2000 Presidential election has betrayed every single person who crossed over the line (of Independent, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) to vote for him, by gutting the Bill of Rights, shoving Fundamentalist Christianity down everyone's throats, looting the Treasury to force a redistribution of wealth upwards to his rich friends, and taking on Crusade after Crusade of military adventurism all over the globe at a huuuuuuuuge cost of money and lives.

So it's highly unlikely that the loser of the 2000 election will be getting those "50 million" votes he got last time. Fewer people will vote for him, because he's spent the last three years alienating everyone whose wavering or independent or compassion-craving or conservative Democrat vote he got last time.

Now granted, the winner of the 2000 election got more votes than anyone his party had ever nominated to the office before. But, seeing as how he and his party already won against Captain Unelected the Poseur Prince, by over half million votes, and at least some of the people who voted for the loser of the 2000 election are not going to be voting for him again this time around, having seen through his thin facade of lies, it's nearly certain that this time around that party is going to win by an even larger margin than last time (unless Black Box voting steals the election).

So, it doesn't matter whether you ascribe to the (in my opinion failed) theory of the 40/40/20 electorate, or the idea that there's a way to reach some (or all) of the people who don't ordinarily vote, either way you look at it, there are fewer votes likely to be available for the person who already lost the 2000 election by over a half million votes.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[BurtWorm]

20. This is why the GOP has no choice but to energize its base

The Dems would do well to keep their base fired up too. The next election, like the previous one, will be won at the margins.

[dpbrown]

21. Won't matter

The DLC/election consultant rationale for focus-group politics is that it takes the "base" plus some of the "20% in the middle" to win every election, and concedes that the electorate will continue to shrink. It depends on having an energized base and motivating some of the "independents," etc., to win a "margin" victory.

What pundits apparently continue to overlook is that not only did Bush lose the 2000 election (staged entirely on "margins" attracted with the "compassionate conservative" tripe), his wild run to the right has alienated every possible vote from the "20%" and then some.

The Republicans have defaulted every issue except "hate," "aristocracy," and "warmongering" to the Democrats. The Democrats already proved in 2000 that they own the issues, and that the candidate will do better when eschewing the DLC conservative agenda (Gore did better once he took his suit off, and Al From won't admit it).

The Democrats are in a position to own every single issue but "hate" this time around, and coming from a win in 2000 should be able to garner enough of their "base" plus everyone Bush has pissed off since 2000 to walk away with this election.

Any single one of the Democratic potential nominees can win the Presidency, but the one who distinguishes him or herself most adeptly from Bush will win with the biggest margin.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota