DLC gets progressive ?

[Capn Sunshine]

This article on Bushco and taxation is the best thing I've ever seen the DLC put out. That's right, The DLC says progressive taxation is american, just and good. Hmmmmmmmmm.

"No one in the Bush White House would be so impolitic as to echo what Norquist said in this interview. But as we reported in a recent issue of Blueprint magazine, it's scary how close to the Republican
mainstream his views have become.

do you think the DLC is swerving left?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252081

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. I heard him say the same thing on "Fresh Air"

Terry Gross repeatedly challenged him on it, but I was so disqusted with him that I turned the radio off.

[Brucey]

2. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Capn Sunshine]

3. maybe I should re title the post .

"DLC gets progressive"

that will bring them out of the woodwork........

[IrateCitizen]

4. Anything Norquist says is a "testing of the waters" for the GOP

The more you find out about this guy, the more you come to realize the kind of power that he has within the Republican establishment.

Norquist is the guy whose job it is to come out with outrageous proposals, to see how they are received. Then, they are brought back to the think-tanks and "tweaked" to, in effect, "put lipstick on the hog."

ANYTHING that Norquist says, you can count on it as being in the works as a prime part of GOP philosophy. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING he says.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. I have long said

Norquist is the one to watch for future repub views articulated.

Evrey single neoconservative columnist today is a veteran of his Wednesday moring confabs.

It's from his musings that I got the democratic party should be outlawed" viewpoint

[DemPopulist]

6. Uh, the DLC always says stuff like this

I don't agree with the tone they want to set for the party, but substantively they're not so bad on issues like the Bush tax cuts.

[La_Serpiente]

7. Since when did the DLC speak for the Democratic Party

I hate the DLC and the established groups. They block out the party activists and that's not right. No wonder so many people flocked to the Green party.

[dolstein]

8. 1992-2000

The Democrats won the popular vote in three consecutive presidential elections -- something they hadn't accomplished in 50 years.

[IrateCitizen]

9. Actually, the Democrats won a PLURALITY in all of those elections

And if you look at 1992, 1996, and 2000 -- it was in 2000 that they actually came closest to a majority.

And it's interesting that you also leave out the 1994 collapse of the Democratic Party in the Senate and House. Could that be attributed to the DLC as well -- or is that the result of the "fringe left" Democrats who were in Congress?

[Capn Sunshine]

10. it was the advent of the RW triangulation strategy

and the attacks haven't let up since.

Blame the DLC if you want but they are just another interest group.
It was the failure of the party to recognize and articulate alternative messages to the emotion based crap coming from the RW.

They still failed. Even in California.

[CWebster]

11. "Another interest group"

with a consistantly failing strategy of appeasment to the far Right, while strong-arming the Left instead to maintain their lion's share of the pie.

[Julien Sorel]

12. If they are losing, what pie?

There seems to be a disconnect, here. They would rather lose than surrender their share of a dwindling pie. They must be truly stupid, since they would end up with nothing.

I think the key for the DLC is to lurch way leftwards, to pick up on all those Kucinich/Green Party voters out there. It's a strategy that is guaranteed to shake up the electoral landscape.

[ozone_man]

13. If they do that,

then they'll have to support Dean. Clark can't reach the left.

[CWebster]

15. They continue to lose because

Republicans already have their candidates and DLC prefers to pursue the moderate Right and attack the Left. They are in nowhere land.

[no name no slogan]

21. Don't count on Kucinich or Green support of the DLC

The Greens are still mighty pissed off that the Dems and Repubs kept them out of the 2000 presidential debates. Plus all the attacks by the Dems after 2000 sure didn't do much to woo them to the Democrats.

Kucinich, as leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (largest Dem caucus in the House), fights against these "triangulators" daily. He organized the opposition to the Iraq War Resolution in the House against these DLC weasels. Yes, he's compassionate, but he's not naïve-- he certainly be wary of dealing with the DLC.

[Julien Sorel]

23. I still think that's the way to go.

Kucinich's fraction of a percent, along with the Greens' fraction of a percent, are evidence that the Left holds the key to the future of the Democratic Party. I didn't believe this in the past, but the spectre of the radical Arnold running away with the election yesterday has made me see the light. If you want to succeed, be a radical like Arnold, not a cowardly centrist, like McClintock or Camejo.

[jiacinto]

26. What election did you follow?

Camejo and McClintock didn't run as "centrists". Camejo ran as a left-wing radical. McClintock ran as a right-wing "conservative". Arnold ran as a moderate Republican while neutralizing the social issues. Arnold was hardly a "radical".

[Julien Sorel]

27. Then I'm confused.

Why are all the smart people here saying that yesterday proved centrism fails? I figured they were basing this on the results of the election yesterday.

[jiacinto]

28. Because they aren't in touch with reality maybe

nt

[AP]

29. I don't think anyone who said that is smart.

Who said 'centrism failed' yesterday?

[jiacinto]

31. Have you been reading DU

Those posts have been all here.

[AP]

33. Who's smart at DU?

I thought "smart" was a reference to people who have opinions worth paying for, or had some sort of credientials or track record for being correct.

[jiacinto]

14. And of course you don't pay attention to the whole picture

One thing that you all forget to include was the fact that many Southern Democrats who had been elected in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s--like Charles Bennett, Claude Pepper, Sonny Montgomery, Jaime Whitten, among others- retired, died, or lost. Starting in the 1980s and in the 1990s these incumbents starting leaving Congress. While their seats had been electing Democrats for years, above the ballot, in statewide races and in national races, they had been supporting Republicans for years. What kept them Democratic was the personal popularity of these incumbents.

The 1990 redistricting also played a role, especially in the South. Well-intentioned Democrats created seats that were overwhelmingly minority. Where you once had several competetive seats you had one heavily Democratic district surrounded by lilly white conservative bastions. As a result many Democrats who would have been able to keep their seats barely survived in 1992 and the rest of them lost in 1994.

So you should admit that before you blame the DLC entirely. Unless they were in charge of redistricting your argument needs to take that fact into account.

[dolstein]

16. Thank you for setting the record straight

Those DU'ers who blame the DLC for the Democrats losing control of Congress need to get their facts straight. The Democrats were well on their way to losing Congress before the DLC ever existed. If not for the Watergate scandal, which swept in a huge freshman class of Democrats in 1974, the Republicans would probably have taken control of the House at least ten years earlier than they did. And of course it always goes unmentioned around here that the Democrats lost control of the Senate in the 1980 elections -- again, this was all before the DLC even existed. DU'ers also fail to mention that the Democrats took back the Senate in 1986 thanks to the election of many moderate Southern Democrats like Bob Graham, John Breaux and Terry Sanford.

[jiacinto]

17. Well

They don't take into effect the fact that many long term incumbents retired in the 1980s and in the 1990s, especially those from the Deep South.

[no name no slogan]

22. The Dems had a 30+ lead in House seats in the 1980s

The Dems had control of the House from the 1930s until 1994 (except for a two-year gap from '52-54). During that time, there were at least TWO TIMES that Southerners defected because of civil rights: in 1948, when the party embraced civil rights after Humphrey's speech; and in 1964-65, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The Dems still kept control of the House in the 50s and 60s, even though the southerners started fleeing.

In the 80s, the Dems had a solid 30+ seat lead in the House; this number only started dropping severely from 1988-1994, when the Repubs finally took control.

You can't pin a 30-seat loss on events that happened over two decades before. Our lackluster leadership by the triangulation crowd has almost made this party irrelevant. Even 20 years ago, NOBODY would have ever guessed that the Republican Party would be identified with the common working person. NOW look where we are.

This party can't take any more of this. What we have gained is far outweighed by what we've lost by betraying our constituency.

[jiacinto]

24. Did you see my reply above?

Maybe that played a role in it too. Then again it is always interesting how this point is ignored here.

Also the Dems didn't have the House from 1946-1948.

[hedda_foil]

18. Don't bet on it, Cap'n ...

They're right, of course, on the Norquist issue, though I doubt Fron and the Boyz idea of progressive taxation is quite the same as ours.

But did you read today's polemic, which seems to boil down to the idea that Anold's win yesterday is all the fault of the Democrats and the answer is greater triangulation by ending closed primaries in California (and other states, of course). Quite amazing, since Davis is one of their own.

<snip>

But there are homegrown California problems as well, including a
legislature that has gerrymandered itself into safe seats insulated
from public opinion; a long series of legislative and voter
initiatives that pre-ordain spending and revenue decisions; and most
of all, two political parties that don't even pretend to be
interested in rational problem-solving or compromise.

Indeed, the reaction of both parties to the recall election seemed to
retroactively validate the bad decision to hold one. Republican
candidates Schwarzenegger and McClintock competed to see who would
make the most blatantly irresponsible promises to balance the budget
without new revenues. And Gov. Davis and other Democratic leaders
eagerly caved to interest group demands to not only insulate state
government from cuts, but actually expand public commitments.

Now that Schwarzenegger is governor, he will soon have to come to
grips with the fiscal realities and tough decisions that his campaign
so systematically avoided. California's problems will not be solved
by abstract assaults on "waste," or Terminator-style attitude. And he
will have to address enduring concerns about his character that many
Californians initially dismissed as election-eve mud.

There's already talk of Democrats going to the mattresses, denying
cooperation to the Governor-elect, or even launching petitions to
immediately recall the recall winner. That would be a big mistake.
They should instead hold him to his vague promises, and hold him
strictly accountable for his performance. Governors have to make
choices, and the most important choice Schwarzenegger will face is
whether to govern the only way he can succeed -- from the center --
or curry favor with the right wing and fail.

Democrats also need to tend to their own garden and take very
seriously the decision of California voters -- who still decisively
tilt Democratic in party identification and overall policy views --
to support what began as a nutty right-wing crusade and ended as a
popular movement. They need to regain their centrist, problem-solving
reputation, and must absolutely reverse the recent perception that
they don't give a damn about anybody who doesn't belong to a reliable
Democratic constituency group. California voters can help both
parties move away from the current polarization by approving a ballot
initiative next year that would bring back an open primary system --
re-enfranchising moderate and independent voters, and re-engaging
today's isolated parties in a competition to win elections through
new ideas and successful governance.

[stickdog]

19. Gray Davis the poster boy for the DLC.

No support on the left, no support on the right, and quickly losing support from the rapidly radicalizing middle.

[AP]

30. He had enough support to win two real elections, the second one...

...only 11 months ago.

Buch played CA like Nixon played Chile -- they squeazed it until the pips squeaked, however in Chile the pips didn't squeak, so they had a coup.

If the pips hadn't squeaked in CA, I wonder what the Republicans wouldn't have stopped at to take that state.

[stickdog]

32. Gray Davis only won a second term because Simon was

way-too-right-wing, scary and ran the campaign from hell.

The Green party was pushing 20% in the Bay Area.

Davis was the ultimate DLC'er. All corporate, all the time. All milquetoast, all the time. All triangulation, all the time.

And his approval rating was below 30%. Does that tell you anything?

[AP]

34. But he won with a media willing to whore it up for the right wing

and with a little left flank attack too.

If I remember correctly, it was a pretty exciting, huge win around these parts.

I remember being impressed.

[stickdog]

35. Cause you don't know shit.

Nobody was whoring for Simon.

His campaign made Bob Dole's look brilliant.

[no name no slogan]

20. DLC is not swerving-- they're circling the bowl

We have seen, REPEATEDLY now, what "triangulation" gets you. You alienate your natural liberal base, the conservatives won't touch you because you're not a Republican, and that fickle 5-10% "swing vote" can be easily swayed by an issueless media campaign.

The sad part is, it doesn't have to be this way. We HAVE progressive candidates running, we HAVE the best platform and positions on issues; however, we keep nominating triangulators and candidates who DO NOT REFLECT the platform of this party, as created by the people of this party.

Right now, after the Cali debacle, the DLC is circling the bowl. One more flush and we can send this turd to the sewers. WE can do it. WE MUST do it. IF WE DON'T, our party will be irrelevant.

:hurts:

[TheDonkey]

25. Because of the mandate for the far left :rolleyes: (nm)