Did the DLC advise Kerry to bring a Wet Noodle to a Gunfight?

[Q]

Kerry didn't run a 'lousy campaign' as some people have claimed around here. It just wasn't the right campaign against an opponent that didn't play by the rules. When Kerry and the Party needed to attack head on...they launched a campaign of moderation and concession. If there is any one entity that can be blamed for the loss of the White House, Senate and Congress...it's the 'play both sides against the middle' DLC and the New Democrats.

One had only to listen to the words of Clinton and the New Democrats to understand their strategy before the 2000 and 2004 elections:

1. Agree with Bush on some issues in an attempt to pick up some of his base.

2. Avoid the Democratic base in order to appeal to Big Business and 'swing voters'.

3. Use the Anyone But Bush movement to avoid taking a stand on any hot button issues.

4. Treat anti-Bush, anti-war activists with disdain.

The DLC's insider advice of moderation to Dem candidates since before 2000 has given the Bush Gang an advantage. That they stayed with a moderate approach after 9-11 and the Iraq invasion demonstrated that they either had no clue or pushing their New Democrat agenda was more important than exposing the corruption of the opposition.

Kerry ignored and the New Democrats scorned the advice coming from the Liberals and Progressives of the party. They could see where Bush wanted to take the nation and knew that a moderate stance against his far-right politics wouldn't work in an atmosphere of war and terror.

The Democratic party lost in 2000 and 2004 because they didn't fight hard enough for it. They didn't fight against the election fraud, media lies and dirty tricks of the opposition. They took the 'moderate' approach of rolling over and hoping that the opposition would give them a few crumbs of power.

The blame for the loss of the last two elections goes to the Grima Wormtongues of the party that advised moderation and capitulation when an aggressive, take no prisoners campaign was clearly needed. This allowed the Bush Gang to play the Democrats like a cheap fiddle and take advantage of their unwillingness to take a strong stand on any issue.

And now the Moderates are scolding others on this board for pointing out what was so obvious during the last four years. Democrats lost everything because they stood for nothing. Yet the Party seems to have learned very little from their losses. They're still coddling the corrupt Bush administration by supporting his illegal wars, trashing activism and approving his criminal nominations. If Moderates stay in control of the party...Democrats can expect to stay in the minority for a very long time.

[papau]

1. Fight GOP's "choose between victory and vacillation"

The Mehlman's remarks released by the RNC were more than fighting terrorism, revamping Social Security, changing the tax code and appointing "strict constructionists to the courts,", institutionalizing the GOP's 2004 grass-roots operation, courting new voters (Blacks through school voucher initiatives, young voters through Social Security changes and Hispanics through efforts to limit legal liability), registering to vote men and women who attend church every week but aren't yet registered voters, and talk about banning gay marriage.


The Key phrase - actually in text but not delivered, was the sales pitch that Dems equal "vacillation" while the GOP = Victory

[Q]

13. This is surprising...considering that Democrats could stand on many...

...issues important to the majority of Americans.

As long as they stand in the mushy middle...the Bushies will continue to walk all over them. This is a fight that we can't afford to lose.

[CWebster]

2. Last night I caught Rove discussing Clinton

and how agreeable and charming he was when attending a meeting in Andrew Card's office...



What? That's a little close for comfort. Can't say I am surprised, though.

[Q]

17. Clinton shouldn't show him any respect...

...considering that Rove has made it clear that he intends to destroy the Democratic party and everything they've ever stood for.

But that's not the way it is in New America. Democrats 'act tough' when it comes to questioning Rovian tactics and criminal nominees...but then turn around and vote for them anyway and then dine and party with them afterwards as if there's no problem.

[itzamirakul]

3. Well said!

I couldn't agree more.

The DLC has so weakened the Democratic Party that no one will ever convince me that there are not some well-paid Republican plants in leadership positions there.

I don't think Armstrong Williams is the ONLY "spokesperson" to reap a windfall for pushing Republican policies and issues.

I became espeically incensed when Al From of the DLC began going on talk shows and professing to speak for ALL Democrats. Who in the hell gave HIM that right? I resent anyone daring to speak for me when I hve not elected them to office or given them permission.Then, when Al From began to say things like "We're not the party of Michael Moore," I was just totally through with the DLC. I didn't hear a single other member of the DLC come out and refute Al From or thank Michael Moore for exposing the evils of our government and our politicians. Yes, they are the New Democrats - the Corporate Ass-kissing Democrats...

[CWebster]

7. Seems that way

when they seem to spend all their energy and effort into attacking and dividing Democrats while furthering Republican policy and reinforcing their sterotypes.

It does seem to be staring us in the face.

[Q]

12. Attacking Moore for exposing Bush corruption and lies...

...really woke a lot of people up to the bad plays of the DLC. It's part of their campaign to create a more conservative Dem party by smearing those on the 'liberal left'. That Moore was anti-Iraq war was enough for them to hate him and try to associate his work with supporting terrorists and hurting the war on terror.

[Al-CIAda]

15. True...First it was Moore, then 'liberals', then the pro-choice postion

Enough is enough.

They are traitors to workers (NAFTA), to populism, and to freedom of choice.

[zalinda]

4. You are right........

but, in defense of these people, they get their info right from the MSM just like everybody else. With AAR in DC now, maybe they'll get more of what is really going on out there. And, we lefties have really been quiet in comparison to the religious right. Being organized and presenting talking points is the only way that we'll get ahead. We are a hugely diverse group of people and our messages are more like a hundred bullets, going in all directions, rather than a shot gun blast, which all go in the same direction.

zalinda

[KurtNYC]

5. Thomas Frank speaks to this directly

I think the values of the left still have power. But something has become apparent to me since I moved to Washington, D.C. . There is this aversion, bordering on hatred, for the left, especially among Democrats. People who dominate discussions in Democratic circles despise the left, and there is no way in hell they are going to embrace the values of the left. You can try to explain to them how they need to do it for strategic purposes or in order to win elections, it doesn’t matter. The Democratic centrists got their way , they got their candidate, they got their way on everything, and they still lost. And who gets the blame? It’s going to be the left.

Great interview http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1866/

[Q]

11. You can see that hatred of the left...

...even on this board. The moderates have practically disowned any politician or policy to the left of them. The 'left' has been literally out of power for decades...yet the New democrats still use them as scapegoats for all the party's ills.

The Centrists did indeed get their way and they will get their way again in 2008. They will run another centrist candidate on the 'play both sides against the middle' ticket in 2008 and then blame their loss on anyone but themselves.

[Lerkfish]

6. hear ! hear! well spoken.

compromising with evil only corrupts you, it never elevates evil.

[quiet.american]

8. Why do you say, "Clinton and the New Democrats"?

Clinton Urges Kerry To Sharpen His Attack

PITTSBURGH, Sept. 5 -- Former president Bill Clinton, in phone calls with John F. Kerry over the weekend, told the Democratic presidential nominee that he must sharpen his criticism of President Bush's record and offer voters a more compelling case in his own behalf if he hopes to win the election in November.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64274-2004Sep5.html

[Q]

10. That is...'sharpen the attack'...

...within the framework of that acceptable to the DLC. Many topics were off limits...such as the Iraq war, 9-11 and those policies the DLC and the Bush White House share.

As it turns out...Clinton is becoming close 'friends' with the Bush family. He has never advised to attack them on their most vulnerable points....like their relationship with the sponsors of terrorism.

[Al-CIAda]

14. ...or NAFTA...after all thats Clinton's 'shining' legacy.

US workers were given the shaft and vital issues in regard to our wages, our EDUCATION, and our work laws.


The FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) is next. Watch how that passes and wages further decline.

[quiet.american]

16. There still seems to be a distinction in regard to this past election

First, let me say, I'm in complete agreement the DLC is absolutely useless in regard to winning campaigns for us. They never seem to have heard of the warning: "past performance is no indication of future results."

They skip right past Al Gore's "loss" in 2000 and with a single focus always point to Clinton's win in '92.

However, like a rock band that splits up and then only one of the original members goes on to have a stellar solo career, (and it then becomes obvious that that particular member WAS the rock band), so I feel about Clinton and the DLC. They've been nothing without him.

In regard to your point though, the DLC's counsel to Kerry appears to have been crafted without Clinton's input --

In June 2003, barely three months after the invasion of Iraq and six months before the Democratic presidential primaries, Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, and Bruce Reed, President Clinton's former domestic policy adviser and the organization's president, laid out their strategy for winning back the White House in the DLC's Blueprint Magazine. The message: The Democratic candidate should follow the strategy of former president Bill Clinton and "seize the vital center," and "not... veer left." From and Reed make no mention of Bush's foreign policy initiatives.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0513-03.htm

Although, in typical DLC fashion, they are perennially stuck in the past, reaching back to what worked in 1992 and attempting to apply it to what's happening now not only in a new decade, but in a new century!

The blame for the DLC policies rests squarely on the shoulders of Messrs. Al From and Bruce Reed -- the bloated and overly-cautious masters of disaster, and the reason I say this is because Al Gore steered fairly well clear of Clinton during his run for the presidency -- look what happened -- and Kerry started calling too late in the day --

From the comments Clinton has made, it truly appears he would have run a much more pro-active, bracing race than Sen. Kerry did.

[Q]

18. Clinton was the enabler...

...and not necessarily a direct participant in their sway over the party. While progressives and others on the 'left' were advising that the party directly confront Bush lies and deceit...Clinton was out there pushing for 'bipartisanship' and working with the radical right.

It's difficult to say how Clinton would have campaigned...but he seemed even less willing that Kerry to expose the vast criminal enterprise that had taken over our government.

[quiet.american]

20. However, his counsel to John Kerry remained --

that "Republican-lite" won't do.

Clinton, according to those familiar with the conversation, urged Kerry to draw a sharper contrast with Bush and to explain to voters the effect of going to war in Iraq on domestic policies.

[CWebster]

22. More likely Kennedy and Dean advocated against repub-lite

Clinton IS Republite with slick charm and ego presence. He pushed for non-specific "new ideas" and "modernization" which are New Democrat buzz words signifying triangulation and appeasment. The only issue he really addressed in open opposition was the tax break for the top percent.

Clinton is mostly about himself and herself.

[quiet.american]

23. Yet, he wasn't running for office and Kerry was --

Thusly, he was not urging Kerry to blur the lines between himself and Bush, his take was that Kerry needed to offer the voters a very distinct and clear choice from the Republicans and Bush.

[Q]

24. Well...then Kerry didn't take his advice...

...because he DIDN'T offer a clear distinction between himself and Bush on the main issues.

This election was about one thing: WAR/TERRORISM/FEAR.

[quiet.american]

25. Now, that I can agree with you on! n/t

[Al-CIAda]

9. ...which is why the DLC must be destroyed. The result of this failure of t

theirs is CATASTROPHIC

[Q]

19. "Destroyed" is a strong word...

I would be satisfied if the New Democrats would simply agree to work with others in the party to create an agenda that would represent a majority of Democrats.

But the very fact they call themselves 'new' Democrats shows that they want nothing to do with the 'old' party of the New Deal, Unions and social welfare. They have become in essence a 'third party' that has more in common with Republicans than Democrats.

[Armstead]

21. Great Title line

That about sums it up

[Q]

26. And did you see where Hillary is now...

...backing faith-based 'initiatives'?

Do Democrats really think they can win with these 'me too' politics?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. i am so angry at self for becoming a nader traitor in 2000 and again in 04

Nader was CORRECT!

it will NEVER happen again!