Reply #157: Now [View All]

[fujiyama]

I think the DLC takes too much damn credit in getting Clinton elected. What we had then was a president that had little concern for ordinary people (poppy) and a texan quack (perot) that also drew a lot of votes from Bush 1 (though my guess is perot drew many traditional dem voters as well). Clinton won the nomination and then the presidency itself largely because of his personal skill, charisma, and a hell of a team. The DLC did little else than raising money from fat cat donors. It seems to have been one of the only things they're good at.

The DLC recently complained of people in the party opposing Bush's tax cuts and opposing the war with iraq. What good is the party otherwise? I understand that they were for the war. I disagree but understand their justification. Fine, but the tax cuts?! There was no excuse for signing on to those, especially by the likes of Dianne Fienstein.

I understand when a southern dem votes in a certain way, as not to alienate many centrist voters. That's fine. That's politics. I personally wouldn't care if all the southern repugs became southern dems with similar voting records. Why? Because, if you have the majority you control the agenda. That's what dems need...but it's evident that even the above logic failed in the congressional races (as evident by the losses of the sens from GA and Missourri. That logic was believed by the DLC.

The DLC has a role in the party. Obviously the party needs some business support, but the failure to realize the dissent and anger in the base oft the party is pathetic. Rather than co opting Dean's methods of raising money from ordinary people they've trashed him! That is very foolish.