Am I wrong, didn't the DLC types used to called liberal Republicans?

[chaska]

If not, then can someone please explain the difference?

[no name no slogan]

1. you are correct

The Nelson Rockefeller/Harold Stassen wing of the GOP used to be very similar, ideologically, to the DLC: pro-business, anti-"big government", socially liberal, etc.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. On the money

These days I call them Vichy Democrats. They are always bending over backwards to avoid upsetting Bush.

[blm]

3. Well, we all have a great respect for Jim Jeffords, don't we?

He's a classic example of liberal Republican.

He's too far right for my druthers, but, I still find respect for him.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. The difference between a REAL liberal Republican

and a DLC member is the you could actually work with a LR, whereas the DLC insists on being as rigid on issues as the NeoCons are.

[blm]

5. Not really, old buddy....the DLC split on CAFTA voting and the new head

of DLC, Vilsack, is against CAFTA.

I would say the DLC is less rigid than that ASSHOLE Al From likes to lead Dems to believe.

And I thankyou for another opportunity to heap scorn on the loathsome Al From.

[Debi]

10. He may be anti-CAFTA

but what proof do you have that he's pro-Labor? (other than Labor got him elected in 1998 - it's not like they'd trade him in for a republican in 2002). Vilsack is pro-business.

[blm]

14. Well, ALL governors tend to be pro-business to an extent. Dean's a perfect

example. He made decisions too far right and pro-business for my taste, but, the alternative would have been WAY too far right and pro-business in a way that would HURT the state and the economy. As a result, he became a successful governor for a prosperous state.

If there is a governor who balances the concern of BOTH business and labor giving each fair input to matters, then I'm certainly not going to fault them, even though I would prefer that labor be favored.

[Debi]

16. I don't think Dean attempted to pull the wool over anyone's eyes

He never acted like Labor's Governor. Vilsack won through the work of Labor (ask the UAW) and ran as a Labor candidate. When it came time to govern it was a different stroy. I think that if Labor had a viable alternative Vilsack would not have seen a second term (he had difficulty getting Labor's backing for re-election) but Labor had to choose the lesser of two evils.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. My pleasure

:)

[comsymp]

17. Another significant difference, IIRC, is that

(warning: generalization ahead)

Liberal Republicans actually had principles to which they adhered, whereas DLCers tend to take a more "pragmatic" approach to issues.

[GracieM]

6. Good point

It seems that moderate/liberal Republicans get called out by the right but respected by the left and moderate/conservative Democrats get called out by the left but respected by the right.

Rush Limbaugh bashes McCain, but few Republicans get as much praise on this board as McCain.

Lieberman would be the same.

Now my lame attempt to explain why...I think it is about being on the same team. We should be working toward the same goals and when we don't it hurts.

But when someone you don't expect to help you sticks up for you, you respect them.

A playground example: there's a disputed call, was the ball in or out?
Your teammate who agrees with you is just doing his job as a teammate, but your teammate who sides with the other team is hurting the team effort.

Of course the other team views that as a sign that the person is fair and objective, even if they chose to be on a different team.

Any of this make sense?

**Edited for spelling.

[Inland]

7. uhhhh.....they aren't republicans but democrats?

Doesn't that explain the difference right there?

[jody]

8. They used to be called elected officials but the strident fringe

of the left dominated the media and cost Democrats control of Congress. The only way for Democrats to regain control is to reach out to independent voters. IMO, the DLC is trying to do that by focusing on divisive issues.

[theboss]

9. No, they used to be called Conservative Democrats

Once upon a time, our Party used to be full of men like Robert Byrd and Richard Daley. It was a magical time when we easily won elections and controlled Congress for decades at a time.

We don't have that many conservative Dems anymore. Strangely, we don't win many elections either.

[flaminbats]

12. yet another reason liberals should consider becoming Republicans..

Conservatives and Liberals waged war within the Democratic party for decades, moderate Republicans and independents often chose sides based on who won. Perhaps by waging war against conservatives within the Republican party, liberals can once again gain some leverage within the two-party system.

[applegrove]

11. I don't follow the DLC or know what it is about. However I do wonder

why we cannot at least have the debate about what sort of goods the USA should be specializing in making. Civil goods like clothes or intelligent goods like (unfortunately) the defense industry.

Plastic, internet, nylon, etc...all the industries of the 20th Century were derived from R&D in the defense industry. So in the 20th Century we all benefitted a great deal in North America by that type of R&D.

Do we give that up? Do we let China develop the sattelite jamming industry?

I don't think so.

The problem is the hawks. Not the R&D or the Defense industry per se. We control the defense industry - not the other way around. So do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Cause really the next big thing is nano-technology which is inventing paint that breaks down the exhaust from cars into harmless derivatives - and you can put this paint in tunnels and on the sides of roads.

I think we should be discussing the non-political portion of some of DLC positions. Doing research perhaps.

[chaska]

15. Was it not once the case that....

Repubs were defined by their pro-business stance and Democrats for their pro-labor stance (to put it in very broad terms)? And that the terms liberal and conservative, while more loosely defined, generally applied to stances on social issues.

THE social issue pre-1960s was race. Democrats left the party to become Republicans when the Dem party became positively associated with race issues. That's when things got really mixed up, such that there are a lot of Repubs nowadays that think they are the poor people's party (yes, I have had this debate, face to face). Likewise, there are Democrats who don't know that the Dem party stands for labor and poor people, who embrace the economic values of the Repubs.

This is why the DLC has to go. They are not Democrats, they are socially liberal Republicans. We need to win back those who don't vote in their own interests: the poor, etc. from the Republicans.

We have to unmuddy these waters.

[dajoki]

18. i think the DLC was formed...

to appeal to the so called raygun democrats.:shrug: