How you know the DLC is a malevolent force.

[iconoclastNYC]

The fact that they are "New Democrats" just reinforces the negative GOP frames that there was something wrong with the party.

That's why i'm proud to be a traditional democrat - Liberal.

The very nature of "Freedom" is a liberal concept.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Fuckin' A.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Old school is always better than New....

[varkam]

3. Liberal as a four-letter word.

Why is it that liberal has taken on a pejorative connotation? I seem to remember when there *were* liberals and conservatives. Seems like now, the fastest way to drag someone through the mud is to call them a "Massachusetts liberal" - wtf?

[iconoclastNYC]

4. I think we're taking it back.

I think any Democrat running for public office should be forced to embrace that word.

[fooj]

5. Liberty...the condition of being free.

Pass it on.

Peace.

[Totally Committed]

6. The DLC must be stopped, or

we will end up like the Republican Party when it was hijacked and overrun by the Neo-Con vermin. That Party now bears no resemblence to the Republican Party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller, and ours will be as unrecognizable when they are done with it.

Corporate money and influnce is all they care about, and needs to be choked off now -- completley and irrevokably -- if this Party is to survive with its Liberal soul intact. For the sake of the country (which needs a vibrant and Liberal opposition Party), and our children and grandchildren who need a viable America to live in, we need to do this completely and NOW.

Resist the DLC, their policies and their candidates.

TC

[Moderate Donkey]

7. Of course, you're misinformed, ya know?

"New Democrats" was a shortened form of "New Kennedy Democrats," indicating a return to the policy-style of JFK.

Of course, at the time of the DLC's founding, there was something wrong with the party.

When a party holds power for too long, says Adrian Wooldridge, reporter for The Economist, "it grows fat and happy, it also grows corrupt." The classic example, he believes, is the Democratic Party of the 1970s and `80s, which, spoiled by generations of congressional power, "became a party of insiders and deal makers without any sense of the principles they stood for, and eventually collapsed" when they were turned out in 1994.

The more common explanation for the 1994 Republican Revolution, though, is that liberal Democratic ideals -- or at least the way they were presented -- no longer resonated with the majority of Americans. According to Ruy Teixeira, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and at the Century Foundation, the danger for the dominant party isn't ideological bankruptcy but ideological drift. "Certainly you can make the argument that, if a party's far enough away from the mainstream, if they don't lose they don't get enough impetus to correct their behavior," he says. Boston Globe

[wyldwolf]

8. shh. Facts will get you nowhere.

Remember the new anti-DLC rules of debate on DU: "Based upon the NEW rules of debate on DU as set fourth by the OP here (All charges are true unless someone disproves them)"

But I'll add one of my own:

The Democratic victory of Bill Clinton in 1992 was thought by some to have marked the emergence of a new Democratic coalition of labor, women, minorities, moderates, Reagan Democrats, and the South.

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/search/search.php?searchtext=ali&refinetext=&search_page=3&themes=&cts=&&enc=13345

[MrBenchley]

9. Because the Junior Joe McCarthy Club all hate them....

Guess this thread is today's two minute hate....