Reply #80: You'll see evidence of what I'm saying in 2008... [View All]

[Q]

...The DLC 'moderates' got another break in 2004 because everyone hated Bush*. I'm not sure you understand just how many otherwise faithful Democrats had to hold their nose and vote for Kerry.

And it's not that Kerry is a bad guy or wouldn't have made a better president...it's just that he wasn't what was needed to run against Bush*. Many on the left had predicted two things before the election. The first was that only a DLC approved candidate would emerge as nominee. To us this meant that the nominee wouldn't take Bush* head on...given their appeasement policies towards Bush* in the past. ("just" war, patriotic act, reluctance to make him accountable, etc.)

Secondly...We knew that Bush's* Smear Machine would tear apart anyone not willing to escalate the war of words and expose Bush* for the lying criminal he was/is. What was needed was a big dose of the truth and a candidate willing to deliver it no matter the consequences. Bush* had to be the most vulnerable candidate in history. He made tricky Dick Nixon look like an angel. Yet Kerry didn't even hit near any of his soft spots and put him on the defensive.

I believe you'll find out in 2008 just how much Democrats in general hate the concessions and one-sided compromises by the new democrats. Once again the DLCers will believe that Dems have no choice but to vote for them and will take their votes for granted. They'll run a candidate that won't confront the criminal Bush* government, rejects progressive politics and snuggles up to corporations.

The DLCers will simply expect the votes of the progressives, Blacks, Gays, Workers and Women in 2008. But they're going to be very shocked to learn that it's not going to happen again. Many of us would rather stick to our principles and lose then be a slave to the corporate church/state.

That's right. We've rather serve in heaven than rule in hell.