DLC Study says Democrats can win by executing more retards than GOP

[yurbud]

These guys are lying about a couple of issues, and leave out a big one where progressives can stomp both the GOP & DLC: economics, corporate power, and protecting a middle class standard of living. Middle and working class right wingers are as pissed off about outsourcing and trade agreement that make that even easier. If the economic case were made clearly and forcefully as people like Paul Wellstone did, the DLC and GOP would shrink down to a rump of cranks and bankers.

Essentially, the DLC is offering a formula for further distraction on cultural issues, and a bidding war with the GOP to see who can spend more on defense even though we face no Cold War-sized enemy. If we are really fighting a war on terror, that can be done relatively cheaply with Predator drones and special forces. Wars of occupation to secure oil rights for American corporations require a lot of money and equipment, and the DLC does seem to approve of those.

I think even the author who wrote this article is disgusted by these guys because an advocate for their positions would be embarrassed to underline something Clinton should be ashamed of and actually advocating doing MORE of it: excuting the retarded.

These guys are morally bankrupt and just offering us a slower, gentler descent into the Third World than the GOP.

Maybe we need them to get through 2006 and 2008, but it would be better if we just broke up into THREE parties--the Religious Right, Progressives, and the Chamber of Commerce.

Once the Chamber of Commerce doesn't have those other groups to hide behind, they could raise all the corporate money they want, and they still wouldn't be able to win.

Big business is more than adequately represented by the GOP. We need at least one party that looks out for the rest of us, and the DLC just pinched off a reminder that they cannot be trusted to provide that.

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A07

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:

· They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."

· They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.

· They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 worldSecurity issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.


They suggest that Democratic presidential candidates replicate Clinton's tactics in 1992, when he broke with the party's liberal base by approving the execution of a semi-retarded prisoner, by challenging liberal icon Jesse L. Jackson and by calling for an end to welfare "as we know it."

FULL TEXT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601645.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Hahaha great title. This is going to be a great thread. Here's my titles

"DLC Study says Democrats will win if they drop their support for welfare."

"DLC Study says Democrats will win if they support a guns for food program."

[Mass]

2. How do you know it is DLC?

The report is appalling, but as far as I can see, these are two individuals strategists. Let's throw all strategists away. That is the best solution. (as far as I remember, Kamark endorsed Dean).

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. The connection was made in another thread.

I'll look for it for you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Number 47 in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4998740#4999096

[yurbud]

8. It's some group called the Third Input

I'm not sure what that refers to...

[Mass]

15. Third Way -

http://www.third-way.com

Another group that calls itself progressives.

Here is the article concerning their creation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41113-2004Nov10.html

[rayofreason]

19. Karmark endorsed Dean...

...but does Dean endorse Karmak?

[sasquatch]

3. I'm hearing the old Bill Hicks tune "Suckin' Satan's pecker" right now

[Southpaw Bookworm]

4. Hahahaha!

I wonder what Hicks would be saying if he were alive now: He was so prescient on many issues: the rise of fundamentalism, involvement in the Middle East.

[sasquatch]

5. He probably would have snapped by now

[Savannah Progressive]

9. The Report should be titled how to be Republican Lite

At the same time Liberals and Progressives are wondering if the party will listen to them in the future, the DLC announces that it's not interested in the left wing, social justice, or the people. Frankly, like children we are told to shut up, sit down, and give the money and be thankful that we are allowed in the party in the first place.

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/07/434637e79a469

Carville in the above article, essentially says the same thing as the report. I know we aren't surprised about his reaching the same conclusion as a DLC sponsered report.

Let me ask you all this, when is the last time a Conservative Democrat won a national office? Joe Lieberman ran in 2000 on the more Conservative end of the Democratic spectrum, and was soundly rejected by the people in the Primaries. What was the most often heard complaint from the Right Wing Media about Gore in 2000? He was hiding his Liberal beliefs, anyone remember? Gore never mentioned his book Earth in the Ballance, but Conservatives mentioned it often enough for Gore.

Does the DLC really think that the way to Political Power is going to be as Republican Lite for the future? I don't understand that, how many Seats have we lost while they ran as "Republican Lite"?

I guess we haven't learned anything from our losses in the past, and I honestly wonder how many election cycles we are going to have to endure loss after loss before the DLC is finally silenced and the MAJORITY of Democrats are listened to.

[yurbud]

10. Gee, not too many DLC defenders on this one. I wonder why...

Maybe it's indefensible.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

13. Why argue with people whose minds are shut?

I mean seriously. Extremists on both the far left and far right are far more similar than they are different: they made their minds up in the third grade, anyone who doesn't agree with them 110% is EEEEEEEVILLLLLLLLL, and they both hate mainstream Democrats with a passion.

Trying to explain reality to people like that is like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. That's why, even though I'm one of the oldest D.U.ers, my post count is so low.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. Not so strangely, the families of Author Criswell and Officer Bob Martin never considered Clinton's failure to intervene in Martin's execution to be indefensible. It's a lot easier to look down on other people when you yourself haven't suffered.

[yurbud]

17. my mind wasn't made up in third grade. I was very conservative in college

and gradually realized that people on that end of the spectrum weren't looking out for my interest, starting with very personal issues like college financial aid.


Once I started teaching college and got involved with a union, and saw how business interests warp priorities even at the lowest local level, that pushed me farther to the left. The community college board was more interested in throwing building contracts to the local equivalent of Halliburton than they were in giving their employees health insurance. That's real life.

Likewise, I was far more conservative on defense issues during the Cold War, then thought it was odd we are keeping up Cold War era spending when our only declared enemy is a stateless group that has no air force or navy, and could be dealt with by our intelligence agencies, special forces, and predator drones. Or even better, we could eliminate the condidtions that make it possible for terrorists to recruit.

But the DLC doesn't want to reduce defense spending or stop wars. They simply want to take the wheel as the new chauffer of the war machine, securing oil rights for American corporations in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

It's amazing how often the DLC types will flame other people without really making an argument.

You seem to be making a vengeance argument for executing the retarded. If you want to argue with what the IQ standard is before we hold someone culpable for their actions or capable of contributing to their own defense, make it.

But we did our duty to society and the victims family by removing the perpetrator from circulation. A civilized society doesn't go farther than that based on vengeance but what's going to do the most good for all of us and is fair to as many as possible.

If you let the families of victims decide, someone might be executed for accidentally killing a kid when they back a car over him, and another might be let off after he shoots a convenience store clerk.

What does the DLC stand for besides the Chamber of Commerce?

[OneBlueSky]

11. that decision by Clinton to execute the retared prisoner . . .

is the single thing that has most bothered me about him for the past decade or more . . . it bothered me when I voted for him twice (feeling I had no other choice), and it still bothers me today . . . taking political opportunism to its absolute nadir, imo . . .

[ElectroPrincess]

12. Yes, it's all out war on us Liberals ... too funny, many of the

TRUE war HEROES are those dreaded Liberal Democrats (McGovern, Kerry and Rangel).

Bugga bugga bugga Boo! ... Us mean ole' Liberals are gonna get you.

Too funny, we have NO power or money, yet the IDIOT DLC makes us their scape goats at seemingly EVERY opportunity. Why? To continue to pump up their corporate masters. Keep them paid off.

This isn't a Liberal Conservative divide. Hell! This isn't even a war of wills between the Democrats and Republicans.

THIS IS "THE PEOPLE" VS. "CORPORATE CONTROL" OF OUR NATION!

Better slough off that fear mongering of Liberals and wake up to the fact that almost every damn thing is outsourced and all our goods come from CHINA.

BTW The Saudi Royal Family owns a THIRD of CitiBank.

Now, who do you think your REAL political enemies are NOW?!?

[Savannah Progressive]

14. Absolutely, I couldn't agree more

It's astounding. 68 Democratic Representatives, 18 Democratic Senators vote for Bankruptcy Reform, and the reason our party is in trouble is the Liberals.

It's bad enough when the Repugniks blame us for every mistake they make, but to have the Democratic Party jump on us because we still care about the people, the planet, and the world. How dare we think that the people should have as many rights as Corporate America? Who do you think you are to think that Minorities should have equal rights? Do you have any idea what would happen if Homosexuals were able to be married? Will you shut up about Global Warming, we don't have time to worry about that right now, we are trying to make political hay out of Tom DeLay.

When you ask Americans what they want, they answer, and our leaders ignore the message. They look at a campaign, Clinton in 1992, and assume that he was elected because he appeared more conservative. Doesn't anyone remember how President Clinton campaigned on compassion for the people? Al Gore tried to be a "regular guy" and made an ass of himself. Al Gore is a brilliant and compassionate public servant, and we allowed him to be defined as a dolt by the Rev. Moon Press. Gore's advisors told him not to admit to being liberal, because after the fall of the Soviet Union, we are the new nameless faceless enemy who wants to destroy them.

We went from Eisenhower the Liberal Republican in his own words, to only Conservative Corporate friendly, Democrats need apply.

The one thing I am not looking forward to in 2006 and 08 is the standard line about electability and our candidates. As soon as we fall for that, we are doomed again. We pick the "electable" candidate, and sure enough, they are attacked by the Right Wing loons for every thing they have ever said or done. Every statement is taken out of context and spun to be what it isn't. So since we can't seem to defeat the big lie, we are going to join the big lie?

So the difference between our party and the Nazi's is going to be what? We slaughter innocent people, but we feel bad about it? We give the Corporations anything they want, but we will talk bad about them while we are doing it? I suddenly have serious doubts about our chances in 06 and 08.

[freestyle]

16. Presidential politics is not the only game.

Clinton was elected, but the Democratic Party lost ground at every level below that and set up a situation where the presidential elections are close enough to steal. This republican lite bullshit has been a dismal failure and it will continue to be.

[yurbud]

18. It worked for Clinton because of Clinton

he was or appeared to be, more compassionate than some of the ideas he claimed to represent.

When he talked about welfare reform, he really convinced me he was doing it to help people, not just stick it to blacks, which was the transparent GOP agenda.