The DLC moniker is meaningless

[LiberalEconomist]

I will follow Kos' and use the classification Neo-conservative democrat. Why? Well, whenever we say so and so is DLC inevitably someone will chime in and say that certain person is not a member of the DLC. Alright, alright, I am talking about Biden. Joe isn't a member of the DLC, but he is a friggin' neocon. Lieberman? Neocon. Harold Ford? Neocon. There has been a political mutation, which has allowed a certain ideology to invade both major political parties. This is the neocon caucus. Traditional liberals and conservatives are being squeezed to the walls to make room for the new species.

Ok, now you get when repubs say that the dems are just as bad? Well, like it or not, they have a point. They, like us, see neocons on both sides of the isle eating from the same trough. However, we are honest enough to make the distinction between traditional conservatives and neocons. They, on the other hand, fail to make the distinction between traditional liberals and neocon dems. When they see liberals they see all of this meaningless culture war bullshit. What they don't see are the liberals who are fighting like hell for the working class. Why? I am interested in your answer.

[iamjoy]

1. Because It Helps Them Win

It helps them win to simultaneously lump all Democrats together while saying that the Republicans are the big tent party, Democrats are not.


and it's just easier, lazier.

[ixion]

2. why? nose buried too deep in the trough

hard to see what the 'poor folk' is doin' when you're living the Life of Riley, as it were.

[LiberalEconomist]

3. Ok, what is your opinion on using the term

neocon dem?

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Even Neoconservative Democrat is a little tricky

It fits Lieberman, but I'm not sure it fits Biden.

Lieberman is a hard core supporter of the Iraq invasion. He may as well be a Republican Undersecretary of Defense when he talks about issues arising over Iraq. As far as he is concerned, we're better off since we overthrew Saddam, we are making progress, it's all good and well. And no amount of evidence to the contrary will get him to change his mind.

He's as much an idiot as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Assuming he survives his primary challenge, were I on the editorial board of a newspaper or magazine making endorsements in the November election, I would vote for "no recommendation" in the Connecticut Senate contest. Privately, I would hold my nose and vote for Lieberman, but only because he would vote with the Democrats on the continuing resolution in January; otherwise, he seems useless at best and treacherous at worst.

Biden, on the other hand, appears to me to be making awkward attempts at triangulating. He seems to be under the delusion that the Bush regime is politics as usual. He is willing to give deference to a regime that seized power after losing an election and one that clearly lied its way into the war against Iraq. That leaves very little middle ground for that kind of maneuvering.

Biden is becoming something of a James Buchanan Democrat in my view. In the final weeks of his presidency, Buchanan kept trying to maneuver around the issues of slavery and secession even as Southern states began seceding; his triangulating was finally reduced to a position of Southern states had no right to secede and the federal government had no right to stop them. Likewise, it is obvious that the Bush regime has not fought an honest war on terrorists, has used the September 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Iraq without cause or even a good plan and to disregard international treaties to which the US is party and even to disregard the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a lot of middle ground any more. The issue is no loner Iraq. It's impeachment. Where does Biden stand? Where does Lieberman stand? It's time to stop making excuses for the Bush regime and take up the issue of wheter its behavior constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.