Al From: America's challenge..."a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life;"

[madfloridian]

This could explain the hawkish talk we hear from our Democrats so often. I really don't see any other way to read that paragraph in this article by Al From near the first of August. Here is the complete paragraph.

After seven years of Bush administration failures, America needs solutions to a new set of challenges — a war against Islamist radicals who would destroy our way of life; a global economic competition that demands we raise our game; and a quest for energy independence and efficiency that Al Gore has shown us could make or break our planet. If Democrats offer solutions that work, we’ll not only win back the presidency and expand our majorities in Congress, but we’ll take advantage of an historic opportunity to build an enduring, sustainable political and governing majority in the progressive center of the political spectrum.

I had read the article before but that part caught my eye. This was an article written by Al From in response to the media pointing out that no candidates attended the DLC convention in Nashville.

Why America Needs the DLC by Al From

I think he got this part right, though. About the reason they did not attend. I don't think it was because they disapproved of the group. I think Al is right:

I understand why the candidates believe they can avoid unnecessary grief from bloggers and other DLC critics, by skipping high profile DLC events in the heat of the primary season. They don’t have to come to DLC events to use DLC ideas.

The candidates know that the primaries are played almost exclusively on one end of playing field — the end near our own goal line where the most partisan activists, including those most vocal in their opposition to the DLC, make the most noise. But they also know that presidential elections are played on both ends of the field — and we’re not likely to cross the opponent’s goal line if we stay in our end

Ok, well, actually he is very wrong there. They are playing the primaries on the right end of the field.

He goes on to point out that many have tried to stop this group.

At first, Party Chairman Paul Kirk tried to stop the DLC from forming. Three times in the DLC’s first 18 months, the liberal columnist Jack Germond predicted the DLC would not last for six months. There were demonstrations by the Reverend Jesse Jackson and other party activists at the DLC’s 1991 Cleveland Conference, where Bill Clinton laid out the platform on which he won the presidency. Even after three national tickets in a row composed of DLCers, Howard Dean called the DLC “Republican lite” and called the Clinton years “damage control.”

Well, ok, he is pretty much right there...they still appear to control the message.

He says the DLC is about problem solving, and I agree they do present some good ideas along with those that bother me...so credit due. But he is being disingenuous when he pretends that is all they are about. It is not being honest.

They had a meeting in 2003, invited the press, and read a memo about how Dean should not be president. Now what the hell kind of policy making is that? Be honest. They announced that Howard Dean would not be president. That goes way beyond policy making, methinks. For a tax exempt group that was way out of line.

The 'D' in DLC Doesn't Stand for Dean (David Von Drehle, May 15, 2003, Washington Post)

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

....""We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

That is not policy, that is making and breaking candidates...not at all the role they should have played.

Now I see Rahm Emanuel has an article up there at the Ideas Primary today about Universal Savings Accounts to supplement Social Security. Just another word for privatization, letting private companies in for profit while taking funds out of the program which will hurt those on the program.

Have to read more of it tomorrow.

[JeffR]

1. We the JeffR of the United States hereby declare war on Al From

Who's with me?

[AtomicKitten]

2. I'm in.

[madfloridian]

3. Did I read that right?

I read it 3 times and then read it again. I missed it last time I read it.

Maybe he didn't really mean it. :-)

[AtomicKitten]

4. I'm so over waiting for these knuckleheads to remember

what the Democratic Party stands for.

[ShortnFiery]

7. We need to get rid of Al From and his fearless leaders - The Clintonian DLC to RLC?

:puke: :thumbsdown:

[IndianaGreen]

5. Al From wets his pants thinking about his "girl" Hillary being in the Oval Office

From supported his "boy" Lieberman's prelude to Iran War resolution, as did Hillary and the "boys" and "girls" of AIPAC.

Hillary will keep the war going for 4 more years, at least!

Hillary will attempt to restore American hegemony in Latin America, even if it means invading countries like Venezuela.

Hillary is the DLC's wet dream!

[defendandprotect]

6. An overdue "solution that would work" is to toss From and the DLC out of the party ---

[madfloridian]

8. More from the website from April. Obsessed with "radical islam"

And the first statement in the article struck me very hard...as though invading Iraq had been a little sideshow.

In their preoccupation with the daily carnage in Iraq, Americans unfortunately sometimes lose sight of the larger struggle -- the war against radical Islamism. Whether or not you consider the Iraq war part of that, there's no question that a broad movement exists whose goal is to undermine, even destroy, Western values and liberal democracy. It goes far beyond al Qaeda; by one count, the Islamist movement is a growth industry in 55 countries.

Sounds so casual, like it did not matter if Iraq were part of it or not.

The rest of the articles deals with a film called Obsession. This is such fearmongering.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254263&kaid=127&subid=177

And yet, between high-profile bombings, like those on the London subway and the Madrid trains, we sometimes think the problem may be subsiding -- despite the near-miss of the August 2006 plot to blow up trans-Atlantic airplane flights. Or that if we just get out of Iraq and focus on beating the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, we'll be on top of the issue and maybe on the way to victory.

But the challenge is bigger than that. And sometimes we need to be reminded of what we're up against. That's why I'm disturbed by the bad rap that has bedeviled a 2005 documentary film called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.

...."Another objection is that the movie tends to conflate a radical fringe with the mainstream middle. But it's the radical element of Islamism that is making the news and causing the problems. And it's well to remember, Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist, notes in the film, "that even if only 15 percent of Muslims support radical Islam, what is 15 percent of 1.2 billion?"

Mr Range, it is as though you forgot your group was pushing hard to attack Iraq. Now you seem so careless about excusing that horrors there. Done in our name.

And you, sir, are spreading fear. That is called fearmongering.