DLC Likes Kerry's Contract With the Middle Class

[Freddie Stubbs]

DLC | New Dem Daily | April 26, 2004

As we've hoped and expected, Sen. John Kerry moved his campaign fully into a general election mode with a speech last Friday that offered a positive argument for change building on the Clinton-New Democrat successes of the 1990s, while stressing several distinctive personal themes such as tough-minded internationalism and energy independence.

Speaking to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Kerry proposed a "Contract with America's Middle Class" with four main planks: making America safer; restoring fiscal responsibility while creating millions of new jobs; cutting middle-class taxes; and reforming government to reduce waste, end corporate cronyism and address the big challenges facing America.

Security First: Kerry emphatically refuted GOP charges that he is soft on terrorism and unwilling to use military force. "We are in a new kind of war, and we need a commander in chief with a plan to fight this war and win it," said Kerry. "I have many differences with President Bush over how we should wage the war against terrorism and extremism.... But we share the same goal of total victory. You can count on this: No matter who wins this presidential election, the terrorists will lose." To remove any shadow of doubt about his resolve, Kerry said: "I will never hesitate to use American power to defend our interests anywhere in the world. I will stand up for our country, our flag, and our values, and make it clear that the first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country."

Cutting the Deficit and Boosting Jobs: Citing President Clinton's success in eliminating budget deficits while creating 23 million new jobs, lifting 7 million Americans out of poverty, and enabling more Americans to attend college, Kerry contrasted the Bush administration's determination to "put wealth ahead of work, something-for-nothing ahead of responsibility, and special privilege for the few ahead of what's right for the nation." Recalling his support for tough deficit reduction measures dating back to the 1980s, Kerry observed: "Our budget is a mess again, and we must fix it to keep our country strong. My plan calls for no new spending without cutbacks to pay for that spending. My plan will end corporate welfare as we know it, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and impose a real cap on spending." On the jobs front, Kerry made clear his belief that "the private sector is the engine of economic growth, and that instead of being a burden to business, government has a duty to help business succeed" with measures such as tax cuts "for businesses that do right by America." He also said he will "create 10 million jobs with a proven strategy built on a simple principle: We should reward work, make sure Americans have a chance to work, and get ahead when they do."

more: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252547

[ConservativeDemocrat]

1. Cool

It's smart politics and smart policy.

- C.D.

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Just the sight of the three words that got us in this right wing nightmare

...is enough to make me question the whole thing. Seeing the DLC seal of approval on it doesn't help matters.

If Kerry loses in November are they going to call that a "liberation" like they did 1994?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Rather than attacking DLC, do you have any objections to the policies

outlined in the article?

[sangh0]

6. Boy, I wonder if anticoup saw that one coming

:shrug:

[Finch]

41. Man don't even try...

... a great many people on this board are completely intolerant of the DLC and anybody with views different to their own... that said there are also many on this board who are perfectly accepting of other view points and will debate on the issues rather than bombard you with irrational intolerance... but there we go...

[cindyw]

3. If the DLC agreed with the getting rid of BBV, would BBV become good?

That's the question.

[ulysses]

5. it would/will be interesting to see how this works

at the granular level and in practice. It's just campaign talk at this point. I'm fine with cutting middle class taxes, but who loses the money? "Energy independence" can mean any number of things - do we invest in alternative sources research or do we drill in ANWR? Etc.

[cindyw]

7. Kerry has said in hundreds of occasions that the answer is invest in

alternative sources research. For Bush energy independence means drilling, drilling, drilling.

[sangh0]

8. Yes, Kerry has said it hundreds of times

but some need to hear it thousands of times before it sinks in.

[ulysses]

10. about time you showed up.

I was starting to get lonely!

[sangh0]

11. Boy, a guy becomes a schoolteacher

and suddenly, he can't remember how to get to Kerry's website and take a look at his energy proposals, or how to look up a senators voting record in Congress, or how to find some liberal environmental groups and see what they say about Kerry.

But he sure knows how make jokes about me. There's a skill every child needs

[ulysses]

15. I'm not at work now

but if you'd like help on original composition so that you don't have to post the same thing twice, I'll see what I can do.

[sangh0]

27. I appreciate the offer, but

you'd be better off investing that time towards finding Kerry's website and reading about the policies you claim to be interested in learning about.

[ulysses]

44. just thought I'd offer.

:shrug:

[ulysses]

9. I'd just like to see specifics.

I appreciate Kerry's past stand on the issue, but it's a new ballgame. I think we should ask.

[sangh0]

12. Boy, a guy becomes a schoolteacher

and suddenly, he can't remember how to get to Kerry's website and take a look at his energy proposals, or how to look up a senators voting record in Congress, or how to find some liberal environmental groups and see what they say about Kerry.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Cutting Middle-Class Taxes and Boosting Incomes:

Cutting Middle-Class Taxes and Boosting Incomes: Noting that, "on this president's watch, Americans are working harder, earning less, and paying more for health care and college and taxes," Kerry pledged to halt "the greatest tax shift in American history" and "cut middle-class taxes, so middle-class incomes go up.... Under my plan, 98 percent of Americans and 99 percent of American businesses will get a tax cut." Moreover, said Kerry, "unlike this president, I have a health care plan that goes after health care costs that are killing American jobs and burdening American families, and an energy plan to hold down costs and make America energy independent."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252547

[cindyw]

18. Thanks for highlighting that. There are a lot of people here who like

to call themselves progressives, yet they seem to have a problem with Kerry trying to add progressiveness to the tax code.

[IndianaGreen]

16. The Contract with the Bourgeoise

Yep, that surely resonates, as much as Newt's Contract on America!

Does the DLC have any original thinkers?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Can't blame them with going with what works

As much as you hate the Contract With America, it was a very successful campaign platform. A 55-seat gain in the House is pretty impressive.

[knight_of_the_star]

19. This will be hard for Bush to refute

Especially since they are singing the same old song that they were going with before, it will look REALLY bad for them to turn around and change their path. Regardless of if the DLC came up with it, this sounds like a winner.

[salonghorn70]

20. The Contract With the Middle Class Commercial

Can't you just see the commercial? Kerry one-on-one with the camera. Speaking in his Presidential voice, he says "George Bush favors the special interests but I want to take America in a new direction. This is my Contract with the Middle class. I've fought for my country for my whole life and I won't stop fighting now." Gives me goosebumps.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Hopefully his campaign is smart enough to do that

[ArkDem]

22. There is no one closer to the middle class than Kerry.

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. FDR was able to help the poor

despite being from a ridiculously wealthy family.

[ArkDem]

26. So will Kerry.

.

[CTLawGuy]

23. The DLC

"Decimating the Democratic Party - One Election at a Time."

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. DLC candidates seemed to do well in the presidential primary

Kerry and Edwards are both affiliated with the DLC, and they recieved the most votes and delegates.

[sangh0]

28. The DLC also had winning Presidential candidates in 3 elections

1992, 1996, and 2000

[On the Road]

29. Dean Was DLC, Too --

That makes a clean sweep from the primary leaders who came from political backgrounds.

[On the Road]

30. These are Good Things to Say

I just hope that they do not become the centerpiece of Kerry's domestic platform. He's got to show some principle at some point and take an unpopular stand when necessary.

Saying the terrorists would lose no matter who wins the election was smart. Agreeing with Sharon's assissination policy was not.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. The American people support killing terrorists

If they did not, why was there not a large outcry when he came out in support of it?

[On the Road]

32. There's a Large Outcry in the Progressive Wing

I was listening to WPFW (89.3 in DC) this morning, the local progressive station. Caller after caller was all over Kerry and expressed support for Nader. Kerry may looking for independents and crossovers, but he's in great danger of losing the base. Not all voters are blindly pro-Israel.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Yet not one progressive elected official has come out agiasnt this

Not Kucinich, not Bernie Sanders, nor Barbara Lee.

[On the Road]

35. It's a Grass-Roots Issue

Not many elected officials have come out on BBV or a lot of other issues, either.

Regardless of whether it's the right position to take, it was unecessary to take any postion at all. I believe Kerry gains little from supporting Bush's position, and risks losing progressives. I am willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt on a lot of issues, but this one strikes me as appallingly bad judgment.

[sangh0]

36. What does that mean?

It sounds like a bid to grant legitimacy by using the words "grass roots".

The simple fact is that no matter how legitimate and right those causes are, there is no groundswell of people fighting for this. The idea that the Dems are abandoning "the progressive wing" is undermined by the fact that many progressives are voting for the man some claim have abandoned them.

And please don't misunderstand me. You have every right to criticize this position of Kerry's. I merely object to the way you use other people to criticize Kerry. If you object to Kerry's position, there's no need to argue as if every progressive agrees with your criticism. I am a progressive, and you don't speak for me. I support Kerry's position on this, and I do not feel as if he has abandoned progressives.

[On the Road]

39. I'm Not Claiming to Speak for You

the I/P issue is a divisive issue especially among progressives. There are people with strong positions on both sides. There was no need for Kerry to stake out such a strong position on such an internally divisive issue, especially because Kerry has been so diplomatic and nuanced on so many others.

You mentioned that "Americans like killing terrorists" and many Americans support Kerry's position, which is true. I mentioned that a lot of progressive Democrats were very offended by Kerry's position, which is also true. Whether leaders like Kucinich have spoken up is another matter.

Driving 1% of voters to Nader can cost Kerry the election. For many of the callers I heard this morning, this was the deciding issue on whether or not to support Kerry or vote for Nader.

[sangh0]

40. You're not "claiming" it, but you are implying it.

I am a member of the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party, and when you describe the Progressive Wing you are implying things about me, particularly when you do it without any sort of evidence (like a poll) to support you. And when you say that Kerry is abandoning the Progressive Wing over some issue, you are speaking for others who may not feel the way you imply they feel.

There was no need for Kerry to stake out such a strong position on such an internally divisive issue, especially because Kerry has been so diplomatic and nuanced on so many others.

I might quibble with that statement, but I won't. You are expressing your opinion in that statement, and though I may not agree with it 100%, it is a reasonable statement. Extrapolating that into "The Progressive Wing" thinks like I do, will get a rise from me.

You mentioned that "Americans like killing terrorists" and many Americans support Kerry's position, which is true

Actually, that was someone else, but I agree with the statement.

Driving 1% of voters to Nader can cost Kerry the election. For many of the callers I heard this morning, this was the deciding issue on whether or not to support Kerry or vote for Nader.

I agree, but you leave out one side of the equation. If, in order to attract that 1%, Kerry has to adopt positions and make statements that cause him to lose more than 1% of any other group, then it's just not worth it.

In politics, every and any position you take both costs you votes AND gains you votes. The idea is that you adopt positions and make statements that gain MORE votes than it LOSES. If moving towards the Progressive wing gains 1% from them while losing 2% of some other group, then it's a losing move.

Your argument here fails to take into account how many votes Kerry might lose if he were to adopt the stance you suggest, or if he were to just remain silent on the issue (which IMO is impossible. Kerry's getting asked baout this on network TV. He can't sit there quiet. He HAS TO answer somehow)

[sangh0]

34. The "Progressive Wing" is NOT the Dem's "base"

In fact, it's one of the smaller groups within the coalition known as The Democratic Party.

[On the Road]

37. The Republican Party Base

includes the Christian Coalition and NRA members. They are both minorities, but part of the party base. Republican leaders run a great political risk by adopting policies that antagonize these groups.

Progressives are the same kind of minority. It's the core of the party, where the energy is. It's really a form of the liberal wing -- the term "progressive" was adopted in the 90's because of the negative connotations of the word "liberal." There are some core Democratic values represented there.

[sangh0]

38. The Repuke Party is far more homogenous than the DNC

There are a smaller number of groups in the RNC, and the groups overlap to a greater extent than the groups in the Dem coalition do. Many Christian Coalition type Repukes are also NRA members. This means that their groups tend to agree with each other on a wide variety of issues.

Meanwhile, the various groups within the Dem coalition often find themselves at odds with each other. Union members are at odds with environmentalists, supporters of Israel are at odds with the more pacifistic branch of the Dem Party, etc. This is one reason why it much easier for Repukes to avoid angering their base. On some issues, its impossible for the Dems to avoid angering their supporters. That's why Repuke wedge issues work so well.

Progressives are the same kind of minority. It's the core of the party, where the energy is.

No, they're not. They are neither the energy or the core of the party. Unions provide much more "energy" than any other group within the Dem party. Furthermore, some of the liberal wings policies are a source of dissension within the Dem party. Take guns, for example.

[On the Road]

42. I Don't Understand the Controversy

I think it's true that "There's a Large Outcry in the Progressive Wing", even though the I/P issue is hugely controversial among progressives. It's true even though no Democratic leaders have spoken out about this. A lot of DUers (and Kerry himself) may not be aware of the antagonism this has caused.

It's also true that progressives are part of the core Democratic base rather than independent or swing voters. I'm surprised to see that statement challenged here. Maybe my definition of "progressive" is broader than yours. When I hung around with New Party people, a lot of folks adopted the term as an alternative to "liberal."

[sangh0]

43. Two things

1) There isn't a huge outcry on the Progressive Wing. For one thing, the Progressive wing isn't very large to begin with, so even if they all were crying about this, it still wouldn't be a huge outcry. Furthermore, 100% are NOT objecting to this. IMO, the antagonism this has generated is being exagerrated by those who disagree with the policy. The only people I hear saying this is a big issue are those progressives who already think it is a big issue, and they aren't a majority of progressives.

2) You have moved from declaring the progressive wing "the base" to declaring it "part of the core Democratic base". You've come a long way, but I have an additional qualifier to add. They are "a SMALL part of the core Democratic base"

The tail doesn't wag the dog.

PS - you seem to think I'm confusing liberals and progressives. My point is that you can group them all together and it still doesn't add up to "the base" or that the liberals positions reflect the "core values" of the Dem Party. Unions, minorities, and other groups have had a more influential role in the party over it's history than liberals and progressives. During two decades (the 60's and the 70's) liberals played a strong role in the Dem Party and the formation of it's policies. The rest of the party's history shows that other groups have played a more powerful and influential role.