http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060219-105049-638... DLC chief raps party's liberals
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 20, 2006
...
(snippage)
In yet another stinging critique of the Democrats' liberal wing, DLC founder and chief executive Al From said his party could lose this year's midterm elections if it continues sending a message to voters that it is weak on national security issues in the war on terrorism.
"Despite all that has happened since November 2004, I fear the 2006 national election could turn on whether voters' unease with the Democrats on national security again trumps their apprehension with the direction Republicans are leading our country," Mr. From writes in the latest issue of Blueprint, the DLC's national magazine .
(snippage)
Mr. From said the 2004 election turned on several questions in the minds of the voters, one of which was, did Democratic presidential nominee "John Kerry understand that America has enemies in the world who are out to kill us?" Enough voters didn't think so, and they gave President Bush the margin he needed to win re-election, he said.
Mr. From, the architect of the centrist-leaning agenda, which led to Bill Clinton's election in 1992 and re-election in 1996, fears that what happened last year could happen again if the party nominates another liberal like Mr. Kerry.
This guy just doesn't get it. It's not that the Dems are weak on national defense. It's that we don't publicize that fact effectively.
And it appears, as usual, that Mr. From's definition of being strong on defense is by copying the Repbulicans stance on the subject. The Republicans are perceived as strong, therefore act like a Republican so that you might share in that perception. The problem is, the perception isn't truth. The answer is to redefine what it means to be strong on defense. Being strong doesn't not equal going into war like a drunken cowboy. I just don't understand From. I just don't.
Does he not remember Kerry's first debate with Bush, the one that was supposed to be his weakest because it was on national defense? The one where we got to see Kerry kick Bush's butt across the stage? The one that helped, along with his New York University speech, convince people that here was a man with a solid head on his shoulders when it came to national defense.
Part of being strong is not putting our fighting men into harm's way for a war we should never have entered. Part of being strong is not attacking or threatening to attack everything in sight. How many more wars can we get into before our army's had enough?
How is it being strong on defense when this administration doesn't even know what it means to "support the troops"? They don't treat the troops right. They don't make sure they've got proper food, or armor, or even benefits when they come back.
From's all about appearances. Let's not BE strong. Let's just LOOK like we're strong, just like Dubya, and then pretend that everything isn't FUBAR, just like Dubya.
I almost wish the DLC would have full rein on an election like they did for Clinton's, and then lose miserably so that people wouldn't look to them anymore as having the answer to getting Dems elected. Almost, I say, because we can't really afford to let them learn the hard way. Maybe they did know how to get Dems elected in the 90's. I don't think they do now. But they still go around like they're some sort of authority. But I don't think Clinton got elected on their ideals. If I understand correctly, his numbers only started going up when he moved to a more populist message. Plus the DLC's plan might only have worked because of the man they were selling. Clinton is a consumate politician with tons of charisma. The only thing I think we could learn from the Clintonistas was rapid response.
I sometimes wonder if they were part of the problem during Kerry's campaign. They're spokespeople were unenthusiastic at best. I think the DLC Dems took 2004 off in anticipation of a run by Hillary. If she gets the nom, I may get to see if I'm right. I don't wanna see, really. Like I said, we can't afford it as a country. We'll see what they can do, and if they can do it without Bill. Personally I don't think Hillary will get past the primaries. I still can't get over how she was railing against violence in video games at a time when there was real violence to contend with. How much more politically artless and obvious can she get?
These people are NOT as smart as they think they are. And I hope to the Almighty that when the DLC reposts their membership directory online that John Kerry is NOT on it. He's better than that. I blame in part their lack of belief in him for how things turned out in 2004 (assuming of course he indeed lost...)
/rant
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
