Blogswarm - Online Political News Magazine

Q. What's a new name for the Republican Party?

A. The Democratic Leadership Council.

-Will Durst

The irony is that the Democratic Party has lost access to its biggest source of revenue -- huge corporate soft dollar donations that once flowed in response to the DLC's corporatist agenda. The party now depends on small dollar contributions, something it has no long-term experience collecting. As much as the Dems like to think of themselves as the party of the people, the GOP has had a solid historical dominance in small dollar contributions (i.e. the churches).

Dean and Trippi spurred the party's small-dollar revolution, while Kerry took advantage of the strong ABB mood within the party to keep that money flowing. But the party can't take the $70 million raised by Kerry online for granted (not to mention tens of millions of offline small-dollor grassroots contributions) if assholes like From and Reed walk around pissing on the party's base -- something Josh says they actually enjoy doing

[...]

The DLC once owned the "New Democrat" space in the party, and that is no longer the case. Many in the party establishment see the critical need to maintain an energized party base, for both activism and money, and see the DLC as an impediment to that effect. Not everyone in the establishment is "status quo".

The DLC is a dying organization. But the quicker it dies, the better we'll be as a party. The path to success lies in finding common ground between the party's myriad constituencies, not in toeing the Gospel According to From and Reed.

[...]

The battle IS between the failed status quo establishment and Reform Democrats who span the party's left-right ideological spectrum

It's telling that the DLC, our party's version of the Flat Earth Society, insists on fighting the old ideological battles that have long since been abandoned by most of the party's various factions. The DLC may or may not have had a raison d'être in 1992, but the party and the political environment has changed dramatically in the subsequent 12 years.

Steve Gilliard on the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council):

Al From: shut the fuck up
Since everyone is going on about the DLC, I think I have the shortest essay possible on the subject.

They are losers. Al From is the political descendent of Pierre Laval.

Their 2002 was a disaster, and they backed the always pathetic Joe Lieberman for President, like he would have won one state.

So exactly why should we listen to them?

It's no longer 1992 and that's a long-ass losing record. They've been losing since 1994, so why the fuck do they think they have anything to bring to the table now?

[...]

I'll say this; there are no good folks at the DLC. Any more than there were kind people working for Petain. Unless they want to upend the organization, why are they still there?

Fuck these people. They're losers, big time losers and they act like they're the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1979. Al From is all too willing to betray the core principles of the Democratic Party because it doesn't make him a kingmaker anymore. If From wasn't an asshole, and his presence on the Journal's pages, or did he forget how Bob Bartley lied about Vince Foster, only proves it.

Look, the fact is that the Democratic Party is changing and the days of kingmakers like From is coming to an end. Howard Dean's candidacy for DNC chair should be like a slap in the face. Dean is hardly popular with the insiders, but the fact is Dean comes into the game with the most cards, including popular support. Al From couldn't get arrested in a Meetup. The fact that people care who the DNC chair is should matter. Vichyites like From represent no one but themselves. The fact that they think people still care about their opinions is amazing.

And it all boils down to this: they're losers.

Suffice it to say that I asked my friend whether he thought From and Reed were fully aware of the 'optics' of running such a 'Dems get your house in order' piece on the Journal's editorial page. He said yes, they did and that they enjoyed the optics of it. I responded, yes, I knew that; but still really didn't think they quite 'got it'.

Let me explain what I meant and didn't mean. I didn't mean that Democrats should boycott the Journal OpEd page or restrict their writing to house organs -- plenty of liberals write pieces there and that's fine; I wouldn't want it any other way. Nor do I mean that Democrats shouldn't air their dirty laundry. They should. And now, frankly, as far as you can get from an election, is the time to do it.

But to advise Democrats you've got to be a Democrat, part of the Democratic party. And what that means is a certain threshold level of lack of contempt for people who, day in and day out, are the Democratic party. I don't mean 'the base'. I mean everyone -- right, left and center, the volunteers, the funders and the intellectuals, the issue activists and the occasional voters. And this shows a basic unwillingness to do that -- even in the most simple symbolic ways, indeed, a delight in not doing so.

The point is that the DLC gives off the impression, quite understandably, that they're not actually interested in convincing anybody they're correct about whatever it is they're advocating that day. They just want to be smug and look down upon all the pissants who aren't on board. While they write about how the problem is that some people actually disagree with them, they don't really seem to concerned with changing anyone's mind. Peeing in people's cornflakes for fun and sport isn't a way to win friends and supporters.

The DLC  (Democratic Leadership Council) flat out sucks. It's been described as a front for Republicans, Republican's light, Republicans in Democrat's clothing. They attack candidates, using the same vitriol as right wing talk radio cretins like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and Glen what's his name.

[...]

The fact is, the Republicans have moved so far to the radical, revolutionary right, in their efforts, now being done in plain open sight, to re-make America, that the DLC, when it seeks the middle ground, is really seeking the ground that old-time Republicans took. If you stretch so far to the right and then find the new middle, then those on the far right are winning just by influencing you-- if you are a spineless faux democrat.

The democrats were led by the DLC in the failed mid-term elections. Gore was persuaded by the DLC to do Gore light. It's time to throw these loser, fake democrats out of the sphere of influence of the Democratic party. Even if that doesn't happen, it's likely that they'll get themselves thrown out. They've been getting uglier and nastier-- as though their make-up is melting off and underneath they are becoming seen for what they are ditto-head Republicans Soon enough their real selves will become so transparent they will be thrown out, or laughed out. I'm sure Tom DeLay will welcome them. He  is probably already good buddies with them.

The DLC would like us to believe that a "third way" can satisfy everyone -- that expanding our base does not mean neglecting our core supporters. But this is a fallacy. The definition of politics requires there to be a choice between competing interests. And when it comes down to that choice, we better know which side we are on. If we lose the support (or at least the enthusiasm) of the people who need us the most, then we do not deserve to win. And we will not win. In every Presidential election since 1976, the candidate that lost touch with his base lost the election.

As for the DLC, it's time to euthenize the organization. Whatever role it may have played is spent. As of now, it's the single most divisive Dem-affiliated organization, refusing to play nice with others even in these desperate ABB times. As such, it deserves nothing but exclusion and ridicule.

The DLC just doesn't get it. They follow big money corporations so closely that every time the big money corpos turn around the "New Dems" break their noses. The DLC attitude seems to be that "good management techniques" solve all problems. I guess of they can find a "New Democrat" with an MBA from the Harvard School of Business, he's their man. Hey, it works for the Republicans.

And if these DLC propeller-heads think that a little more praying and a little more quoting of the Scripture by their candidate is going to make a difference, they better go back to a little party history. As I recall, Jimmy Carter was the most praying, Bible reading President in my life time and he was defeated in 1980 by the least openly religious Republicans that I can remember, Ronald Reagan, but one who used it was a political weapon.

Jerks, just don't get it. When are these guys and gals of the DLC realize that you don't win votes by promising a plain, cold hamburger sandwich when the other guys are promising a Big Mac, special sauce, extra cheese.

To quote Zap Brannigan: "What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

And so the DLC continues to wallow in its self-made trough of mediocrity with its surefire recipe for losing election after election.