|
And would you change your view if a candidate you like happened to espouse the same view? The purpose of this thread is to match up progressive objections to the DLC with the platforms of our candidates. It is inspired by a post made by someone yesterday. In order to keep this on point I edited out the name of the candidates mentioned in the quoted post.
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-18-08 06:41 AM Response to Reply #18 19. someone needs to say this, so I guess I will The "progressive" movement, since 1988, has dogged the DLC. The vitriol has gotten particularly shrill since 2000. The hate the DLC for welfare reform. The hate the DLC for stressing the free market. They hate the DLC for it's stance on private investment accounts to compliment social security. The hate the DLC for suggesting the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals. They hate the DLC for finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts. They hate the DLC for suggesting public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers. They hate the DLC for it's concept of public service, believing it to be a back door draft. The hate the DLC for wanting a strong military.
Yet here comes Candidate B who...
... believes in welfare reform. ... believes in the free market. ... believes in private investment accounts to compliment social security. ... believes the Democratic party must make a turn to the right away from the post 1960s social upheavals. ... believes in finding 'third ways' in classic conservative-liberal conflicts. ... believes in public education reforms, including merit pay for teachers. ... believes in public service.
... believes in a strong military.
So I can't for the life of me see the difference between the DLC and Candidate B, policy wise. So where is the attraction for "progressives?" He's a good speaker? So is Candidate C and Candidate D. If they want a good speaker who pushes DLC policies, they should love Bill Clinton, but they hate him.
|