PROGRESSIVES WIN, DLCERS.

[Zhade]

DLC on brink of a major shake-up

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D8A42147-18FE-70B2-A8B906ED25F961CA

The Democratic Leadership Council — a group of centrists that dominated Democratic politics during the Clinton presidency but is laboring to remain relevant in the Obama era — is on the brink of a major shake-up.

Al From, the DLC’s founder and leader since its founding 24 years ago this month, said he plans to step down within the next couple months, handing the reins to his longtime protégé, Bruce Reed.

At the same time, the Progressive Policy Institute, an influential think tank run by the DLC, is going separate ways. Will Marshall, who heads the think tank, said the recent Democratic electoral gains and a massive new agenda being pushed by the Obama administration “require us to think anew.”

The upheaval at the DLC is a striking sign of the political times. Under From, the group was always controversial — making its name during the 1980s and ‘90s with stark warnings that traditional, interest-group liberals were threatening to turn the Democratic Party into a permanent minority party.

***

Of course, they are not "centrist", but conservative -- and Americans have utterly repudiated conservative politics.

We knew the day would come when even the DLC would realize they are obsolete and unwanted.

It's an awesome feeling.

[Dr Fate]

1. My main problem with the DLC was their constant kissing of Bush's ass.

Which includes their cowardly, unforgivable support of the war. Their attacking people on the left WHO WERE CORRECT about the war was pretty low-down too.

They seemed to be braver about attacking "the far left", but really frightened over going after Bush. That was always strange to me. But then again, I AGREED with the left over the war.

Their traitorous support of Joe Fucking Lieberman's 3rd party run did little to win me over as well.

Having said that, I dont have a problem with most center-to-left ideas and hold many of them myself. As long as they are willing to fight for them and not puss out like they used to always do, I dont have a problem.

The good news is after the Obama primary shake up, some of these guys are showing some signs of seeing the light...

I for one am ready to bury the hatchet- any DLCer who can honestly acknowledge when people to the left of them are RIGHT and when the DLC is WRONG, will get along with me just fine.

We shall see- the ball is in their court.

[Zhade]

2. I agree. As long as they admit their politics have been rejected and want to work with us, cool.

But they don't drive this bus anymore, and that is awesome!

[Hippo_Tron]

3. Called this a few months ago, the DLC is a Reagan era organization

And the Reagan era is more or less over. I don't think Democrats will be as left as they were during the pre-Reagan era but we will definitely be to the left of where we were under Clinton. The DLC was an organization designed for a country that was shifting to the right. The country is now shifting to the left which means that the DLC doesn't really have a riason d'etre.

[wyldwolf]

6. your reply reminds me of what Sen. Corzine wrote about the DLC in 2001

In recent months, as a newly elected senator, I have had to decide whether to join the Democratic Leadership Council. I have chosen not to because while I shared its founding purpose, which was to frame a successful response to President Reagan's efforts to portray Democrats as the party of "tax and spend," social engineering and failed personal responsibility, I believe that purpose has been largely accomplished.

Al From said yesterday, "The DLC has largely achieved what we set out to do when I formed it in 1985. It has played a vital role in resuscitating the Democratic Party."

What many people who will be reading this thread won't remember is the state of the party in 1985. We'd lost 4 out of 5 presidential elections, each by large margins. And the one we did win ('76) was a squeaker. We'd been slowly though often dramatically bleeding House seats since '68 (Watergate saved us in '74) and the road was being paved for the '94 disaster (Nixon's Southern Strategy, Democratic retirements and southern gerrymandering). What the DLC has did more than anything was slow down (and sometimes halt) the rise of the GOP in the 90s that was actually predicted by Kevin Phillips in his book "The Emerging Republican Majority."

When people describe Obama as the first post-partisan president, it could also easily mean the first post partisan intra-party President. The DLC's influence on his policies simply cannot be denied and comparisons to Bill Clinton are very plausible. But at the same time, he sees an opportunity to enact real liberal policies and, in many case, he's attempting to do it. But like you said, the DLC was a response to Reaganism, and Reaganism is now dead.

But to say or imply, as the OP does, that this means the demise of the DLC, isn't really prudent. It's the end of the DLC's lightening rod, Al From, but not the DLC. From stepping down actually forces people to discuss real policy ideas and not what From has said about this, that, or the other when the topic of the DLC comes up. The new leader, Bruce Reed, is best buds with Emanuel and they served together in the Clinton White House. And as people on DU noticed some months back, the book he wrote with Rahm on policies (Big Ideas) is very similar to policy ideas Obama ran on.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Agreed, I think Obama has indeed been influenced by much of the third way policy ideas

But that said I think he's still at least marginally to the left of those ideas and I think the party consensus is right there with Obama at this point. Which is why I think the DLC will not be particularly influential as an organization. It has certainly left its mark on the Democratic Party but I don't think it will continue to so much in the future.

[Beacool]

18. I agree with you.

BTW, I just saw Corzine this afternoon. We live in the same town and today we had our St. Patrick's Day parade (too much competion from other towns for the best bands to have it next week). He's going to have a tough reelection, the Republican former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie is popular and surpassed Corzine in the latest Quinnipiac poll (44% to 38%).

I didn't see Sen. Menendez in the parade, but he also lives in town.

;)

[and-justice-for-all]

4. Show the obstructionist the door....nt

[vaberella]

5. Are they the supposed dixiecrats? I'm not really sure. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

64. The dixiecrats left the party 45 years ago

I'm not really sure what makes people think they are still around, but I suspect it has something to do with model airplane glue.

[Exilednight]

8. DLC = DINO ....

the faster they fall apart, the better the Democratic party will be.

[denem]

9. CLEAR THINKING, HARD HITTING DEMOCRATS WIN

if they deliver, period. Any democratic public official who promises much and delivers little, will likely fail, and bring friends and allies down with them. Republicans with their paleo-base have a bit more leeway.

As Rahm Emmanuel put it "rigid ideology has always been the God That Failed, and no idea is good if it doesn't work"

Politics is the art of the possible. Great Politics is making improbable, possible. Seldom is the answer to storm out of the trenches into the waiting banks of machine guns for "Moral Cause of Our Time". Impeach Pelosi! Oh wait, she can't be impeached. Go Cindy!!!!

The DLC has nurtured (not owned) some of the brightest talent in the Democratic Party over the last 25 years. And President Obama, seems to me, to a man who seldom dismisses a good woman, man or idea for the sake or a three or four letter acronym.

[Zhade]

49. Yeah, Will Marshall's a real genius.

:rofl:

[mvd]

10. I'd definitely like to see them with less influence

Instead of a third way, the DLC's policies often just seem like Repuke-lite to me. Too many times, the DLC seems to like working with Repukes more than progressives. President Obama so far has shown to me that he'll take any position he thinks will work - and since I don't demand purity, I like that philosophy more than the DLC's.

[LWolf]

11. Hmmmm.

Perhaps they don't need a separate think-tank and agenda now that we've elected a president and a congress that makes them fully mainstream without the label.

[William769]

12. "but is laboring to remain relevant in the Obama era — is on the brink of a major shake-up."

Have you not noticed what the Obama Administration looks like?

:rofl:

[RepublicanElephant]

13. dlc = let's see if we can take some of that corporate money away from the repubs. nt

[benEzra]

14. Good. Maybe the DLC's ban-popular-guns jihad will go away with them. (n/t)

[annabanana]

15. Isn't PPI first cousins with PNAC?

I think they are...

[Zhade]

51. Yes. At one point, they even shared an office.

But I cannot locate that article anymore. : (

[wyldwolf]

65. **** BZZT! BULLSHIT DETECTOR! ********

still pushing that bullshit? You retracted it once for lack of evidence. Why are you misleading?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3111749&mesg_id=3113925

[AllentownJake]

16. Someone give Evan Bayh a call

He was acting up this week.

[Beacool]

17. Sorry, but the country is more moderate than liberal.

The moderates aren't going anywhere. Obama won 53% over McCain's 46%, a resounding win but not surprising considering the 8 Bush years and the implosion of the economy last September. It would be a mistake to overreach and assume that everybody is all of the sudden a liberal.

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Liberal policies enjoy high favorability

It the label "liberal" that's been tarnished. Loaded down with all sorts of baggage that has nothing to do with the policies we embrace.

[mvd]

20. Agreed

When people are asked what they want without all the "buzzwords" attached, I'm sure a lot of answers are surprising.

[Two Americas]

40. Pew Research

Pew Research did an exhaustive survey that did just that. On dozens of issues the public overwhelmingly supports what are called here "far fringe left" positions by majorities of 70-80%.

[anonymous171]

22. Moderate=Center-left. DLC=Center-right

[wyldwolf]

23. DLC = Center-left

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

25. by what stretch of the imagination?

If supporting free market economic policies is not right wing, I don't know what is, and that trumps everything else since politics is about power and economics.

We can redefine "left" to mean "Reaganomics with a little smattering of liberal cultural war stuff thrown in" then I think your statement could be accurate. But until and unless we all agree to that re-definition of the term, your statement is just confusing and misleading.

Now you may proceed to label anything and everything slightly to the Left of the DLC as "far left fringe" and "communist" and hurl a few insults around.

[Grateful for Hope]

26. I agree with this

Free market economics has been nothing more than an enabling of corporations to exploit cheap labor. What we have seen is that the "bottom line" is much more important than ensuring fair wages and humane working conditions world-wide, and, more important than ensuring that no country will suffer escalating unemployment as a result of such economics.

IMO, the DLC cheerleading for free market economics indicates that they are no friends of the American working class.

[wyldwolf]

27. Someone forgot to tell every Democratic president since FDR ...

... that supporting the free market is "right wing."

and that trumps everything else since politics is about power and economics.

Says who? As usual, you're defining everything from your world view.

[Two Americas]

32. those pesky quotation marks

I wouldn't say that supporting the free market is "right wing."

I would say that supporting the "free market" is right wing.

The "free market" is the illusion, the deception, while the right wing within the Democratic party is very real. Why would you want people to think that the "free market" lie was legitimate and credible, and yet that the idea of a right wing within the party was not? That is telling, to say the least.

We aren't talking merely about politicians as though they were commodities on the shelf, as though electoral politics were the end-all and be-all of politics, and as though citizenship consisted of nothing more than "choosing" from some imaginary buffet table. Of course they are conservative - it comes with the job - until and unless they are pressured to look out for the have-nots rather them merely doing the bidding of the haves.

What you are expressing under the guise of merely describing reality, is an aggressive attempt at dictating people's reality to them so as to push a right wing agenda. You well know that were you honest, and described these ideas as what you want rather than as what you supposedly see, that people here would reject your ideas. Posing as a supposed neutral observer gives you cover to push a set of ideas that otherwise would be rejected by almost everyone.

Everyone defines everything from their own world view. Some of us do that honestly. As usual, you refuse to respond to the content of the posts of those who disagree with you, but move immediately to obfuscation and distraction and try to create a smoke screen by way of an uproar and exchange of insults and mindless talking points.



..

[wyldwolf]

33. that pesky "world view" of yours

by putting "free market" in quotes, you're assigning your own definition to it.

[Two Americas]

35. yes, very much so

I do not think there is anything "free" at all about "free market" politics. It is a typical right wing lie, implying the opposite of what it actually is. So, yes, I am rejecting the false definition promoted by the right wing propagandists.

I share the "world view" I am expressing here about economics with Abraham Lincoln, which I would be happy to explain and document and support, so the attempts at red-baiting are false and will go nowhere.

[wyldwolf]

36. I'm glad you admit, just don't presume your definition and perspective drives the Democratic party

[Two Americas]

38. of course

Admit it? I will trumpet it.

The Democratic party is controlled by the conservative few, and the people have little if any power in it.

I don't presume that my definition and perspective drives the Democratic party. I absolutely know that it does not. I also know that you will fight to the death to make sure that it never does, and that this is what your posts are really about.

[alwysdrunk]

28. What country do you live in?

Are you seriously trying to say that only a minority, the right wing in this country, support free market policies? Do you really not think that all moderates and the vast majority of the left do as well? Are you posting from Venezuela?

[Two Americas]

30. red-baiting

Didn't take long for the insults and the red-baiting to start.

Maybe the majority of the pundits and consultants and politicians and activists and people here support Reaganomics, but I can assure you that the general public does not, and I can also state with absolute confidence that it is inaccurate to call that anything but right wing politics.

So, yes, perhaps the majority of the people who dominate the political discussion in both parties are right wing, but that is only 10% or so of the population. In fact, I would say that both parties and their sycophants are in fact right wing, but no doubt you would vehemently disagree with that, and seek to have it both ways depending upon what approach is more effective at the moment to promote right wing ideas such as "free markets" and "free trade" and privatization, and the dominant position of Wall Street and the "ownership society" and trickle down supply side economics and consumer choice and profits before people and investors before producers.

All of that is "Left" when that suits your purposes, and not when it doesn't. Whatever works best to give the ideas credibility and to bash, smear and insult any and all critics.

It isn't the Left - because the Left is all communist wackos - but it is the Left because you are calling it so. This position is so transparently and obviously self-contradictory and illogical, that it is truly amazing that it gets any consideration at all, let alone gets presented and accepted as "reality." A symptom of the political climate within which we live, I suppose.

[alwysdrunk]

31. Sorry for being insulting, didn't mean it that way

But seeing someone seriously trying to argue that both parties are actually right wing...that's just the way I react initially.

Let me just ask though, how would you define true "Left" economic policies. In general, that is. And centrist\moderate? If everything we have is right wing, the what would the alternative be?

[Two Americas]

43. very simple

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class——neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families——wives, sons, and daughters——work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

Abraham Lincoln

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1064

[wyldwolf]

34. fake accusation of "red baiting."

Interesting how progressives toss around the DINO and "Reublican lite" and right wing labels to Democrats who are more centrist or conservative than they are, but comparing them to Hugo Chavez is "red baiting."

[Two Americas]

37. don't be absurd

Interesting tack here.

Of course the smears of the Left as extremists, and the dropping of little hints about Chavez and whatever are red-baiting. I don't say "DINO" and "Republican lite" but rather demonstrate that the actual arguments and political ideas being promoted by people here are in fact right wing arguments, and them to go on and demonstrate why those ideas are dangerous to the country. In any case, "DINO" and "Republican lite" are hardly on the same level - even remotely. Were we calling you Nazis and Hitler and Mussolini that would be different, but that is not tolerated here and is pretty rare. But almost any post that is even vaguely left wing is attacked with red-baiting.

Interesting how you so rarely deny the points I make - let alone refute them - but instead look for new lines of attack. Is the hope that I will give up, or get angry and respond inappropriately, or that the exchange becomes so unpleasant and idiotic that none of the membership wants to read it? You certainly never seemed interested in successfully arguing your points, or often even in revealing them.


...

[wyldwolf]

39. it isn't absurd or "red baiting" to say your political worldview is closer...

... to Chavez than it is to Clinton. :shrug:

Based on your posting history, and assigning the term "right wing" to an economic policy wholly embraced by the Democratic party for 100 years demonstrates it.

[Two Americas]

41. that means nothing

Your views are closer to right wingers then they are to FDR. So what? The ideas stand or fall on their own, and politics is not the simple-minded two dimensional personal identification with various personalities you insist on portraying it as. Argue the merits of your ideas and stop playing games with labels and personalities in an attempt to distract and confuse people.

I am closer to Lincoln than you are. I am closer to FDR than you are. I am closer to the great Labor leaders than you are. Two can play this game, but it doesn't replace intelligent discussion.

[wyldwolf]

42. you keep proving my point. Everything to the right of you is "right wing."

[Two Americas]

44. no, just your opnions

I am talking about your opinions. Only about 10% of the population are right wing, and they are found in both parties. By "right wing" I mean giving capital the higher consideration in government than labor. That is incompatible with anything that can be accurately described as left win politically. Promoting the interests of labor, the many, the working people = the Left. Promoting the interests of capital, the few, the wealthy = the right. Would you deny that historically this has always been the case? would you deny that this is the most important distinction? Are you denying that politics has always been about power and economics?

If you want to re-define terms, that is fine with me. I am advocating ideas, not labels and loyalties nor cheering on my team or something. My ideas, I believe, will stand on their own no matter what you want to call them or where you want to place them on your imaginary spectrum, as illustrated by various personalities.

Of course, everything to the right of anyone's opinions would be to the right of their opinions, would it not? That sort of goes without saying.

"You are calling people to the right of you to the right of you!" is hardly a refutation of what I am saying.



...

[wyldwolf]

45. everything to the the right of you is "right wing." It comes out in your posts

[Two Americas]

46. where are we going with this?

I don't care what people "are" I am talking about the ideas they are promoting.

Yes, I think the party has drifted to the right, and I think there is a small but domineering and aggressive minority here always promoting that and trying to obscure the issue and provoke and confuse people. If that is what you see "coming out in my posts" then you are right.

There is a very narrow set of ideas that I characterize as "right wing." I don't throw that around casually, and have absolute confidence that I can support and defend that.

[wyldwolf]

47. ok, you consider "the ideas they are promoting" to be "right wing"

No real difference in THEY, themselves, being right wing and THEIR IDEAS being right wing. You're still assigning your world view to the Democratic party.

[Two Americas]

55. not at all

I am not "assigning my world view to the Democratic party." I agree with you that it has moved far to the right.

The difference between "THEY, themselves, being right wing and THEIR IDEAS being right wing" is this: politics is not something we "are" - not a personal identity, it is what we think and say and do. Also, the former is talking about the messenger and the second about the message. For both reasons, there is all the difference in the world between the two. If we accept that a person "is" their politics, that political ideas are an identity and can be assessed that way, and that there is no difference between discussing the message and discussing the messenger, that creates the only and only context within which right wing ideas can successfully be promoted among rank and file Democrats. I reject that attempt at creating a biased context for the discussion.

The context you are trying to create allow people to be accused of "being" this thing called "far leftists" and who knows what, and so to have their ideas dismissed upon that basis without being given a fair and honest hearing - because of their supposed identity, determined by name-calling and fear-mongering by you. That precludes any but right wing ideas from being given consideration and does us all a disservice.

I have to assume that resorting to these tactics is an indication that there is no legitimate argument to make in defense of your views that would have much chance of getting any agreement from people here. Otherwise you would make it. I welcome any such argument. myself. The more things are clear and out in the ipen, the better, and then people can calmly make up their own minds without being badgered or driven.

[Clintonista2]

67. Bad troll is bad

[Zhade]

52. LEFT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, keep lying to yourself. Your politics have been repudiated.

[wyldwolf]

59. PROGRESSIVES WIN? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

While you think a man in his late 60s stepping down from the DLC is a "progressive" victory, Howard Dean was replaced as DNC chairman by a DLCer.

Oh, keep lying to yourself. Your politics have been repudiated.

[tkmorris]

63. You're dithpicable

/Daffy

[Beacool]

50. I'm a moderate.

I see certain things that are good on both sides of the political spectrum.

I have lived in various countries and I abhor extremisms, whether it be RW military juntas or LW repressive governments like Chavez in Venezuela.

x(

[Zhade]

54. I'm a moderate as well. Being mislabeled "far left" by idiots who wouldn't know the true meaning...

...of that word doesn't change that fact.

(I'm not calling YOU an idiot, btw.)

[Beacool]

56. Thanks...............I think.

LOL!!!

:7

[Two Americas]

57. serious question Beacool

Everything the right wing and the Republican party does, as well as their enablers and cooperators and apologists in the Democratic party, is consistent with the view that they relentlessly and ruthlessly advance the interests and desires of the wealthiest few, while attacking and destroying public resources, infrastructure and all protections for workers, consumers, and communities.

Given that, regardless of whether or not there are "certain things that are good on both sides of the political spectrum" why would any of us, unless we are independently wealthy or connected to power, support the political right?

RW military juntas or LW repressive governments are about authoritarianism and tyranny, and have little if anything to do with the political left and right. However, I would say that the more pure the right wing ideology, the more likely the regime will be authoritarian and tyrannical - it is almost a certainty. But left wing governments of all sorts are possible.

Totalitarian regimes that are nominally left wing do not represent extreme leftism, they represent extreme totalitarianism. On the other hand, even the most benign right wing regime will always be inherently oppressive to most of the people, since that is their aim.

Of course we are continually bombarded by propaganda about this here, and so there is s double standard. One bad left wing regime is used to discredit all left wing ideas, while hundreds of bad right wing regimes are not sufficient to invalidate any right wing ideas.

So when left wing ideas come up, it is a short time before we hear about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. We don't hear about Sweden, we don't hear about the English tradition of traditional cooperative communal farming communities, we don't hear about Abolition, the Civil Rights movement, the organized Labor movement. On the other hand, hardly anyone starts talking about Mussolini when right wing ideas are expressed, let alone talking about the hundreds of right wing dictatorships around the work in the last 100 years.

This is clear and obvious and bears repeating: one bad example of a left wing regime is sufficient to discredit ALL left wing ideas, but hundreds of examples of bad right wing regimes does not discredit any right wing ideas.


...

[AirBaud]

21. perhaps in this dream world, our President will give Howard Dean a sniff of a cabinet post.

That is, if my man Rahm even lets him on the long list.

LOL.

[PassingFair]

24. They're not going away, and we haven't won anything.

Since when is someone handing the reins
to his "longtime protege" considered a
"shake-up"?

The DLC has been absorbed into the
Obama Administration.

We can probably kiss any meaningful
legislation good bye, as the first
order of business will be to ensure
corporate profits.

Sigh.

[alwysdrunk]

29. Keep dreaming pal

D, R, or I, moderates are the majority in this country and will be for a very long time. Moderates control who gets elected and who stays elected.

[Zhade]

53. The DLC aren't moderates. Hence, your argument fails.

NT!

[Two Americas]

58. "moderate"

There is no such thing as "moderate." The right wing, on behalf of their wealthy and powerful clients, is waging all out war against the people. So-called "moderation" in response to that is appeasement, compromising, and caving.

We would not be "moderate" in the case of murder, and "try to see both sides." Moderation would still mean that one person is killed and the other one walks. The results are no different then of we overtly supported the murderer.

Moderation is expressed by people for reasons of social comfort and status. They don't want to be ostracized for being seen as "radical." It makes for pleasant social chit chat. Also, it is a hidey hole to avoid taking a stand or making any commitment to anything, while still appearing to "care."

[Zhade]

48. Wow, I'm offline for a few days and this blows up!

We still win, DLCers. Bite me.

[wyldwolf]

60. you must be desperate for manufactured imagined victories

while Al From, a man in his late 60s, steps down and turns the reigns over to Bruce Reed, one of Rahm's best buds, Howard Dean gets canned from the DNC and is replaced by a DLCer!

[depakid]

61. Yep- Go team!

and keep up with those dysfunctional and corrupt DLC/Republican policies!

[Two Americas]

62. no one disputes this

No one disputes that the conservatives in the party are winning.

[wyldwolf]

66. Apparently the Zhade does

[Two Americas]

69. hope springs eternal

The political system is not stable, and with the increasing crisis the people will be rejecting - have rejected - the bipartisan Reaganomics politics. Events will drive the party to the Left.

[mvd]

68. But when the DLC has to "think anew," maybe there's some progress

Even the DLC, after the Bush recession, knows that a big stimulus and spending are needed.

[Two Americas]

70. large forces at play

There is a massive political shift to the left going on. The politicians, then the chattering minions, then the relatively upscale political observers represented here, are all behind the curve and slow to respond.