Has your opinion of the DLC changed over the last few years?

[kentuck]

The DLC were at their apex during the Clinton years. They were the moderates, who criticized the left for losing election after election for the Democrats. They were the moderates that believed Democrats had to play to the center, even though the center kept moving farther and farther to the right. They bragged that they were able to get Clinton elected twice, the first time a Democrat was elected two terms since FDR.

The most liberal wing of the Party went along with the DLC on just about every issue. They made no demands on the Party. They asked for no special favors. They voted for the Party - no questions asked. Al From shook like jello - from his delight and glee.

Was the DLC correct? Do we need to play to the Republican "middle" in order to win elections? After all that has transpired over the last 7 plus years, are we still willing to compromise our principles further? Otherwise, we have no chance of winning? Do you still agree with the DLC?

[lonestarnot]

1. Hell NO! to the last question.

Screw the piglicons!

[Warpy]

2. It started at utter disgust and has not budged.

They're Eisenhower GOP, decent enough but dead wrong about the party and its people.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. I've become less acrimonious . . .

. . . as the DLC has become less relevant.

[Cerridwen]

4. No. Neither has my opinion of Clinton - he or she. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I have never agreed with the DLC

They were formed to quiet (combat?) the populist segment of our party. That has always bothered me. Democrats are populists.

Republicans manage to stick to their principles and unite as a party. It has been only recently (since worst president ever) that they have had dissension among their ranks. But they are still better at herding together than Democrats are.

Our party would be better off WITHOUT the DLC. Felt that way when they were first formed and still feel that way today.

[Fovea]

6. Angrier, yet more full of pity.

As I watch them take their candidate from inevitability to debacle. And actually help McCain.

[varelse]

7. well, yes actually

before I started lurking here, I didn't know the DLC existed. Now, I am not only aware of them, but also strongly opposed to their influence on my former political party. Thanks, DU, for the education :)

[parasim]

8. Nope. Never agreed with them.

If anything, my opinion has gotten more deep seated. So, yeah, my disdain for the DLC has increased. I guess that could be considered a "change".

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Few Years.... usually means two

I've been on to their shit after the
2000 election.

[LordJFT]

10. I dislike the DLC and what they're doing to our party

but had I been old enough to understand these things in the early 90s I might have felt it was what the party needed.

[sharesunited]

11. Accept them for what they are

and what they can do to help. They are the sunday dress up clothes we wear to visit our nation's capital.

[magellan]

13. They do nothing to help

Unless you believe compromising away the core values of the Democratic Party is "help".

Sunday dress? I'd wear my cheap, holey, patched jeans and a ratty old t-shirt to the capital. I can't afford better now, and even if I could I wouldn't dress better on a visit there. I have ZERO respect for our government, and the DLC is partly to blame.

[madfloridian]

12. I believe they are the third party.

I believe they are stirring the pot in this primary. I believe they have already set the policies, the plans, and have their agenda set.

They are quieter about it now than when they were having press conferences saying Dean would not be the candidate.

But they are there, and they are the third party. We can build the one we have left, or we can give up to them.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1915

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1883

[kentuck]

14. Now that's a scary thought...

Because it may be true?