| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democratic Leadership Council -- picture of future is grim |
| 2005-08-02 |
| Edited for new information. Democrats gathered [in Columbus, Ohio] last week and heard an uncomfortable message from DLC founder Al From. Employing statistics from the national census and the 2004 presidential election, From hit his audience, including some 300 elected Democratic officials, with this grim picture of why he believes Democrats need a new act: For every two Americans who say they're liberals, three are conservatives. Democrats lost 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the country last year. Small cities and most suburbs buried the Democratic ticket. Ditto married couples with children. The Democratic vote among the Hispanic population fell 40 percent from 2000. And it collapsed among voters earning more than $40,000 a year. Noting that Sen. John Kerry got a bigger vote among Democrats in losing than Bill Clinton did in winning, From declared that "the Democratic base is not big enough to win. The country is more conservative." How can Democrats win? With a tougher, pro-military stance on security, From said, and a platform that makes sense to both "the working class (labor) and the learning class (information workers and academia). Globalization of work is going to be a big issue over the next 10 years." And to capitalize on dissatisfaction with Washington -- and Bush -- Democrats, From said, must be the party of reform. "Democrats must change," he said. But change could put party unity to a severe test. That was apparent here in the angry reaction of several black participants to the heavy emphasis cultivating the Hispanic vote. For decades Democrats have built their national campaigns around an electoral base that included a heavy black vote. But Hispanics, now the nation's largest minority, are seen increasingly by both parties as a key to electoral success. As From discovered, some blacks see the Hispanic rise as a zero-sum game -- the more Democrats court the Latino vote, the less they're likely to court African-Americans. Mary Flowers, an African-American state representative from Illinois, delivered an impassioned speech warning Democrats they risk losing black voters to Republicans busy courting the black church vote. Some liberals and a few black leaders, notably the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have long been critical of the DLC because of its closeness to corporate America -- the source of much of its money -- and its message that beating up on business is no way to create jobs. For example, Democratic National chairman Howard Dean, a darling of the party's vocal liberals, was a conspicuous absentee. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #28 Hear, hear, #12 2b! |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-02 15:26 |
| #27 #9 2b: "the problem with the democrats is they have no convictions." True, 2b. And they should have some. Starting with Ted Kennedy (vehicular homicide), Kerry (treason), and most of Chicago's pols (vote fraud). You'll notice I'm not holding my breath. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-08-02 15:23 |
| #26 Frozen Al, that is more or less what I'm thinking as well, except I see the far left fleeing the Dems for the Greens. The remaining centrist Dems (call them Dinos) could draw the Rinos out of the Republicans giving them a chance. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-02 15:17 |
| #25 My own suspicion is that the Dems will go the way of the British Liberal party, and be replaced by a new Centrist party. Future elections will be between the centrists and the GOP. Until then, I can't see the Dems winning any national elections. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2005-08-02 14:52 |
| #24 And, oh yeah, DB, by the time I got there, Auburn's "Liberal Arts" programs were full of moonbats. Surprised me greatly to see these professors in small, college town in nowhere Alabama, in addition to all your "rights" groups. Heck, the president of the AU GLBT group lived 2 doors up from me in a dorm. I became very suspicious when he was living there in his senior year, whereas everyone else was freshmen/sophmores and wanted to get out to apartment/house life! Thank God for the Engineering Dept, or else AU would be taken over by moonbats for sure. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-02 14:52 |
| #23 Very true, DB! And, I won't even tell you when I attended Auburn, except to say I was born when you started college. Anyhoo, that's the main difference between Southern Demos and other Demos...the Southern Demos are much more conservative (especially in social issues...abortion, gay "rights", etc.). Look at Zell Miller....to call him a Democrat in light of national political parties is hilarious, so he went and campaigned for Bush. And many who research history will see the Civil Rights Act was basically passed by Repubs (not to say there weren't some bigoted Southern Repubs before that, but Southern Dems don't tend to fall for the socialist tendencies of the national party). Winning 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the union speaks volumes of where the national Demo. party is headed (in addition to their urban cores losing population). |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-02 14:49 |
| #22 What do you think will become of the liberals if they recieve(and from the looks of the 2008 candidates, it's coming) a complete trouncing in the next election? Will they kill themselves, move to canada, or just shut the hell up and live in hatred and loathing? I suspect we'll see a resurgence in the tactics that mdae the Weathermen, Black Panthers, and SLA go down in history. It's not like the left would have to go very far to find information -- their friends in ALF, ELF, Black Block, and ISM have all the information they need. Heck, remember the mobs attacking Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters last year? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-02 14:45 |
| #21 Thanks, 2b, I hope I clarified my position a little. I actually met Ross Perot in 1984 and I was impressed with his ideas at the time. I didn't vote for him because I didn't believe he could win although I wish I had. I couldn't stomach Clinton so I voted for Bush. That is the only time so far when I felt I had no real choice. My feelings during the mid '60s to mid 70's and even now is that Democrats like Byrd and a lot of Southern Democrats opposed equal rights. The influence of the liberal Democrats on the college campuses in the South did make a big difference in the Civil Rights Movement. However they went way to far in pushing a more socialist agenda and pushed the more conservative Democrats into the Republican ranks. I did not start college until 1972, well after High School and a lot of the teachers I had, even at Auburn University, were way too far to the left. They didn't have the even small real-life experience that I and the veterans that were there had but still wanted to tout their moral superiority over us. we just laughed at them. Title IX was enacted at that time and most of us felt it was high time for women's equality. As an example, at that time freshman women were required to live in a campus dormatory regardless of age if they were single. Men were not. after Title IX they were not. The University would have had to require single men to live on campus and would have had to buils a lot more dormatories. I think the split in the Democratic party between conservative and liberal Democrats probably intensified during this period. This is just my opinion from my limited experience of politics during this time. By limited I mean I didn't pay much attention to politics outside the South. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-08-02 14:35 |
| #20 What do you think will become of the liberals if they recieve(and from the looks of the 2008 candidates, it's coming) a complete trouncing in the next election? Will they kill themselves, move to canada, or just shut the hell up and live in hatred and loathing? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2005-08-02 14:35 |
| #19 Deacon makes the argument that even civil rights aren't a legacy of the Donks. I'd agree. In addition to his candid history...I'd say look at the 50s/60s...the Demos were against the Civil Rights Acts back then, and they were passed with the push from the Repubs. Basically, they have nothing, except wanting your money. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-02 14:00 |
| #18 "as did you" not to imply that you voted for Perot - but that you are clearly a person who tried to vote for what you best believed would move the country forward at the time. I believe in the end - it's people like you that move the country forward with your belief that we can do better. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 13:49 |
| #17 interesting post, Deacon. I voted for Perot (blush) because I was tired of GW1's good ol' boy network and couldn't bring myself to vote for the lying Clinton - and well, there was no one else. I naively thought I could make a statement. But who knows, in the long run, maybe I did - as did you. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 13:35 |
| #16 2b, I've given your comment some thought and I have come to the conclusion you are right. Civil Rights is about it. In the 19th Century they were the party of States Rights, which I think is still very much an issue, but they took it to extremes to include the States Rights to legalize slavery. After the Civil War the Democrats enacted all the Jim Crow laws that kept Blacks in virtual slavery while the Radical Republicans tried their best to completely destroy the South which is the reason the South remained the "Solid South" for nearly 100 years after the War. When I became of voting age I was a Democrat because the Southern Democrats, not to be confused with the Dixiecrats, seemed to me to be the strongest on defense and Civil Rights. This was during the late '60s and believe it or not there were a lot of us Southerners who were tired of the "Good Ole Boy" system and were all for equal rights for everyone. It was during the Carter administration that I became disilusioned with the Democratic Party as a whole and the direction it was taking. I believe the extreme liberalization of the Democratic Party is why Republican Governers were elected in States that had not had a Republican Governer since Reconstruction. The South has always been conservative and the Republicans picked up on this and ran candidates who were more conservative than the Democrats. There is still a strong Democratic presence in the South but it consists mostly, in my opinion, of people who were old time Democrats and will never change, the "Acedemic Elite" and their student followers, and what I call the "Gimmie" group, the people who recieve "entitlements". Just my thoughts. I still think the Democratic Party was once great if only for a brief period. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-08-02 13:24 |
| #15 To: DLC From: Captain Obvious Duh! |
| Posted by: Scott R 2005-08-02 13:20 |
| #14 amen - dreadnought. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 12:23 |
| #13 Actually this is the logical endpoint for political parties that are based not on ideology, but on how many snouts you can fit around the trough. The Democrats' only cohesive point is that they all agree that they should have your money. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-08-02 12:16 |
| #12 once great party - pswhaw. You have good posts, Deacon but other than civil rights - great with what? Other than the legacy of great marketing - selling ice to eskimos - I can't see one legacy they are left with except piles of dead skulls in southeast Asia, the decline of independent thought in our Universities, the rise of welfare mothers and children, the scamming of union funds into the pockets of union bosses and corrupt politicians, the undoing of the "melting pot" that made our country the steel of the world and the rise of political correctness with it's self-righteous shaming and blaming and screeching "burn the witch" at the the slightest variation from their texts. They like to pretend they are responsible for "women's liberation" but the birth control pill is responsible for that. color me unimpressed with the "once great party that never was" |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 12:15 |
| #11 "The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court. Howard Dean is such a nutball I can't really tell WHAT the Democrats are for or against. With Hillary talking more like a Republican and Howlin' Howie seemingly calling for a more conservative Supreme Court but opposing any conservative nominee my head hurts trying to sort it all out.The Democrats are fracturing before our very eyes. It's sad that a once-great party has descinded to such lows. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-08-02 12:03 |
| #10 Some liberals and a few black leaders, notably the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have long been critical of the DLC because of its closeness to corporate America -- the source of much of its money -- and its message that beating up on business is no way to create jobs. As opposed to Jesse Jackson's PUSH, whose source of money is corporate America. Of course, his MO is to extort money from corporations by threatening spurious lawsuits and boycotts, not by beating up on them. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-08-02 11:04 |
| #9 the problem with the democrats is they have no convictions. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 10:44 |
| #8 The problem with the Democrat's convictions is that they suck and have been proven not to work. Socialism and handouts don't breed national safty and productiveness. If the Dems really want to get through to the American people, they really need to lay off the nanny state idea. Privatized national health insurance, bulk group policies that non-insured can afford, getting people off welfare with green projects and jobs, etc. All that would appeal to the just left of center Americans that voted for Bush last time. Until they change the communist and socialist plug, they will loose. And I don't think the current leadership (ie Dean) will get it, even if the Republicans hold 90% of the house and senate. They will just spin more conspiracy theories and blame Rove. The Dems need to eject the solidly left leadership and look elswhere for their inspiration. Fred would be a good start. (They are drafting you Fred!) |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-02 10:08 |
| #7 The Democrats should actually stick with their convictions. Changing convictions is foolish and shows you'll do anythign to win. If your party has two sets of convications that means you should split (as the Republicans did when they told Buchanon he was not welcome). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-02 09:59 |
| #6 Joseph - try using the enter key to break your treatise into paragraphs. It'll be easier to read, and therefore, comprehend. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-02 09:04 |
| #5 The Dems will fall back on denial and tactics, like their traditional ballot stuffing in Washington, Wisconsin, and E.Saint Louis. To have a real long term stategy the Dems have to split, those to whom the kinder gentler form of Marxism is still and will remain a religion, and those who want to participate in the American politicial process. The longer the party delays this division, the longer their removal from power will be. However, bet on them to keep to the "we can fool all the people some of the time" strategy for the near future. Wake up day will be when the Reps have 2/3rds of both Houses and the White House, and not a day sooner. |
| Posted by: Angomoger Elmolusing5585 2005-08-02 08:52 |
| #4 I don't read messages WHERE THE CAPS-LOCK KEY GOT STUCK. Smells of inability to reason and argue. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-08-02 05:50 |
| #3 The Dems call themselves "liberal", where somehow universal, Individual- and Society-specific laissez faire & libertarianism = Regulation or Regulatory Centralism/Governmentism. Worse, they don't want to ascribe themselves as either Regulators andor Socialists andor Orientalists/Asianists, etc. despite supp these agendas. "Realism" & "Secular Moralism" & Universal Intellectualism = national/universal dependence on Propaganda & Info Control. As illustrated by Hollywood's on-going penchant for "Reality Shows" and Leftpert movie films, etc. the Dems and Lefties celebrate the "realism" andor "hardness" of life and mortal mankind to QUIETLY/SUBTLELY and PC argue that ORDINARY BEINGS, HOWEVER WELL-MEANING, LIKABLE, OR SKILLED, CANNOT BE TRUSTED, ERGO WASHINGTON DC AND AMERICA NEEDS REGULATION AND MORE REGULATION, CONTROL AND SUPER-CONTROL, SOCIALISM, CENTRALISM AND BUREAUCRACY, FOR RELIABLE AND EFFECTIVE NATIONAL-SOCIAL ORDER AND IMPROVEMENT,and of course the usual "OOOPS, GOP/US-led ergo only GOP/US-blamed". Iff you wanna know the real threat to America from 9-11, listen to LeftRadio, and how AMERICA [ALLEGEDLY] CAN NEVER RETURN TO THE DAYS OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT OR DE-REGULATION, and or how AMERICA CAN PROTECT ITS BORDERS AND CITIES FROM NEW TERROR BY SPENDING MORE ON INTERNATIONAL AID, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENVIRO PROGRAMS, aka the USA unilateraly modernizing the world, and paying for same, sub-aka America and American taxpayers putting out the money without asking questions on how said monies are spent. ITS "SAFETY" AND "SECURITY", ETC. NOT SOCIALISM OR COMMUNISM - THE DEMOLEFT BELIEVES IT AND SOCIALISM WILL WIN BECAUSE THEY'LL PC BETRAY AND LIE TO EVERYBODY ANYWAYS!? THE ONLY THING THE LEFTIES HAVE ARE [DESIRES FOR] US CASUALTIES, POLICY FAILURES/DEFECTS, AND ANTI-US NUKE WAR(S) -WITHOUT PC AND MEDIA-MOVIE PROPAGANDA, THE LEFTIES ARE DUMBFOUNDED TO SAY ANYTHING! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-08-02 03:30 |
| #2 "Democrats must change," he said Al From continued, "We must change our convictions, however we are having trouble getting consensus on which convictions will attract the most voters. Whatever convictions we adopt - they must be different than the convictions we have now. Tommorrow morning, we need to all wake up with a new set of convictions." |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-02 03:14 |
| #1 The Howard Dean wing of the party and the DLC are mortal enemies. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-08-02 02:33 |