You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Centrist Democrats warn liberals
2005-04-04
The Democrats' postelection war about what they should stand for is heating up again, with centrists challenging liberals to "real fights" within the party about staking out a tougher position against terrorism.
In an attack on the party's dominant left wing, anti-war base, and a warning for new Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean "to do no harm," the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council said it is "a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections." Instead, the DLC called on the party to dramatically change its message to "recapture the muscular progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy and convince voters that national security is our first priority." "To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time," said DLC founder Al From and President Bruce Reed in a new manifesto for their party.
Their criticism has been heard many times during the past two decades in their continuing battle against the party's liberal establishment. But this time, they say, it will take a divisive, all-out political civil war to scrub the anti-war orthodoxy out of the party's agenda. "Shoring up our weakness will not come without real debate -- even real fights -- over national security and domestic priorities," they said in the DLC's Blueprint magazine. The sooner these fights take place, the better, they said.
"We should not shy away from them. It's far less important that Democrats come together now than on Election Day. And we are far more likely to be together on Election Day if we battle out our differences now."
In an "open letter" to their party last month, 17 DLC members led by Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Democrats had "to make clear to the American people that winning the war on jihadist extremism will be the Democratic Party's first priority this year and every year until the danger recedes." Although they acknowledged that for many anti-war Democrats "Iraq remains a difficult issue," they said, "It is essential that partisan enmity not obscure America's vital interest in helping the newly elected Iraqi government succeed."
But party liberals last week dismissed the DLC's advice as warmed-over Republicanism. "I can't tell the difference between the positions the DLC puts forward and Republican policy," said Jack Blum, counsel for the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. "I've read this before and I am not carried away by it. Nobody in the Democratic Party, and that most especially includes the liberals in the Americans for Democratic Action, opposes fighting the terrorists."
It's just that they can't decide, other than George Bush, who a terrorist is.
Posted by:Steve

#22  what yoda said. this is really a regional divide between the vermont/NE/left coast 'n' college town crowd and the rest of the country. Martin Frost in TX supported Bush on Iraq and would've made an excellent party chairman. plenty of other western and southern dems who take nat'l sec;y seriously and could lead the party back into the mainstream.

hillary gets it. and keep your eye on phil bredesen.
Posted by: thibaud (aka lex)   2005-04-04 11:58:11 PM  

#21  I think the vote against Rice was more political than anything else; Bayh has been a hawk on almost every other occasion I can think of. Also, in addition to Bayh and Lieberman, Clinton, Landrieu, Pryor, Lincoln, Salazar (I think) and most of the other southern/non-coastal western Democrats are at least relatively hawkish. Certainly as much so as the more moderate wing of the Republican Party (Hagel, Powell, the Sisters Of Maine, etc.)
Posted by: PantslessYoda1   2005-04-04 10:27:30 PM  

#20  It's just that they can't decide, other than George Bush, who a terrorist is.

Oh, they've decided...
Posted by: Pappy   2005-04-04 6:58:00 PM  

#19  An example of Parallax Error. He's so far to the extreme left that he can't tell between center-left and center-right.

Way good. That goes somewhere in the great big binder of Moonbatalogy.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-04-04 6:18:34 PM  

#18  Schism! Schism! Schism!
Posted by: Tkat   2005-04-04 4:48:30 PM  

#17  Didn't Bayh vote against Rice?

And this is one of their "moderates". Feh.
Posted by: someone   2005-04-04 4:45:13 PM  

#16  "I can't tell the difference between the positions the DLC puts forward and Republican policy,"

An example of Parallax Error. He's so far to the extreme left that he can't tell between center-left and center-right.

"Nobody in the Democratic Party, and that most especially includes the liberals in the Americans for Democratic Action, opposes fighting the terrorists."

Oh, no. You simply oppose any method of actually fighting them. But you're cool with the concept.

Come to think of it, I don't even think that is correct. Why don't we poll the members of, oh, the CBC, and ask them about fighting terrorism. Let's ask Cynthia McKinney, re-elected to the House of Representatives as a Democrat. Is her positions less representative of the Democrat mainstream than that of Lieberman or Miller? Is that what you're saying?
Posted by: Jackal   2005-04-04 4:41:35 PM  

#15  A true split in the Democrats might cause a split in the Republicans as centrists Republicans decide if they have more in common with Centrist Democrats or with the Religious right.

More likely than a split would be a defection of Democrats over to the greens, creating three parties. Two week lefties and the Republicans. This will give the Republicans wiggle room to move right because nobody is gonna vote Green in big numbers, they are just too whacked.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2005-04-04 4:32:55 PM  

#14   "a delusion to think that if we just turned out our voters, we could win national elections."

LOL! Deadly honesty. We really need our voters and their greatgrandfathers to vote, unless of course the current voter is black, in which greatgranddad can't vote because we just don't allow that.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-04-04 4:19:41 PM  

#13  "I can't tell the difference between the positions the DLC puts forward and Republican policy,"
... and the lefties dismiss the moderate Dems with a yawn.
Posted by: Dishman   2005-04-04 4:00:02 PM  

#12  Nobody in the Democratic Party, and that most especially includes the liberals in the Americans for Democratic Action, opposes fighting the terrorists.

*snort*

I'd love to hear their definition of "terrorist". I have a feeling they leave out Islamofascists and include Republicans.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-04-04 3:45:03 PM  

#11  A split? I hope so. I'd like at least two viable presidential candidates to choose from next time. If the Dems could do put up a decent anti-terror candidate and learn to embrace capitalistic principles, they would at least have a chance of getting my vote.
Posted by: Jules 187   2005-04-04 3:42:52 PM  

#10  the AOS, like Savoir Faire, ees every whaire!
Posted by: Frank G   2005-04-04 3:38:57 PM  

#9  I like the almost daily rants about the Republican Party falling apart over the latest issue de jour. I don't know a single Conservative that is eager to join the Democrats. Hell even Jeffords stopped at the title Independent and not democrat. It's hysterical for the left to claim that if they only focused on "their message" that voters would flock to them. Just remember we evil NeoCons have to stick together.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-04-04 3:36:31 PM  

#8  I smell a split coming on...
Posted by: mojo   2005-04-04 3:33:33 PM  

#7  Steve beat me to it, complete with the popcorn!
Bwahahaha! The Army of Steve strikes again!
Posted by: Steve   2005-04-04 3:22:40 PM  

#6  "...and convince voters that national security is our first priority."

Shouldn't these posts come with a Coffee Alert?
Posted by: Raj   2005-04-04 3:11:49 PM  

#5  Ahhhhh. Is there any sweeter sound than the "squish" of liberals stomping on leftists?
Posted by: Hyper   2005-04-04 3:10:17 PM  

#4  BigEd -
Is that question limited to only serving and/or alive dems?

Crap....can't think of any alive and serving.
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-04-04 2:55:31 PM  

#3  Outside Joe Lieberman, and Ed Koch, which Dimmidonks really have a true concern for National Security...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-04-04 2:37:33 PM  

#2   Instead, the DLC called on the party to dramatically change its message to..

These guys sound like they still don't understand. It's not a matter of simply changing the message; national security has to be something they actually believe in. Sounding tough but not willing to wield and/or apply the big stick when the time comes to do so is NOT going to fly. Period.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-04-04 2:21:16 PM  

#1  Waaaahhhh! Steve beat me to it, complete with the popcorn!

That's what I get for waiting. Damn work for getting in the way. :-(

Personally, I'm betting on the leftists. They fight nastier.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-04-04 2:12:39 PM  

00:00