Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 08/02/2005 View Mon 08/01/2005 View Sun 07/31/2005 View Sat 07/30/2005 View Fri 07/29/2005 View Thu 07/28/2005 View Wed 07/27/2005
1
2005-08-02 Home Front: Politix
Democratic Leadership Council -- picture of future is grim
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 The Howard Dean wing of the party and the DLC are mortal enemies.
Posted by gromky">gromky  2005-08-02 02:33|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/]  2005-08-02 02:33|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 03:14|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 03:30|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 05:50|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 08:52|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 09:04|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 09:59|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 10:08|| Front Page Top

#9 the problem with the democrats is they have no convictions.
Posted by 2b 2005-08-02 10:44||   2005-08-02 10:44|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 11:04|| Front Page Top

#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">Deacon Blues  2005-08-02 12:03||   2005-08-02 12:03|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 12:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 12:16|| Front Page Top

#14 amen - dreadnought.
Posted by 2b 2005-08-02 12:23||   2005-08-02 12:23|| Front Page Top

#15 To: DLC
From: Captain Obvious

Duh!
Posted by Scott R">Scott R  2005-08-02 13:20|| http://five24.net]">[http://five24.net]  2005-08-02 13:20|| Front Page Top

#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">Deacon Blues  2005-08-02 13:24||   2005-08-02 13:24|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 13:35|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 13:49|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 14:00|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 14:35|| Front Page Top

#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">Deacon Blues  2005-08-02 14:35||   2005-08-02 14:35|| Front Page Top

#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">Robert Crawford  2005-08-02 14:45|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-08-02 14:45|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 14:49|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 14:52|| Front Page Top

#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 ">Frozen Al  2005-08-02 14:52||   2005-08-02 14:52|| Front Page Top

#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||   2005-08-02 15:17|| Front Page Top

#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">Barbara Skolaut  2005-08-02 15:23||   2005-08-02 15:23|| Front Page Top

#28 Hear, hear, #12 2b!
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2005-08-02 15:26||   2005-08-02 15:26|| Front Page Top

23:59 JosephMendiola
23:59 AgentProvocateur
23:54 Jackal
23:51 Bomb-a-rama
23:49 Mike
23:42 Red Lief
23:39 Bomb-a-rama
23:38 Sock Puppet 0’ Doom
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:27 AzCat
23:14 BigEd
23:11 Rafael
23:10 Ernest Brown
23:04 trailing wife
23:03 Captain America
22:48 BigEd
22:42 Rafael
22:41 Captain America
22:38 Raj
22:32 Zhang Fei
22:29 jn1
22:25 Robert Crawford
22:17 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com