The DLC on "The Bush-Hate Debate"

[Khephra]

The Bush-Hate Debate

Earlier this month we commented on a dumb debate within the
Democratic Party that posed a false choice between political
strategies aimed at "energizing the party base" and those aimed
at pursuing the swing voters who typically decide close
elections. You have to do both, we argued. But there's a
parallel, and equally dumb, debate now underway among Democrats
about whether to make exhibitions of anger and personal disdain
towards George W. Bush a litmus test of presidential candidates
and the main theme of the 2004 effort to send the president back
to Crawford.

The New York Times' Robin Toner made this debate one of the main
focuses of her summary of the presidential contest yesterday. And
the cover package of the current issue of The New Republic is
devoted to the same topic (see links below).

The debate is dumb because there is more than enough evidence
about Bush's actual, objective record to build a case for his
retirement that will both energize Democrats and persuade swing
voters. Making white-hot anger towards Bush and his minions the
central thrust of the 2004 campaign threatens to keep Democrats
from making a positive presentation of their own principles and
agenda for governing. It's especially ironic that many activists
who consider themselves the "Democratic wing of the Democratic
Party" are trying to define themselves not by Democratic values
or policy goals, but simply as the polar opposite of whatever
position George W. Bush takes.

The idea that Democrats must choose between Bush-hatred and "Bush
Lite" is simply wrong. The DLC, for example, has excoriated the
circumstances under which Bush gained office; the false promises
he made throughout the 2000 elections; and his domestic and
foreign policies since then -- as often, as thoroughly, and even
as angrily as anyone in the Democratic Party. Our indictment of
the Bush record, as laid out in the current issue of Blueprint
magazine (see link below), is more comprehensive than you can
find in any other Democratic periodical. When he took office, we
accused him of wanting to replace the successful policies of the
1990s with unsuccessful policies from the 1980s. Now we are
convinced he wants to pursue the policies of the 1890s.

more................

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&cont...

[bloom]

1. I think the Candidates should do both ->

Condemn the current administration and provide a positive alternative.

[disgruntella]

2. Makes some good points

"we don't want to indict the American people for their failure to dislike George W. Bush, and we don't want to let Bush control the national political agenda while Democrats simply react negatively to everything he says and does."

I guess I agree with the "evil DLC."

[w4rma]

3. Does this mean the DLC leadership will no longer

describe Democratic activists as "elitists" and "special interests"?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. Hopfully the DLC will sink like the Titanic!

and no the DLC will still describe we activists as "elitists" and
"special interests"! Why don't we talk about the special interests that the DLC is indebted to such as Wall Street????

[CWebster]

9. Well

there are still "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party activists". Wonder who they could be?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. It seems just like yesterday when the DLC

stood up and filed a comprehensive lawsuit againt Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris for disenfranchising over 80,000 voters. It seems just like yesterday...


In a continuing effort to also display annoying, bandwidth-eating photos of my preferred candidate.

[ibegurpard]

6. snarf....

To be fair, however, this seems like somewhat concessionary rhetoric coming from the DLC. I agree that we can't be just about getting rid of Bush...we have to be able to present a REAL, POSITIVE vision of what we are going to do differently. Let's hope they stop with their undercutting and start being more positive.

[MariMayans]

5. they are desperate

The DLC, for example, has excoriated the
circumstances under which Bush gained office; the false promises
he made throughout the 2000 elections; and his domestic and
foreign policies since then -- as often, as thoroughly, and even
as angrily as anyone in the Democratic Party.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

What the F&*$# universe was I living on when the DLC was browbeating everyone they could find that didn't back Bush's Iraq war? I certainly don't remember anything approaching "anger" at Bush's Tax cuts as a matter of fact the only time they sound angry is when they are talking to real live democrats.

[legin]

19. Yep MariMayans

Very good at 'historical revisionism' are the DLC, especially their own. But then they have to be good at something, it's very unusual to suck at everything.

[Bake]

7. I think we can hammer * on the issues

So it's not necessary -- really -- to point out to people yet again how (a) totally f-ing stupid he is (although he IS, and it's hard to resist), or (b) how he continues to mangle the English language (although he DOES, and it too is hard to resist), or (c) how he's nothing but an "allegedly reformed" alcoholic and cokehead.

Really. WE all hate Smirk, but he's given us plenty of material with just the lies about Iraq and the ensuing quagmire, the economy and legacy of lost jobs, lies about the environment (NYC air quality after 9/11), Patriot Act, Halliburton, Enron, etc. etc. ad infinitum. So there's really no need to go hateful/personal. Honest to God. Although it's damn hard to resist.

Bake

[Bandit]

16. Is it also stupid to bring attention to the lies?

This whole thread is DLC Propaganda. They sure stood behind Gore during the 2000 election, didn't they? Bush* deserves to be despised for the crook and fool he is. Doesn't mean a progressive plan can't co-exist but Bush* needs to be held accountable for the lies and theft of our democracy.

[meegbear]

10. Annoy the DLC ...

howard must be proud.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. It never ceases to amaze me

the energy that some people expend on hating people in their own party.

[w4rma]

12. wow!

Are you surprised at yourself, Feanorcurufinwe? I haven't seen you disagree with a single Dean-hating thread or post yet, Feanorcurufinwe. I've seen you post quite a few of them, too.

It never ceases to amaze me the energy that some people expend on hating people in their own party.

[ulysses]

20. the DLC

is not my party.

[Monte Carlo]

13. I think the question is - passion or tedium?

I think that is the biggest problem of the DLC. Despite all this emphasis heaped upon the swing vote, the Democrats have lost their passion in public. Groups like the DLC are so busy courting the swing that they've either forgotten or ignored the base votes that the Democrats have been hemorraging for the past decade.

Dull candidates and lectures about policy are nice, but I'm an average American, I have an attention span of 8 seconds... what I'm I gonna remember: boring tax code policy or a little heated rhetoric?

[library_max]

17. Probably the heated rhetoric

But if you're an average American, you're more likely to vote AGAINST the heated rhetoric than for it.

Nobody ever got elected President of the United States by energizing their base - certainly not in the 20th or 21st Centuries. Reagan, for example, carried a lot of swing voters in 1980 - remember "Reagan Democrats"?

[caledesi]

14. They forgot to mention to vote for Lieberman!

[jonnyblitz]

15. I notice the DLC apologists are also the Clark supporters.

I rarely if ever saw many posts in here supportive of the DLC until now. Interesting.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. And yet...

..the very thing that they are decrying seems to work pretty well for Republicans, who pretty much control the semantics of political debate in this country.

Once more, the DLC shoves its head right up its ass...

[legin]

21. I just read the whole article

They are just so sneeringly patronising, and so utterly superior to us politicaly unsophisticated mere activists, despite the fact that they could not get one fucking thing right if they tried. I hate them. I'm moving to the u.s.