Reply #90: My analysis [View All]

[mot78]

'92: Perot helped, but it's possible we coul've won without him. Where the DLC DID help was in states like California and Illinois, which hadn't voted Dem since LBJ, but are now Dem strongholds. Look at how many states we won in '92 because Clinton was cast as "moderate" and compare that to 1988. This is probably the only time when denouncing "liberal" policies was needed, because the Dukakis, or Jerry Brown liberalism was leading us to be non-viable on the Presidential level.

'94: Due to a stronger Repug activist base (ie. Limbaugh) and because a lot of Dems were upset over some Clinton proposals like NAFTA and stayed home. I heard that CLinton's healthcare plan was more Conservative than a plan that Nixon had. Is this true?

'96: Somewhat due to triangulation, more so because of an improving economy. Not to mention uber-insider Bob Dole.

2000: The DLC really didn't do anything, and Al Gore's sucess was by riding Clinton's coat tails.

2002: The DLC and our leaders lost their spine and ran away from national security by letting * set the debate on Iraq. This helped make the war inevitable. If they had just stood up to * in early 2002, and said something like "we have other wars to fight" * wouldn't been able to move us to war. I'm glad Dean is forcing our Congressional leaders to fight back. If Dean hadn't entered this race, Kerry would be as weak as Dukakis in terms of fighting back.

The problem with the DLC is that they're purely a reactive group (in reaction to the Reagan Revolution of the '80s). The last time, in my opinion, that we had a pro-active Democrat was during the '60s, when we had LBJ and two Kennedys. The DLC doesn't care about who's setting the ideological table. Their view of politics is overly pragmatic and short-sighted.