The DLC's position on Iraq.

[MGKrebs]

This from the latest email from NDOL. In order to avoid breaking any rules here, I will have to let members draw their own conclusions about this, except for one item here:

"But the president can't bring himself to acknowledge that his claims about WMD were wrong...Why can't the president acknowledge the error (which was made not just by our intelligence services, but by everybody else's)..."

I think this is patently false. I believe that France has already stated, and Germany and Russia presumably agree, that their intelligence showed no imminent threat, and therefore, by implication, no WMD's to be concerned about. THAT'S WHY THEY OPPOSED THE ATTACK.

OK, here's the rest...

"... and make the point that Saddam's defiance of U.N. mandates, the long-range threat he posed, and his gross violations of human rights fully justified the war?"

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Boo hiss!

to the DLC

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Welcome to the one-party state.

[MGKrebs]

3. I don't want to paint all DLCers with the same brush,

but since we don't know who writes this stuff (it's unsigned), we don't have much choice.

In any case, as a dues paying Democrat, I consider Will Marshall an enemy. I disagree with "centrists", but I recognize their place in the Dem party. However, I cannot fit support for a unilateral, pre-emptive invasion against a virtually defensless country with manufactured justification after the fact into MY perception of progressivism.


edit to clarify: "unilateral pre-emptive invasion"

[redqueen]

4. Who cares?

We still have playstations and McDonalds. Let the most marketable 'democrat' win!

:eyes:

[HereSince1628]

5. And this from the DLC that we must have in order to beat Bush...

Boy, they sure make party unity an easy concept to adopt.

[ulysses]

6. "the DLC that we must have..."

Do we? As many moderates/centrists as see the value in signing on, sure, but the DLC?

[HereSince1628]

7. so said Dr. Dean sunday on MTP

I am not making that up.

I really dislike the DLC, but I don't have any idea of how to get rid of it without radical reform of the party. Reform that would eliminate superdelegates.

[ulysses]

8. ah hell.

C'mon, Howard. That's why I don't watch the talking head shows on Sundays - it hurts when my head explodes.

The DLC is...I'm trying to think of the appropriate medical analogy. Virus? Cancer? Parasite? As to curing ourselves of the disease, I had hopes that Dean's proof that corporatism wasn't the only route to raising money as a Democrat would at least be a start, but maybe not. They're not going to go away without a prolonged fight, that much is certain.

[HereSince1628]

11. They are the plot to a bad sci-fi movie "Invasion of the Party Snatchers"

[Selwynn]

9. Remember DLC and DNC are not the same thing

Yeah yeah, I know I know, the DNC has its own issues, and the DLC wants to be (and in some people's minds effectively is) the DNC, but still... :)

[MGKrebs]

10. Dean's got more superdelegates than anyone.

deleted the rest because it was wrong and stoopid.

[K-W]

12. The DLC take a good idea too far.

In every spectrum of belief there will be extremes. The problem is that for whatever reasons this group on the extreme conservative end of our spectrum has gained too much power in our party... which is interesting in a time when the extreme conservative end of the republican spectrum is in control of their party. I suppose that with the republicans maintaining the cohesion of conservatives this is just a natural response.

[HereSince1628]

13. Its really just a flaw in human nature playing out, again.

It may be a more common flaw in conservative personalities who tend to better accept asymmetries of authority than liberals, but I think it can strike anywhere along the political spectrum.

To really be a DLC'er, and not just a contributor to the new democrats, you have to be an elected democrat or a leader in the community. That is to say you already have to have acquired at least a fingerhold on the reins of power. Folks in power don't want to give it up.

They often don't even want to share it fairly, which is why 12,000 New Hampshire democrats voted for every one convention delegate, which sort of equates each superdelegate from New Hampshire to being worth 12,000 rank and file democrats.

That's not very democratic. It can't be justified without invoking elitist notions that elected officials are somehow better or more important than the rest of us.