http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...30728/pl_nm/politics_democrats_dc_1&printer=1 Moderate Democrats Warn Party on 2004 Prospects Mon Jul 28, 4:52 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo! By David Morgan PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A group of centrist Democrats who helped elect Bill Clinton (news - web sites) to the White House warned on Monday that the Democratic Party will lose the 2004 presidential election unless it can win over suburban voters who feel the party has become too liberal. In language critical of left-leaning positions, the Democratic Leadership Council urged party leaders to avoid policies that voters may associate with big government and special-interest groups, including labor unions. "The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left," U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, the group's chairman, told reporters at a two-day DLC convention here. "If we want to govern, we have to offer the American people more than just nostalgia and more than just criticism." The council released the results of a survey by former Clinton pollster Mark Penn that showed President Bush (news - web sites) as vulnerable on domestic issues including the economy, health care, the federal deficit and education. But the poll of 1,225 "likely 2004 voters" conducted June 20 to July 1 also said Democrats faced a huge challenge attracting voters from suburban families -- clear majorities of whom were seen to criticize the party as too liberal, beholden to special interests and out of touch with mainstream America. "The poll is very clear for those who think that if the Democratic Party just lurched to the left and showed a higher flash of anger, that they would somehow win the next election," Penn said. "This poll puts a laugh to that theory." The DLC has tried for years to push the party away from the liberal agendas of past nominees such as George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. In 2000, it criticized former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites)'s unsuccessful campaign for being too populist and abandoning some of the pro-business themes that helped elect Clinton. In May, the group trained its sights on former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, criticizing the White House hopeful for his anti-war rhetoric and other positions it castigated as self-interested liberalism. "Democrats are only going to win in 2004 if we make very clear to the American people that we're tough on national security, that we're tough on economic growth and that we have a better alternative for the country," said DLC President Bruce Reed, the former Clinton domestic policy advisor.
It looks like some people are being scared off by the Liberal Label that's been attached to Dean. As has been mentioned in another thread he's pro death penalty, anti-gun control, cut income taxes in his own state, balanced the budget and paid down part of the state's debt. I understand the worry about 2004, but I think if Dean were to get the nomination there would be plenty of opportunity for him to dispel the myths.
The Democrats need someone liberal on social issues and strong (and credible) on national defense and balancing the budget. I'm still looking.
Oh, lord... you're bringing back bad memories! I didn't like Dukakis either. Democrats need a strong candidate, and almost as important, someone who can raise boat-loads of money. Bush will set yet another record with the bankroll he'll have available. And why not? It's been like Christmas for big business and special interests. They see who will butter their bread. The Democrats need someone who can wake up the middle class to the fact that they have been raped by the Administation's policies, as have our armed forces and their families. (that last comment REALLY pi**es me off... at a time like this, the families of our servicemen and women are living like the lower classes. It's disgraceful)
All this is some classic "disinformation" like the kind that liberals always accused Reagan of spreading. It's their little way of making the Republicans overconfident so their base will not be as energized. If you can't energize your base, you can't get elected. It's quite clever if you ask me. Why else would they let such damning information surface in a media they largely control?
Wrong on so many levels. This is not a statement from the party. It's a statement from the DLC. And it's a somewhat desperate one. They're in danger of losing control of the party. As Dean surges, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards and Graham have to play to the base. This is the opposite of the DLC strategy and philosophy, which, simply stated, is to move the party to the center by adopting pro-business, pro-strong military positions and downplaying the traditional Dem platform. The evidence of their desperation, during this fight for the soul of the party, is that no presidential candidates want to appear at or be aligned with the DLC, whose strategies were soundly thwarted in the 02 elections. Lieberman is the perfect DLC candidate. See his polling or fundraising numbers to see how well the DLC's playing with Dems these days. As for the charge that this is 'damning information,' well, that's just silly. No one's even paying attention to the race right now, let alone conversations within the party, and even if they were, this is pretty vanilla stuff. The real story here is that Dean has made the DLC so nervous that they actually called him out by name -- a pretty serious gamble. If he wins (and as unlikely as that may have sounded a month ago, it's a serious possibility now), they're way out in the cold. He'll still pay them polite lip service and attend their events, but he doesn't forget an affront and that was a serious one.
p.s. It's not disinformation at all and I can't even imagine why you would think that. It's not even surprising. It's exactly the intra-party discussion they should be having right now and it's exactly the discussion that's been predicted since the 02 elections. It's not a strategy -- it's an honest debate. And for those of you who think this somehow presents a divided front, which would help Republicans, that's wrong too. This is what primary seasons are supposed to be like for the party out of power. The only surprise here is Dean's strength and the DLC naming him. And even that's not a biggie. If anything, it helps him.
I agree with you here, Batman, but I think Gore lost the 2000 election. If he had been any kind of campaigner, it wouldn't have come down to Florida and the effect of Nadir and the Green Party. I don't like Lieberman... he was another mistake of Gore's, imo. And still another was not having Clinton campaign for him. Let's face it... Gore may have made a good President, certainly lightyears ahead of the guy in there now, but as a candidate he was abysmal. And as much as you may dislike the DLC, they helped get Clinton elected and, except for his personal piccadillos and some mistakes here and there, I think he was a damn fine President. Shoot me.
The DLC is no more a "centrist" organisation than Greenpeace or ACT UP. It is a political "laundromat" that membership supposedly washes one of the stench of liberalism, a stench that makes any candidate unelectable. Clinton and Gore, prominent DLC Dems, are no more "centrist" than say Dean. They're all liberals, regardless of what little party organization they belong to. And it is too a well-engineered plot to engender overconfidence in the GOP. Can you not see how it would have that effect? How can you say the DLC was a "centrist" organisation. Let's see.....Clinton/Gore, DLC Democrats did......... 1. Gutted the defense budget and hamstrung our intel services 2. Raised taxes (the largest tax increase in our history!) 3. Tried (unsuccessfully thank God) to nationalize health care in this country. Wow, that's really some centrist ideas! Sure, Clinton did sign welfare reform, but only after he vetoed it several times and was forced into it. I'm saying that the DLC is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The DLC is no more a "centrist" organisation than Greenpeace or ACT UP. It is a political "laundromat" that membership supposedly washes one of the stench of liberalism, a stench that makes any candidate unelectable. Bama. your first post that made me laugh out loud. BTW were you born and raised in the great Confederate state of Alabama?
bama: Wow, do you ever not have the first idea what you're talking about. If you can call the DLC liberal, I'd hate to know your definition of the center. And if you think this is some kind of strategy, well, you probably think Hillary killed Vince Foster too. Probably with a laser gun. Deckard, I mostly agree with you about 2000. I was talking about 2002. Easy to pin 2000 on Gore and not the DLC. 2002 was the dream DLC strategy (Republican-lite) and they got whipped. As they should. I'd also like to know when a DLC candidate's owed a victory to the DLC. Clinton was a great beta test. He was as good a campaigner as Gore was a lousy one, and I think that had a lot more to do with his success than the DLC. And it's worth noting he is their ONLY success story. I agree Clinton was inoculated by his few extreme right positions (no self-respecting Democrat other than Clinton ever would have signed that draconian welfare reform legislation), but he owed more to charisma than his platform.
glynch, don't go there if that's where I think you're going. bama may be hyperbolic, but he can be thoughtful. I say that as someone who disagrees with him about 90% of the time.
Agreed on both counts, Bob. First memory I have of bama was his incredibly vitriolic response to someone (Tex, maybe?) dissing Alabama. I suggested he tone it down, he took the advice graciously and improved tremendously as a poster. On this issue though he just could not possibly be more wrong. I don't fault his home state at all. Just seems like he's been watching too much Fox News and taking every single bit of it to heart. Not one of his finer moments.
Well, I don't know Fox News too well, but I don't even think they would call this a disinformation conspiracy. Sadly, the best refutation is that non of us Democrats are well-organized enough to pull such a thing off! ...
Come on now, draconian? It was very sensible legislation which has had good results, and has not been the disaster many predicted. Even the NYTimes is having trouble spinning it. Anyways, on the topic, I always feared Dean the most. He's likeable, charismatic, direct, energizes the base (which at the same time makes him less beholden to their demands) and not all that liberal as some have pointed out. I would much rather have Kerry as the Democratic candidate. He may look good on paper, but I don't think he would get it done.
Hey, I have to edit my post because I put '02 when I meant 2000. And I really agree with you about why Clinton won his campaigns. I think the DLC was more instrumental in getting him the nomination in the first place than helping him win. I guess I'm more of a pragmatist in my "old age". I think I'm more liberal than Clinton on many positions... I'm just glad he was in office instead of the alternative. That's how I felt about Gore.. that he was better than the alternative. And the alternative turned out to be far worse than I imagined. I want the party to nominate someone who can win, dammit. I don't want any more Clarence Thomas clones on the Supreme Court.
