Let me get this straight: you're pissed at the DLC because they linked to an article you don't like? It's about their book for Christ's sakes! They're promoting their product, something this blog is no stranger to. Some of the review might be pure b.s., but it's not a DLC manifesto.
And the DLC doesn't neglect domestic issues. They've slammed the Bush budget and the ridiculous House immigration plan. The reason they're tackling national security issues is because there are many Democrats who feel that national security is a threshold issue. If voters don't believe that Democrats will protect them, it doesn't matter what our plan for education or health care is. The DLC is doing what progressives have been doing since Kerry lost: trying to fix our branding problem. You may disagree with some of their prescriptions, but it's something we need to be talking about.
Tom Carper served in the Navy during Vietnam. Tom Vilsack was an orphan, never knowing his birth parents. Charles Robb, former chair, was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam. Former chair Dave McGurdy was a JAG. Countless other DLC members have served in uniform, and many members do not come from high social status.
Believe it or not, Democrats before Vietnam were pretty hawkish. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy were all true progressives who also believed in a very muscular foreign policy. Truman was not college-educated, and Kennedy was a war hero. The DLC's foreign policy views are pretty much in line with old school Democrats. Their economic principles are not. I think that's because today's economy is so different from the economy of the New Deal Democrats. Isn't is possible that their political philosophy comes from real conviction, rather than selfish greed?
I've heard it said that Democrats need to sell their position by saying that Republicans want to make sure that people like Paris Hilton never have to work for a living. Thus, it's the Paris Hilton Tax.
Agreed! Pelosi and Hoyer have been quite good at whipping House Dems. We've had tremendous party discipline the last couple of sessions. Reid is having problems, but let's face it, the Senate is always harder to whip. Harry's okay, but he's got to impose more discipline, especially in the committees.
Also, I'm fine with a Speaker Pelosi, but don't put her on TV. She sucks at it.
Yeah, I hear you. I guess I just have questions about the strategic objectives of the netroots, not in general, but for the summer of 2006. What's important, and how does that relate to what the party is going for? That's what frustrates me sometimes.
Good point. I'm still coming to grips with what the netroots is about, I guess. I've started to recognize that it is less about being an arm of the Democratic Party and more about changing the Democratic Party. That would explain why it devotes resources to folks like Lamont, while letting the party apparatus take care of the head-to-head races. Not sure if its the best allocation of our capital and resources, but it makes sense.
Cool idea! Sad to say our government is a few decades behind in some technological areas. Ironically, the federal government "invented" the internet, but it doesn't make as much use of it as private firms.
Democrats have a lot to offer in this area. I like the idea of reclaiming "taxpayer outrage" and standing for leaner, more efficient government. It's progress at its best.