Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Site visitor discovers the truth about the DLC

A visitor to this site could not understand why I am against the DLC. She wrote
"Why, in heavens name would you be against DLC?? or does the DLC mean something different than Democratic Leadership Commission(?).
I would think that all democrats would be supporting Democratic Party, even if they do not agree with everything.
ada This was my response.......
Dear AdaZee2247,
Thank you for your comment. I will begin by telling you that I am a democrat. I have supported every democratic candidate since George McGovern when I was only 18. The Democratic party has two fine gentlemen and true democrats in Harry Reid and Howard Dean, but at the same time we have a cancer within the Democratic party that continues to support George Bush and the Conservative Republican agenda. The Progressive wing of the Democratic party wants an end to this war. DLC Democrats only want a change in the way the war is run. DLC Democrats didn't do anything to oppose the bankruptcy law that made the poor even poorer. DLC Democrats make a racist appeal to the southern white male. DLC Democrats like Joe Lieberman are constantly seen on right wing tv programs attacking fellow Democrats and supporting Bush policies. We are not strong enough to fight the Republicans because we have not conquered the cancer within the party that is the DLC.
I would like for you to open your eyes if you are a true democrat. Peace, Claude .....then Ada replied ....
Thank you for responding to my note. Actually, I agree with everything you wrote. Specially about Lieberman, I've always called him a "closet republican. However, if we want to defeat Bush and his Cabal, we must be united. I do not know how we can achieve that, but somehow even DLC must be made to understand how wrong they are. So, I suppose, after all is said and done, I believe you guys are doing the right thing. Thank you

Ada This just shows how many people are not aware of what the DLC stands for (it's the corporate infiltration of the Democratic party). The grassroots Democrat is locked in a power struggle with this cancer. The more people are exposed to the truth the more likely the DLC will become an ineffective relic. Down with the DLC!!!! ...more now than ever.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

[i]The Democratic party has two fine gentlemen and true democrats in Harry Reid and Howard Dean[/i]

That they do. One is a pro-life Democrat who is a bit more conservative than the average DLC member. The other is a former DLC member who governed as a moderate centrist and has shown little philosophical differences with the DLC since.

[i]DLC Democrats didn't do anything to oppose the bankruptcy law that made the poor even poorer.[/i]

Neither did Harry Reid, who you just called a "fine and democrat."

Typically, your anti-DLC rants are full of generalizations, often repeated liberal myths, and void of much fact.

Cch092775 said...

My anti-DLC rants are based on truth, something many conservatives are having problems with these days, especially the one
who illegally occupies the White House. The fact that Harry Reid is pro-life doesn't affect my overall assessment of him. This is just one of issues that we disagree on. I understand that with so many Republicans you MUST follow the Matt Drudge talking points and walk in lockstep. So that is why you are having difficulty understanding my comments about Reid. As for Howard Dean, someone I have actually met. I repeat again he IS a fine democrat. If he was pro-life at one time that doesn't matter. Once we become better informed we are entitled to change our opinions. Sen. Robert Byrd, our most senior senator was at one time a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Today Senator Byrd regrets that fact. He is one of the best advocates for Democratic ideals. Most of the time Mr. Byrd and myself are on the same side of the issues. Even William F. Buckley, a known conservative has my respect. Most of the time Mr. Buckley and I are on opposite sides of the issues but I am sure that if Mr. Buckley were president we would NOT have the enormously expanded government that we have today, nor would be have the cronyism so rampant in the Bush administration today. (Are you going to tell me that is a generalization?) In the 70s the Republicans were different. People like Judge John Sirica put the interests of the country ahead of those of the Republican party. (Are you aware of the late Barry Goldwater's last evaluation of the danger of the Religious Right?)Today's Republicans are so different from those of the 70s. Their measuring stick is loyalty to the unelected president. If we had the Republicans of the 70s in congress today George W. Bush would NOT be president. But Anonymous, this is something you just don't understand. If something is repeated by many different verified sources, it is usually THE TRUTH.