Okay here are two pieces that came from the DLC websites. One critising Dean (what's new) for
WRONGLY suggesting in his speech that
some parts of the Democratic establishment want to move the party to the right and be more like the GOP.
The second in a letter from Al From detailing ways in which the party should (wait for it) MOVE TO THE RIGHT and be more like the Republicans in order to win.
The Dean Shadow Box
Today former Gov. Howard Dean gave his big speech in Washington on the future of the Democratic Party, presumably as the first public shot in his campaign to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
He said Democrats should compete in all 50 states. That's right.
He said Democrats should proudly proclaim their values. That's right, too.
He said grassroots organizing and small-donor fundraising will help Democrats win. Yep, no doubt about it.
He said Democrats should stand for universal access to health care, fiscal responsibility, strong public schools, retirement security, a strong national defense, and above all, an agenda of reform, reform, reform. I couldn't agree more.
But before he said all those things I agree with, he did an odd bit of shadow-boxing:
"Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.... if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. We cannot win by being 'Republican-lite.' We've tried it; it doesn't work."
Maybe I've spent too much time travelling around those states Governor Dean says we're going to take back, but I haven't heard anybody arguing that we should "be more like Republicans." Who is Dean talking about? Zell Miller?
And who, exactly, tried "Republican-lite" and lost a presidential election? Is he talking about his friend Al Gore, who endorsed his candidacy in 2004? Is that his take on John Kerry's campaign? On one occasion during the nomination contest, and more notably in his recent book, Dean pretty much accused Bill Clinton of the "Republican-lite" heresy. But even if you buy that notion, which would offend most rank-and-file Democrats coast-to-coast, Clinton kinda won, didn't he? Twice.
I understand why the Doctor needed an intra-party dust-up for his primary campaign, but it might be time for him to throw out that stock speech and focus on the future. If there are specific matters of principle, strategy or policy we need to fight about, let's get specific about it. But if we don't need to fight, let's unite.
Maybe this guy should have read Al From's, his boss, plan detailing how the party should move to the right before he wrote this article for the DLC Blog.
Most voters in red states think we Democrats look down on them for worrying about the moral direction of the country. They have no idea that we might be concerned about it, too.
The result? Millions of Americans voted against their own economic interest. Of the 28 states with the lowest per-capita incomes, Bush carried 26. An administration whose overriding motive has been to protect the rich was just given a second term by the very people who will suffer the most for it.
Such a walloping has serious consequences down the ballot, as well. Because so many voters in red states reject the Democratic brand out of hand, we lose Senate races in those states even when we have clearly superior candidates.
We can crack the cultural code; we've done it before. When Clinton offered progressive ways to solve problems that Republicans only talked about -- like crime, welfare, and family values -- he got through to millions of middle-class Americans who'd been tuning out Democrats for years.
We can't let those hearts be closed to us again. First and foremost, we need to bridge the trust gap on national security by spelling out our own offense against terrorism and clearly rejecting our anti-war wing, so that Republicans can no longer portray us as the anti-war party in the war on terrorism. We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents nor defines our party.
We need to lead, not follow, in the family values debate, by pressing our own ideas to give parents more tools to protect their children from a coarsening culture, hold absent fathers accountable for support, and enable parents to spend more time with their families.* Rather than embracing Hollywood values, we need to hold the entertainment industry accountable* for its part in promoting an environment that makes it so tough for parents to raise their kids.
Instead of scoffing at Bush's faith-based agenda, we could fight for a stronger safety net in which both government and religious groups do more. Even as we oppose a federal amendment to take away the states' right to define marriage, we can do more than Republicans would ever dream of to reward marriage by helping young couples own a home and start saving for college and retirement.
One of Clinton's great achievements was to put our government back in line with our values. After years of hearing politicians talk about fiscal responsibility, he forced Washington to live by it. Now, politicians have returned to their old ways -- led by Bush, who promised a "responsibility era," then failed to veto a single spending bill, even as the growth of domestic expenditures tripled. As John Edwards said during an address to the Democratic Leadership Council, "Mr. President, if you're not going to use that word 'responsibility,' we'd like to have it back."
If we're looking for a values issue that speaks to the forgotten middle class across the cultural divide, we also should go after Bush's other war -- the war on work. Democrats should offer a tax reform plan as ambitious in rewarding work as Bush's disastrous plan was in protecting wealth.
Above all, like so many of our most successful leaders, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Clinton, we must be willing to speak the rich language of faith, which can move mountains. It's not a matter of quoting Scripture; the key is to make clear that our policies are animated by principles, not focus groups. Remember that values -- not programs -- move nations.
Yeah, I wonder too where Dean got this C R A Z Y notion that the DLC wants to move the party to the right???