Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The DLC is coming apart at the seams on escalation

By

Pop quiz: who was it that

called Tuesday for Congress to block funding for additional troops in Iraq…

…[and] said the nation needs to let Bush know that he doesn’t have a blank check for the war.

“I think it’s one way of absolutely putting that on the table,” … “Mr. President, you don’t have a blank check. Congress basically made a mistake by giving him a blank check at the beginning of this process. Now they are basically saying you don’t get a second blank check.” …

“I think the country has found its voice,” … “Unfortunately, I don’t think the president is listening to it.” …

“There is more than one way to support the troops,” … “One way to support them is by not putting more of them in harms way.”

Ted Kennedy?  Dennis Kucinich?

Nope — it’s Tom Vilsack, outgoing Governor of Iowa, candidate for President, and chair of the “centrist” Democratic Leadership Council. 

Wow, so I guess the DLC is taking the anti-escalation position, huh?  No funding for additional troops without Congress’s say-so, just like Ted Kennedy proposed yesterday?

Not so fast — here’s Will Marshall, one of the DLC’s founders, head of the DLC’s Progressive Policy Institute, and “editor at large” of the DLC magazine “Blueprint”:

“Conventional wisdom says that presidential candidates who want to be responsible on this are going to hurt themselves with the angry, impassioned activist left,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. “But the activist left is out of sync with the American public. Americans don’t want to concede this is a total debacle.”

Will, meet Tom.  Tom, meet Will.  You guys seriously need to get your story straight.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Sounds like Will Marshall is out of sync with the American public, if this poll is to be believed:

    <

    p>

    “As you may know, the Bush Administration is considering a temporary but significant increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Would you favor or oppose this?”

      Favor Oppose  Unsure

      % %   %   1/5-7/07  36   61   3

    <

    p> 

  2. In the past, the DLC has been able to triangulate by effectively being Republicans.  They went after the “Middle” by being one angstrom to the left of the Republicans (who have been pretty danged far to the right!), and crying that the titular Republicans were extremists.  Essentially, the DLC triangulated by espousing policies that were to the right of traditional Republican policies (e.g., compare Mr. Clinton with Ike).

    <

    p>
    Times are changing.

    <

    p>
    We The People have awoken from our many years of slumber, and we’re tired of the current Republicans – they are a failed party of crazies and crooks with an insane ideology.  The smart DLCers, like Vilsack and Mrs. Clinton, will now pretend to be Democrats – although Mrs. Clinton’s apalling voting record may trip her up.  The dumb DLCers will continue to think that they are merely Republicans who call themselves Democrats.

  3. Will Marshall has always been closely tied to the neo-cons on Iraq (that’s not even centrist Republican). He served on the board on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) . The group was basically formed to convince congress to invade Iraq.  The man has absolutely no credibility.

    <

    p>
    Here’s some background from from Right Web.

    <

    p>

    The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) was set up in late 2002 by Bruce Jackson, a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and former Lockheed Martin vice president. Shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, CLI closed shop, announcing on its website: “Following the successful liberation of Iraq, the committee has ceased its operations.”

    In an interview with the American Prospect’s John Judis, Jackson spoke about the genesis of CLI. He recounted how acquaintances in the Bush administration asked him prior to the Iraq invasion if he could replicate the success he had had pushing for NATO expansion through his U.S. Committee on NATO by establishing an outfit aimed at supporting the administration’s campaign to convince Congress and the public to support a war. “People in the White House said, `We need you to do for Iraq what you did for NATO’,” Jackson said (American Prospect, January 1, 2003).

    Although the CLI’s advisory panel included several hardline Democrats such as former Rep. Stephen Solarz and former Sen. Robert Kerrey, it was dominated by neoconservatives and Republican Party stalwarts like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, Newt Gingrich, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and James Woolsey. Serving as honorary co-chairs were Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ).

    According to analyst Jim Lobe, CLI seems to have been a PNAC spin-off that consisted mainly of neoconservatives and heavy-hitters from the Christian Right “whose public recommendations on fighting President George W. Bush’s `war against terrorism’ and alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the second intifada have anticipated to a remarkable degree the administration’s policy course.”

  4. From same LAT story

    <

    p>

    For now, Democratic leaders are navigating the political crosscurrents by loudly criticizing Bush’s troop buildup plan while sidestepping questions about the alternatives.

    <

    p>
    It seems like if D’s really wanted to halt the Bush plan to add 20,000, they’d unite around an alternative, no? 

    <

    p>
    Reid and Pelosi don’t seem to want to spend in-party political capital to nail an alternative down. 

    <

    p>
    Instead, they’ve greenlighted every D to freelance (position themselves for future), knowing the “Don’t expect a single alternative vision to come from Dem Congressional leadership” is tantamount to ensuring that the escalation DOES happen. 

    • the press spiel on this.

      <

      p>
      When it comes to stopping a surge, the press line is, “Democrats in Congress aren’t in charge and can’t stop war policy, which is the responsibility of the White House.”

      <

      p>
      When it comes to the entire strategy, the press line is, “Democrats in Congress are the ones responsible for coming up with an alternative.”

      <

      p>
      Which is it? I’m confused.

      • The President does set the policy.

        <

        p>
        Opposing that policy is all well and good. But opposing it reflexively, offering no realistic alternative, is weak.

Archives