I have two problems with the DLC

The first is that they are patronizing and talk down to me.

The second is that every time something goes wrong they blames the liberals. In 94 they blamed it all on the liberals (although when Clinton's popularity rebounded they had no problem singing the praises of the 93 budget deal, which was largely regarded as the one big win for liberals in the Clinton Administration).

In 2002 we did everything their way, didn't challenge Bush and look what happened. But did they step up and say: maybe we should re-evaluate our own tactics? No. Instead they claimed that everyone lost that year, and John Braux had the nerve to site Walter Mondale as an example. Mondale had six days to campaign and lost because of the so-called funeral rally. The better example from Minnesota was Paul Wellstone, who stood up to Bush and was going to be re-elected--that race was no longer considered a toss-up when Wellstone died. (Although Coleman is in utter denial about that).

And John Kerry did not run as a liberal. His health care plan, which was basically just a tax cut, did not cover everyone. He didn't really talk about the budget deficits (now a liberal issue). And he didn't really repudiate the war in Iraq.

But the DLC will be out there declaring that we ran as liberals and it is all the liberals fault that we lost. Everytime we don't win they scream "liberal, liberal, liberal." Their entire existence is dependent on declaring that there is another side of the party that has failed.

What consitutes that failure, along with the DLC stance on the issues, keeps changing. I have never known greater flip-floppers then the DLC. Worst of all, they are opportunists who jump to take credit every time something goes right, like the aforementioned 93 budget agreement, which they lambasted at the time and then again after the 94 elections. If Kerry had won they would have claimed credit because he ran to the center.

Steve