At 02:13 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote:
>Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
>Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
perhaps because Gore is such a robot? or because he's so wishy-washy
himself, first being a DLC technocrat and then pretending to be an "I'll
fight for you!" amalgamation of a late-night TV lawyer ad and an attenuated
populist. The latter felt less sincere.
GOPsters heard Bush say he was a "compassionate conservative" and said "heh
heh, we know what he means." But Democrats saw Gore and said, "yuk, but
he's better than the alternative." I don't know how anyone -- even a
stone-cold Democrat -- can get _excited_ by the lesser of two evils.
At 02:19 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote:
>In many ways, it's a regression to the days before the civils/voting
>rights acts of the 1960's.
shouldn't we also be denouncing Clinton and the DLC in encouraging this
trend? And isn't it Gore who led the charge for "welfare reform"?
At 02:34 PM 12/5/00 -0500, Louis wrote:
>This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The
>DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic
>publisher Marty Peretz shortly after the defeat of Dukakis. It was seen as
>a way to capture the presidency by going after the Republican Party's base
>of white middle-class suburbanites.
according to Christopher Hitchens (a reliable source though not a reliable
thinker), the DLC started earlier, as the "Democrats for Nixon."
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
