Democratic Leadership Council

The Democrats have decided to embrace right-wing values in a cynical effort to pander for votes.

Brad Ellsworth likes to hunt, opposes abortion and says he'll put his "family values up against anybody." He may be the Democrats' new dream candidate.

The 47-year-old Ellsworth, a county sheriff in Indiana, is one of a number of Democrats running for the U.S. Congress next year whose positions on social issues deviate from the national party's. His candidacy follows a presidential election the Democrats lost in part because they failed to win over "values voters," according to polls and party strategists.

The recruitment of Ellsworth and candidates with similar views is "the party making a decision to be more inclusive," said Elaine Kamarck, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and to Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "It is the lesson of 2004."

Translation: pro-reproductive rights candidates need not apply. Sorry, women, your Constitutional rights are too politically inconvenient.

"There are some in the national Democratic leadership who think perhaps choice has become too much of a litmus test in the party, and it hurts them," [congressional analyst Jennifer] Duffy said.

So what's the answer? A new litmus test: rather than appeal to the Democratic base, you pander to the acidic views of the radical right. In other words: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Other Democratic recruits for Congress who sound more like traditional Republicans on social issues include former Minnesota Transportation Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is anti-abortion, and former college and professional football player Heath Shuler, an avid hunter from North Carolina who opposes abortion and gun controls.

In Pennsylvania, U.S. Senate candidate and state Treasurer Bob Casey, who opposes abortion rights, led abortion foe Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, by 12 percentage points in a Quinnipiac poll of 1,447 voters last month.

One can only hope that primaries defeat these faux-Democrats.

"This is a much larger field than it's been in the past." Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said of the anti-abortion and pro-gun candidates. "We have folks in that group who aren't necessarily with the national party on every single issue but do reflect the makeup of the congressional district."

Apparently women's constitutional rights aren't important to the Democratic Party any more.

Recruiting anti-abortion and pro-gun candidates is part of a broader Democratic effort to recast the party's image on social issues. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said she used to have a hard time getting the Democratic National Committee to return phone calls.

Then in April, the group was allowed to use the committee's headquarters to unveil a plan to reduce the U.S. abortion rate. "It's a big step," Day said.

The only problem with this is that people against women's reproductive rights are ill-equipped to actually reduce the number of aborted pregnancies. Criminalizing it just drives it underground.

But don't confuse them with facts -- their minds are made up. We need to put doctors and women in prison. Now there's some enlightened social policy!

Perhaps the most bizarre example of tortured logic comes from the DCCC itself:

"It's Democrats being more on the offensive rather than the defensive when it comes to values issues," said Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council.

This isn't Democrats being "on the offensive" -- it's Democrats forfeiting the battle entirely.

Former President Clinton held that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," an appeal to voters uncomfortable with abortion that didn't compromise his support for Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established a woman's right to abortion.

Democrats have strayed from that formula and it has hurt them, Wittmann said. In the 2004 presidential election, more voters -- 22 percent -- said "moral values" were the most important issue than said the economy and terrorism, according to CNN exit polls.

Traditional Democratic values are moral values. The people who voted for Kerry were voting about morality.

This just shows how little conviction of any values at all is held by the Democratic Party. Selling out women to the government as breeder property of the State is not morality, it's not "on the offensive" -- it's pandering.

The problem was further documented in an August memo by Democracy Corps, a Democratic research organization. Focus groups found that most voters considered Democrats to be "liberal" on issues of morality, according to the memo. Some voters even used the words "immoral" or "morally bankrupt" to describe Democrats.

Those are the words I use to describe the radical right and the so-called "pro-life" movement. Apparently they have louder voices, though, so now they've succeeded in defining morality, and the Democratic Party thinks it can simply pander to unprogressive views and score wins.

Particularly among non-college voters, "cultural issues not only superseded other priorities" such as Iraq and the economy, "they served as a proxy for many voters" on those issues, the memo said.

"It's almost as if Democrats forgot how to be successful on these issues and are trying to relearn some of the approaches Bill Clinton took in 1992 that were so successful," Wittmann said.

No, what they're trying to do is be more Republican, rather than work to define their own values.

No wonder the Democratic Party has not come up with its own Contract With America. Maybe they're afraid it will look too much like the Republicans' and people will notice.

What this proves is that the Democrats either take their traditional constituents for granted, or would rather have right-wing constituents and to hell with progressives. The Democratic Party is no longer the party that defends women's rights, but rather defends a vision of Handmaid America.

I find that cynical, foolish and immoral.

Pennywit writes in "Kos Rex":

When they write the history of early twenty-first century politics, Markos Zuniga will certainly merit his own topic, as he was one of the first individuals to effectively turn the Internet into an activist medium. Nobody should deny him that place. But Zuniga -- "Kos" when online -- is still writing his story, and right now that story is a mess, making Kos look less like a visionary activist and more like a cold, miscalculating wannabe political genius.

First, there's the "brand identity" of Daily Kos, Kos's eponymous blog. While the blog occasionally features interesting commentary, it has nevertheless developed a reputation as the home of the least sane liberal ramblings this side of Democratic Underground.

Second, there's Kos's recent "open mouth, swallow Hush Puppies" moment, when he managed to alienate feminists across the United States. It seems that in Kos's opinion, feminists need to give a little bit for the sake of a greater cause. (In the vernacular: "For GOOD of party!")

Finally, you have Kos's latest, cryptic pronouncement:

Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.

No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

What's happening in two weeks? Who knows?

But why's he targeting the Democratic Leadership Council? For being insufficiently liberal. For daring to call out the party's extreme elements. For being concerned with pushing a non-radical, center-left political agenda.

I can't speak for Kos, but I know that a lot of us with more progressive views about society see the DLC has an organization that not only has managed to hold sway over the Democratic Party by advocating a losing political strategy -- basically: Be like the Republicans, but only less so -- but also seems quite eager to abandon what shreds of moral values that traditionally have been part of the Dem platform under the preconception that the political center is won through pandering.

But like Pennywit, I wonder what's going on in Markos' brain with these kinds of pronouncements. Setting aside his attitudes about what constitutes "important shit" politically, it seems that he is starting to believe he is netroots personified. Especially when you look at this kind of behavior.

One might question how the proprietor of a website garnering hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from Blogads alone represents netroots. Speaking for myself, I find economic success to be a potential challenge to integrity, but not necessarily a red flag.

But I do find more disingenuous his claims of being just a humble blogger, especially in posts like this:

This is still being portrayed as a us versus them battle, when in fact, that doesn't need to be the case. This last paragraph is exciting to me -- people taking charge of their own backyards, showing local leadership despite what the party in DC may or may not think.

This is one of the issues Jerome and I have grappled with writing our book -- just what role should the national party take vis a vis state parties and the grassroots. There are things the national party can do that the state party cannot, and things that grassroots activist can do that the party (at any level) cannot do.

The trick is finding a way for everyone to play to their strengths, complementing each other's efforts for the greater good. Despite all the talk of conflict in this piece and elsewhere, the reality isn't anywhere near as harsh. We're all after the same goal, and we'll figure out the best way to work together through trial and error.

The first paragraph doesn't jibe with the third paragraph. Are we all after the same goal? What is that goal? "No to Bush"? Well, guess what! Bush is not up for re-election. There are going to be other Republicans running, with different strengths and weaknesses. How is a "No to Bush" campaign going to fly against them?

I think the glue that ties those paragraphs together is the second paragraph. A book about what the national Democratic Party "should" do.

Who are the netroots? Are they -- we -- really all the same? Does Markos speak for all of us?

In a comment to Pennywit's post, The Impolitic says:

I agree that he's heading for a fall though, if he doesn't start practicing a little more democracy at his site. I don't go there enough to have figured out what exactly the brouhaha is about, but all of sudden there's a lot of rules about what is allowed to be discussed and bannings against those who don't follow them. I followed a link to an appalling display of autocratic intimidation by his first Lt. Armando, purportedly on Kos's behalf.

A lot of Kossacks are leaving. He may wake up some day with a lot of officers and no troops.

I don't know if that's true. But it's certainly true that Daily Kos exbloggers are finding themselves at odds with the pronouncements from the non-"gatekeeper." Pennywit observes:

Taken together, a new story of Kos emerges. Not a political visionary. Not an adept political strategist. Let's try this one on for size: Kos is an egocentric "activist" who views himself as the savior of his political party. Because he is the savior, disagreement with him must be punished swiftly. Ironically, the goal is not a greater liberal agenda, but rather electing to power those who will agree with what Kos says the liberal agenda is. In other words, the Democratic Party, he wishes the Democratic Party to become the Kult of Kos, where his words are taken as gospel, or, at the very least, he is the final arbiter of political right or political wrong.

I think real question is whether the netroots can indeed be co-opted into a mainstreamed bullshit parade, as has already happened on television and in newspapers. I suspect it's possible. When the überbloggers continue to link to each other, their traffic benefits. And that leads to more attention. DailyKos has an incredible amount of traffic. But does that make Markos himself a political sage?

Some will take issue with the fact that I've been so hard on Kos. I have my issues with him. I think he's a military imperialist, much too much to my comfort level. I think he's a chauvinist, and is way too soft on reproductive rights. I think he's way too focused on party politics, and is blinded by the fantastic idea that any Democrat, no matter how bigoted or corrupt, is better than any Republican, no matter how virtuous or egalitarian. What galls me is his arrogance, his pose as netroots personified, and his shaking fist and waggling finger telling the rest of us to get in line.

"You're either with me, or you're with the wingnuts!"

I say, "Bullshit!"

I don't doubt that the kingmakers will fall -- they always do -- but there's enough ignorance about what the net is, and enough belief out there that if a blogger has high traffic, he somehow has great influence, that what gets labeled as "netroots" in politics may end up having precious little "roots" at all.

Meanwhile the rest of us are out here, collectively with bandwidth that makes Daily Kos seem like an obscure pimple in the greater discourse.