Since when has the DLC spoken for moderates?

[alvarezadams]

Yes, the umpteenth thread about the DLC. I post this because it seems that virtually the only argument that the pro-DLC crowd is with regards to the purported "centrist" or "moderate" stance of the DLC.

I don't think that even the most radical extremist far-out tree-hugging peacenik leftwinger amongst us has anything against moderates being a part of the Democratic Party. I think that we all would like to embrace a wide spectrum of beliefs and ideals - as long as they stand somehere to the left of the GOP in at least a few of the key and/or superficial issues.

Somehow someone died and named the DLC the spokesman for moderates.

As stated above, those of us on the left embrace those in the center - but where we differ from the pro-DLC crowd is, perhaps, in the definition of what the center is... and the exact character of the DLC.

To whit - the DLC holds some token progressive stances on talkingpoint issues and an extreme rw, pro-corporate, neoconservative foreign policy stance in the key issues of economy and foreign relations. By any definition this is not "centrist" or "moderate" - it is a mishmash of petty "centrists" and "progressive" stances that hides an extreme that can only be otherwise found at the extreme rw of the GOP. It is as if Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz and Cheney suddenly became pro-choice and a bit green without changing one iota of their foreign and domestic stances.

So a question for the "moderates" and "centrists" - why do you support a radical rw with a sprinkling of m&m's? Why don't you support real "moderates" and "centrists"? Demand that your "centrist" candidates renounce the DLC if you really care - and I'm sure that you people care as much as we do with regards to corporate influence and corruption.