ANOTHER REASON TO GET RID OF THE DLC

From Steve Gilliard's Blog. I couldn't have said it better myself.

No sellouts

Toss 'em an anvil

Jim Carville once said that when your opponent was losing, toss him an anvil, yet some Democrats persist in refusing to see the basic logic in that.
Having said that, I'd be lying to you if I got on the bandwagon and said I believed a Lieberman step towards a "deal" on Social Security was something to panic about, or, as Matt put it, "exactly the thing [the Bushies] need to regain momentum on this issue." Worst-case scenario is that Lieberman gets a press conference with a couple of Republican Senators, after which the Right howls down the idea of a payroll tax increase and Democrats disassociate themselves in masse from Lieberman's position. It's still a really bad idea, but it will be Lieberman, not Democrats or Social Security itself, who will be the loser. Look, I've tried to be a Party Unity Eagle Scout since starting my own blog, despite a lot of provocation to get into fights over stereotypes about the DLC held by people who aren't much interested in reading what I have to say unless it reinforces those stereotypes. So I understand the need for unity on Social Security and other topics right now. But unity is a means to an end--beating Bush on the dangerous things he's trying to do to our country, and working towards a strong, alternative progressive message for Democrats that expands our base. It shouldn't become a complete end in itself.Right now the blogosphere is full of talk about litmus tests and purges, whether or not they contribute to either of those goals. And if the email I'm getting about Lieberman is any indication, we're getting close to litmus tests and purges about litmus tests and purges ("Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to kicking Joe Lieberman out of the party?").So let's keep a little perspective about what's primary and secondary in the fights just ahead. Maybe the hellish pressure on Lieberman to step back from a bogus deal will work, maybe not. If he goes ahead, let's make it clear he does not speak for other Democrats, and minimize the potential damage instead of acting like Bush has already won. And after we win, there will be plenty of time to play back the tapes and pin the tail on errant donkeys, in a calmer climate.Dear Ed,Blogging for a large site can be interesting and I admire your courage in accepting the assignment. However, once you do that, you get to get beaten around the head on occassion. This is one of those occasions.Ed, unity is "not a means to a goal". It is a defining characteristic of membership in a group. It is the minimum demanded of members in an organization. We are united because we share the same goals, whether we personally like each other or not.I'm sorry, but I've missed the part where the DLC, the people who pay your rent, have been about a progressive agenda unless progressive means Rockefeller Republican. Take the hint, Joe Lieberman was chased from primaries, Howard Dean is DNC chair. Your world vision is being rejected by the majority of Democrats.And this is how your boss thanks them for their hard work.

Atrios posted this charming bit:

But, while it isn't coming from Ed himself, this kind of rhetoric is actually coming from, you know, his boss who is regularly and loudly chastizing the Dem establishment for not running screaming from everyone to the left of [insert favorite DLC Senator of the week], and who does advocate actively purging large portions of the party's activist base, writing "You've got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd." Note he's not talking about Michael Moore or MoveOn themselves but their "crowds." It isn't simply Moore and MoveOn which the party needs to purge, but their supporters!

Ask yourself why Howard Dean easily defeated the DLC-approved candidates for DNC chair? Because he doesn't want to run from any part of the Democratic Party. Not even your boss. Ed, I don't know of any way to say this nicely, so let me just say it: you and bosses are losers. You haven't won anything since 1992, and frankly, they have been batted around like cat toys by the GOP. When will you and your people figure out there is no common ground with he GOP and aping them is a road to electoral defeat. It matters if Joe Lieberman defects. It matters a great deal. For two reasons: there is no way in hell Bush's plan passes as is, so it's a pointless act, and second, it is a core betrayal of Democratic Party principles. If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. How many timed will Lieberman stab the party in the back, he almost did it to Clinton, he's anti-free speech, he backed torture. How much more do we have to suffer from this man for his delusions of power. I get people waiting every day for the Dems to sell out one more time, to make that stupid, weak-kneed deal which gives the GOP one more victory. They no longer believe the Dems are anything but pasties for Bush and the GOP. They do not believe we, as Democrats, can fight and win. That's the result of your "triangulation". People waiting for the next defeat. And you want to turn your head and ignore what one more betrayal will do. When Jim Jeffords didn't support the GOP, they forced him out of the party. They barely tolerate others, and they beat Arlen Spector around like a pinata. Yet, party loyalty is irrelevant to us. Stephen Moore and the Club for Growth punish the GOP members who leave the reservation. They take every vote seriously. But you say it's no big deal. Well, Ed, it is. It is a very big deal. And it would be nice if you thought it was. Because it's not a "litmus test" but basic party loyalty. If Lieberman can do that, on an issue as crucial as Social Security, why is he a Democrat? For his ego? Because it's not for the residents of his state.