'New Democrats' Plot Strategy to Retake White House

'New Democrats' Plot Strategy to Retake White House By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief May 16, 2003

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The way for the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee to beat President George W. Bush "is to match him where he is perceived to be strong, on values and national security, and to beat him where we know he's weak, on his failing economic policies and on his divisive political and social agenda," the founder of the Democratic Leadership Council asserted Thursday.

Members of the DLC, whose most famous colleague is former President Bill Clinton, met in Washington to map out the political future of a party that controls neither chamber in Congress nor the White House.

But Al From, founder of the DLC, said he believes a so-called "New Democrat" can win the White House in 2004. "To beat President Bush, our candidate must offer new ways to further traditional Democratic values," From said. There are currently nine Democrats campaigning for their party's nomination next year.

Republicans say the essence of the DLC's strategy is for Democrats to pretend to be Republicans. Dr. Dave Weldon, a Republican congressman from Florida, said Democrats appear to be "talking out of both sides of their mouths.

"You're going to be strong on social and family values but then say the 'divisive social agenda?'" Weldon pondered. "The people are going to be able to see through that. I don't know if it's going to work at all. It sounds to me like it won't."

Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D), who defeated a Republican opponent for an open seat in 2002, quipped that "if a Democrat can win in Virginia, a Democrat can win anywhere," including the White House in 2004. To accomplish that, however, he believes Democrats will have to manipulate the discussion of the issues.

"There were aspects of our campaign that could be models for how we as Democrats win across the country," Warner said, including "ensuring that some of the socially divisive, hot-button issues like abortion and gun control don't end up dominating the whole debate."

Weldon believes Republican victories over the past 10 to 15 years can be attributed to the differences between the two parties on those two issues alone.

"The pro-choice position of the Democratic Party is extreme, and it's cost them dearly, particularly in the South," he said. "And their position on guns is out of the mainstream of public opinion in the United States."

Running away from their true beliefs on such key issues, Weldon predicted, will not help Democrats.

"I believe what the American people want is a very, very clear, open discussion of where the candidates stand, and they don't particularly like people being evasive or candidates trying to change the subject," he said. "I don't know if they can avoid discussing them. Those are important issues to a lot of people, and they're going to be brought up."

State Rep. Jennifer Mann (D-Pa.) observed that, as candidates, Democrats have tended to move farther to the left in response to losses on the national and statewide levels in 2002. She called that reaction a mistake.

"Our job is more important than ever to ensure, particularly in this presidential nomination process, that we continue to keep our candidates away from that tendency to move to the left, to stay with centrist ideals," she urged. "We know that's what people want."

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) said if one of the DLC's goals is to prevent the Democratic Party from moving too far to the left, they have gotten off to a poor start.

"I think they're too late because their party has begun to move to the left, and the first indication of that is the minority leader herself, Representative [Nancy] Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is of the ultra-liberal faction of the Democratic Party."

Weldon noted that "the whole purpose" of the DLC is "to try to move the Democratic Party more to the middle." He believes the reason for that is clear.

"The American people are, by and large, conservative, including most Democrats," the Florida physician said. "When you talk to them about fundamental issues, they are on the Republican side."

DLC President Bruce Reed believes Democrats can successfully argue in favor of increasing taxes on those they consider wealthy and still win the White House in 2004.

"Where Democrats will lose this argument is not over asking more of the rich," he claimed. "If they can't convince the American people that the money's going to be well spent, then Bush will win the argument that we shouldn't give government more, no matter where it comes from."

"If it's 'Every American is going to have to pay more," Reed continued, "if it's I'm going to ask you to pay more to give you something you already have,' most Americans won't take that deal because it's not a good deal for them."

"What [Reed] just said was, 'the bottom line is we need to tax and spend," Wilson interpreted.

"What you've got is a basic division between the two political parties," he continued. "The Republican Party stands, I believe, for limited government and for expanded freedom. The Democratic Party stands for tax and spend."

Wilson compared Reed's comments to a continuing theme in President Clinton's first State of the Union address.

"He was talking about making 'contributions and investments,'" Wilson recalled. "I didn't realize until two or three months later that what he meant was 'tax and spend.'

"They are constantly trying to shift words around to fool the public," he concluded.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, speaking in San Francisco Wednesday, hinted that the reason voters gave Republicans back control of the Senate and increased their numbers in the House was not because of their agreement with the Republican agenda.

"We do need to make sure our voice is out there, and it wasn't out there in 2002," McAuliffe argued.

He also set the stage for a philosophical conflict between the DLC and whoever becomes the party's presidential nominee.

"If it's 'Bush Lite,' forget it," McAuliffe quipped. "People who want George Bush can vote for him."

A national Republican Party operative, who spoke to CNSNews.com only on condition of anonymity, said the conflicting messages point out the Democrats' greatest weakness.

"The real message out of this is, 'Where in the world is the Democratic Party going?'" he said. "It is absolutely a party in disarray and chaos."

Weldon also believes the DLC's efforts to move Democrats, including the party's presidential nominee, away from the party's far-left ideology will fail.

"The key base for the Democratic Party remains liberal, and my guess is you're going to see a lot of liberal ideology coming out of the party in the next 18 months," he concluded. "And my prediction is that the president will be re-elected, and we will gain seats in the House and in the Senate."

To read a memo from Reed and From to "Leading Democrats" entitled "The Real Soul of the Democratic Party," click here.

The way for the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee to beat President George W. Bush "is to match him where he is perceived to be strong, on values and national security,

Match George W. Bush on values and national security? Knock yourself out, you Rats.

This comes pretty darn close to a Rat admission that values were lacking in the Sinkmeister administration and that made Dubya's pledge to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" an important connection with voters.

Bet there is a sell out on shredders in DC this a.m.

This bunch can now officially be labeled Saddam supporters.

So the take by the lying liberals seems to be "the Senate Committee" is too political they cannot investigate "motives" for the war in Iraq, need an independent commission to investigate.

Their "Wilson" plant was not successful in stopping President Bush from removing Saddam. Russia and France could not keep their promise to Saddam to stop President Bush.

Looks like what the dims are really worried about is what they don't know. They seem to be really worried about what real "INTEL" President Bush has. Putin's words when he came here and got a show and tell by President Bush at Camp David has set a fire under these lying liberals.

They have a better chance at seeing all "INTEL" with an independent commission or independent counsel.

Looks like what the dims are really worried about is what they don't know. They seem to be really worried about what real "INTEL" President Bush has.

You may be on to something there. However, I suspect this is just another tiny part of the general plan to take down the last bastion of freedom left in the world. We may be compromised but we are still not communist. We are the only force standing between human rights and global communist denomination.

If people still cannot see that there is an organized effort to put an end to freedom as we know it, then they need to get over their tin-foil-hate phobias.

The gall of this open admission that the democrats must fool the citizen into voting for their agenda while admitting that their agenda is not what people want, should be placed on bill boards across this nation.

I get so vexed over their corruption and evil that I get heart sick about it. Lord grant this nation the ability to vomit this evil out. Return us to our foundations Lord and keep in mind that your children who live here need your protection against radical courts, and elements in government that have gone after error, that work against us and Your will.

They have forced agendas on your people that they would never have voted for. Let us not fail Lord, pour out your Spirit upon this nation. Repel these attacks against us, bring our enemies into the dust, and preserve our Christian based Republic for your names sake.

I don't disagree that they will try whatever to unseat President Bush.

Senator Graham opened his presidential bid on "INTEL" and started this whole campaign about President Bush "deceiving", then it elevated to its peak with Senator Kennedy outright calling him a "liar".

The plan began right after the Senate changed hands, they tried to use "Homeland Security" as a topic that painted President Bush was not doing anything about. Then the war happened in spite of France, Russia, and Germany and bjclinton promoting "Blix".

They even tried to use N. Korea as a diversion along the way. Now ever since 9/11 they the "lying liberals" have jumped off the cliff trying to destroy President Bush's credibility with the itch herself asking that question on the Senate floor "What did he know and when did he know it".

The one thing that they do not know and really need to know is what does President Bush really know. This is the reason they need seeds of doubt planted along the way, so that when and if something is found that exposes those who gave Saddam support then they can muddy the water.

Winning, getting back their power, is the objective, however, I believe that it goes beyond that. "FEAR" of some being exposed in what took place during the Clintons administration. That UN program "Oil for Food" has long, deep roots, and our own State Department knew what was going on and did nothing.

The Clintons policy was "EQUALIZE ALL NATIONS". To fully describe what they were willing to sell or give away is what they must keep out of focus. So long as they are in power they don't give a "rats-behind" what happens to this nation. The worse things get, the more control they gain. They have reached the evolutionary peak and are "gods".

The Clintons policy was "EQUALIZE ALL NATIONS". To fully describe what they were willing to sell or give away is what they must keep out of focus. So long as they are in power they don't give a "rats-behind" what happens to this nation. The worse things get, the more control they gain. They have reached the evolutionary peak and are "gods".

For 10 years, I too have believed that the Clinton behavior is all about narcissism gone awry. Recently, however, it has become apparent that their goals are lofty, perhaps extremely lofty. Undoubtedly, they seek to lead the WORLD (Why stop at one country?) and if they cannot do it by ruling America, then they will do it by embracing and furthering the agenda of the communist movement.

My youngest put it best when he made a sign for a Hillary book signing that said, "Long live Queen Hillary!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.