April 18, 2005
-- by Gary Boatwright
I stumbled across a discussion in The Atlantic Forum about "What's Wrong With Democrats?" A prominant theme of the discussion was centered around Marc Cooper's book review trilogy, Thinking of Jackasses. After skimming the comments I concluded an application of Occam's Razor was in order.
All of the philosophical analysis ignores the simple structural explanation. The DLC has no place in an organizational chart of the Democratic Party. I am not certain, but I have been told that the DLC is a 501(c)(4). Regardless of the precise legal structure, the sole purpose of the DLC is to act as a conduit for campaign contributions from large corporate contributors. In that capacity, the DLC acts as a corporate cancer on the body politic of the Democratic party, with tentacles of infuence that reach into every other organ of the party.
That explains why Democrats voted against the vested self interest of their own party and their constituents, by assisting Republicans in passing class action law suit restrictions and bankruptcy restrictions. My analysis does not explain all of the idiocy of the DLC. John Kerry's decision to co-sponsor conscience without consequence legislation with Rick Santorum is inexplicable. Joe Lieberman is inexplicable. I do not believe a unified theory of DLC idiocy is possible.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
How come we never call things like this graft and corruption any more?
Posted by: MJ at April 18, 2005 6:30 AM
My unified field theory is that some of them are actually working for the other side. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.
Posted by: natasha at April 18, 2005 8:42 AM
MJ: I filed this under the category of Corruption. I don't think there is any question that some Democrats are just as corrupt as the entire Republican party. They just sell their soul cheaper than Republicans do.
Posted by: Gary Boatwright at April 18, 2005 9:44 AM
Natasha: I've wondered the same thing. If Harry Reid is not tacitly collaborating with Karl Rove, he's doing the next best thing by taking care of the same special interests.
Posted by: Gary Boatwright at April 18, 2005 9:54 AM
Professor Warren at TPM's Bankruptcy blog has this sum up post of S. 256, an objective analysis from the Economist Morally Bankrupt? and a searchable data base of campaign contributions from Techpolitics.
I suspect there will be some very interesting correlations between contributions and Democrats in the following groups:
The House passed the bill to limit access to bankruptcy protection, S 256, by a vote of 302 to 126, with 73 Democrats voting for the bill. Those voting for the bankruptcy bill included 10 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, 13 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 2 Progressive Caucus members and all but 3 Blue Dogs (there is overlap among some caucuses).
Is there strong popular support in the black community for making bankruptcy more difficult? I never did see a poll about popular support for bankruptcy restrictions. Did I miss the poll, or was it just a foregone conclusion that every politician who voted for S. 256 was bought off, so polling was a waste of time?
Posted by: Gary Boatwright at April 18, 2005 1:12 PM
Posted by: home equity loans at June 5, 2005 1:49 AM
Posted by: mortgage rates at July 6, 2005 10:32 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)