Even though not being a Montana resident, I am a big Brian Schweitzer supporter and hope there is some politically viable way for him to be in the 2008 Democratic presidential mix.
With the recent and past back-and-forth, pro-and-con posts I’ve read about the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), I want to submit a question:
Would the DLC visibly support a Schweitzer candidacy if he were to become the 2008 nominee for the Democrats?
One would think so based upon Schweitzer’s ability to win the governorship in Montana (a state with a registered-Republican majority).and his ‘centrist’ image. After all, how in the world could the DLC think Schweitzer is too ‘left’ if he won in Montana? C’mon.
But I submit that the DLC would reject a Schweitzer candidacy and vow to ‘sit this one out’ if Schwetizer was at the top of the Democratic presidential ticket in 2008.
Why?
Because of Schweitzer’s unwillingness to swallow the DLC kool-aid about corporate-financed (influenced) candidacies. Because of Schweitzer’s attempts to pass legislation in Montana ending the revolving door and re-writing the rules for being a lobbyist-turned-legislator-turned-lobbyist-turned-legislator…
Hell, these are some of the reason why Schweitzer won the support of the electorate in Montana.
Schweitzer is an economic populist who supports legislation that benefits everyday people, not corporate bought-and-paid-for interests. Such a positon is anathema to the DLC.
Am I being too harsh on our Democratic brethren?
Well, look at some of the DLC’s own talking points.
One example sounds pretty good:
* We believe that as advocates of activist government, we need to reinvent government so that it is both more responsive and more accountable to those it serves and to the taxpayers who pay for it.
So does this until the actions of the DLC are examined:
* We believe that the promise of America is equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none
Just why would (and this is just a sampling) British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW, Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications be financial donors to the DLC if it is not for the purpose of influence? Can you spell s-p-e-c-i-a-l p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e? No, then try h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.
For another helping of hypocrisy, why does the DLC slam members of its own party for so-called ‘catering to special interests,’ when the DLC does exactly what it accuses others of doing?
I, for one, would rather be representing your average Joe and Jane on Social Security, health care, budget reform, the environment and consumer protection than the financial elite of this country. Apparently not so for the DLC.
But I come here not to completely bash. There are other positions and policies put forth by the DLC that I can and do support.
But until it can demonstrate an independence from being in lockstep with the corporatocracy, until the DLC can show a difference between accepting the ‘show-me-the-love’ financial contributions that is also the hallmark of the Republicans, then I cannot trust the DLC to honestly represent me.
If somehow it comes to be, which lame excuse will the DLC employ?
Yeah, that radical Schweitzer guy. A flaming lefty, I tell you. Too dangerous. Who wants to back the governor of the Massachusetts of the Mountain West?
Riiiiigggghhhhhht
