Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...
Dealing with the Dems
Because the Senate unanimously votes to fund the war in Iraq, Peace Action PAC, the political action committee of the country's largest peace organization, will for the first time not endorse any senators for re-election this year. Some anti-war activists have gone further, not just withholding support but actively calling for the defeat of every pro-war senator regardless of party affiliation, even if it means supporting Green Party nominees or other anti-war challengers. Such strategists believe that Democrats will not likely change their pro-war positions as long as they can assume the support of their anti-war constituents.
Constituent pressure does indeed make a difference. Two of the half dozen most outspoken anti-war senatorsTom Harkin of Iowa and Kerryvoted in favor of the original resolution in October 2002 authorizing the invasion. Grassroots anti-war efforts in their home states forced these formerly pro-war Democrats to reverse their stance.
However, apologists for the Democratic Party reply that efforts to defeat pro-war Democrats could result in electing enough Republicans to prevent the Democrats from re-taking the U.S. Senate. However, it should be recalled that the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001-2002), they voted to authorize the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Not only might a Democrat-controlled Senate fail to end the war in Iraq, it may well authorize President Bush to launch yet another tragic war. Already, leading Democratic senators and presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh have attacked the Bush administration for being too eager to pursue diplomatic means in the Iran crisis. They have been more willing to entertain the exercise of military force to end the current impasse over that country's nuclear program. On other national security issues, these hard-line Democrats have defended the already-existing nuclear weapons arsenals of U.S. allies Pakistan, Israel, and India. And last month, an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House voted in support of a resolution criticizing President Bush for not sufficiently punishing Palestinians who suffer under Israeli military occupation. In short, a Democratic majority in Congress will not necessarily mean a more enlightened foreign policy.
One might think that partisans of the Democratic Party would be in the forefront of the anti-war movement, given the imperative of completing a withdrawal prior to the end of President Bush's term. Otherwise, the final withdrawal of U.S. forces will likely take place under a Democratic administration, leading Republicans in subsequent years to blame any anti-American terrorism or upsurge of violence and instability in the Middle East on the failure of Democrats to finish the job in Iraq started by the Bush administration.
Mobilizing for the Alternative
...
acludem said:This is interesting, though I think most of these folks will still end up voting for the Democratic candidate because of other issues (i.e. most of these people support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc). Anyone, whether on the left or on the right, who votes for candidates based on a single issue is a complete and utter moron.
acludem
acludem said:This is why I think many of them will vote Democratic. Howard Dean will make a strong effort to bring them back into our party, and I think many will listen to him.
acludem
Kathianne said:"One might think that partisans of the Democratic Party would be in the forefront of the anti-war movement, given the imperative of completing a withdrawal prior to the end of President Bush's term. Otherwise, the final withdrawal of U.S. forces will likely take place under a Democratic administration, leading Republicans in subsequent years to blame any anti-American terrorism or upsurge of violence and instability in the Middle East on the failure of Democrats to finish the job in Iraq started by the Bush administration."
They are following the type of behavior that has been advocated by Kos and reiterated at DU.musicman said:I don't know whether to laugh out loud or put my fist through the wall. I don't believe I've ever seen a more naked admission that the only objective, immutable reality in leftism is political expediency. There is simply no world for bastards like these, outside the Democrat Party's image and electability. I think it actually frightens me a bit, to know that people like this draw air and cast votes.
acludem said:This is interesting, though I think most of these folks will still end up voting for the Democratic candidate because of other issues (i.e. most of these people support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc). Anyone, whether on the left or on the right, who votes for candidates based on a single issue is a complete and utter moron.
acludem
musicman said:I don't know whether to laugh out loud or put my fist through the wall. I don't believe I've ever seen a more naked admission that the only objective, immutable reality in leftism is political expediency. There is simply no world for bastards like these, outside the Democrat Party's image and electability. I think it actually frightens me a bit, to know that people like this draw air and cast votes.
More interesting is to look at the 'middle' of each. There one will find there is no desire to elect the fringe, which is why no Nader nor Buchanan. The more interesting feature though, which middle holds their 'middle' to account?William Joyce said:Interesting question whether hard right is harder on Republicans than hard left is on Democrats. I figure it's even: look at Clinton and Bush. Nader and Buchanan can't get elected.
New York Times David Brooks Again Slams Daily Kos and Netroots
Posted by Noel Sheppard on July 9, 2006 - 13:12.
David Brooks of the New York Times has been on a quite an anti-liberal blogosphere roll of late. After eviscerating Markos Moulitsas Zuniga the proprietor of the Daily Kos in a June 25 op-ed entitled Respect Must be Paid For, Brooks again ripped into Kos on Friday nights The News Hour on PBS (video link courtesy of Crooks and Liars). Brooks followed this up with another op-ed tangentially on this subject Sunday.
On Friday evening, the discussion between host Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields, and Brooks centered around Joe Liebermans problems in Connecticut. Lehrer asked Brooks how Lieberman is impacting the 2008 presidential campaign. Brooks responded (emphasis mine):
Well he's made life difficult especially for Hillary Clinton. Because in my conversations --we're talking about the netsroots [sic], who are the real problems for Lieberman, people generated by the Daily Kos and other web sites-- I find privately most of the Democrats despise those people because of the way they practice politics so viciously that they don't want to get in the crosshairs. And they don't want to offend the liberal base of primary voters. So they want to support Joe Lieberman, but they don't want to get in the crosshairs. So a few have come out, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, couple others have come out strongly for him, others, Hillary Clinton has sort of been on both sides, others just won't commit.
Fascinating. So, in Brooks view, the Democrats actually want to support Lieberman, but cant due to their fear of a backlash by the ultra-left wing of their base the denizens of the liberal blogosphere. However, Brooks saved his real views on this issue for Sundays op-ed entitled The Liberal Inquisition (emphasis mine)
But over the past few years [Lieberman] has been subjected to a vituperation campaign that only experts in moral manias and mob psychology are really fit to explain. I can't reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the Internet, because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate.
Brooks elaborated on how absurd the claims by the netroots are concerning Lieberman:
So these days, for example, one hears that Lieberman is a crypto-conservative, a Bible-Belter. In reality, of course, this is a man who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign. He has a Christian Coalition rating of 0.
Brooks then really came down on the impact the liberal blogosphere is having on politics: Over the past few years, polarizers have dominated Congress because people who actually represent most Americans have been too timid or intellectually vacuous to stand up. Even today many Democrats who privately despise the netroots lie low, hoping the anger won't be directed at them.
Whether you agree with Brooks views or not, he does appear to have a firm grasp on what the netroots is doing to the Democrats. And, despite the opinions of liberal bloggers, these activities, much as in 2004, are not helping Democrats win at the polls.
Noel Sheppard's blog |
