I look forward to voting Rick Santorum out of office this fall and I’d love for the Dems to reclaim at least one house of Congress and restore our system of checks and balanced. But if they do, it will be because Bush and his sycophants have done such a miserable job, not because the party is winning on ideas or campaigning or anything else. ”

Hmm, sounds like you want the Dems to pull a Gingrich and come up with a Contract On America – I seriously hope they do no such thing. It was one of the most dishonest moves a political party has made in my lifetime.

I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, I’ve voted for several Republicans (Arlen Specter in the last election), I’d gladly take a moderate from either party as President in 2008 and I think government operates best when one party controls Congress and the other controls the White House, as was the case when the unlikely duo of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich managed to not only balance the budget but also began paying down the deficit in the 1990s.

We all know that the GOP Congress has spent the last 6 years spending like drunken sailors and abandoning all the conservatives principles (limited government, fiscal responsibility, etc.) that they used to stand for. I’m just pointing out that the Democratic party has failed in almost every way to distinguish itself from the GOP.

Does the party have an official stance on Iraq, immigration, gay marriage? I read four newspapers a day and I couldn’t tell you – what message do you think the message that your average Joe in the midwest or the South is getting? Probably the message I’ve been getting – that the Democratic party stands only for whining about Bush.

I look forward to voting Rick Santorum out of office this fall and I’d love for the Dems to reclaim at least one house of Congress and restore our system of checks and balanced. But if they do, it will be because Bush and his sycophants have done such a miserable job, not because the party is winning on ideas or campaigning or anything else.

The defining characteristic of today’s Democratic Party is its cranky, impotent opposition to George W. Bush. ”

You put far too much emphasis on party, so I’d guess you’re a Republican. I could really not give a damn about “party,” although in the case of the current Repiglican party it’s hard not to condemn the entire lot. Your line about the Repiglicans beating “them to it with their Contract With America” is pretty funny, considering how the government we have now is further from “pay-as-you-go” than any we’ve ever had.

Given current American demographics we may be stuck with the current right-wing slant for decades. I hope not. Perhaps Texas will secede and take Oklahoma with them. That would help.

Where does the Democratic Party stand on Iraq? I honestly couldn’t tell you. How has the party distinguished itself from the GOP? Well, Democrats are generally pro-choice so that’s one thing. And they are ever-so-slightly more open to gay marriage rights, although you couldn’t tell by the way Howard Dean keeps contradicting himself. What else? The party is more socially liberal, but you’d never know it by the way key figures either make halfassed overtures to christian conservatives or skirt the issue entirely. They recently proposed pay-as-you-go government which is a terrific idea, except that a) Republicans beat them to it with their Contract With America and b) few Democrats have the cahones to admit that will involve repealing large portions of Bush’s tax cuts.

The defining characteristic of today’s Democratic Party is its cranky, impotent opposition to George W. Bush.

If every Democrat in office expressed the same opinion on Iraq I’d vomit in my own mouth, because I’d be living in the United Soviet States of America.

This demand is really rather stupid, Mike. Even the Repiglicans have a range of opinions on Iraq. As Steven Colbert said of Fox News, “the President’s opinion and the Vice President’s opinion.”

The Democrats don’t control the executive branch, which is the only place one can realistically expect a party’s “official” position to come from. At least until next year’s Democratic primaries, when I fully expect the voters to make it clear that they want no more of Dumbya’s Incompetent Death Dance in Iraq.

Some Democrats want a near immediate (w/in six months) withdrawl, others want a timetable, still others don’t want any timetable at all. For the life of me, I couldn’t tell you what John Kerry’s stance on Iraq was. “I voted to authorize the President to use force, but I disagree with how he’s used force, but I’d have gone into Iraq anyway” was the message I got. It’s OK to disagree with these things behind closed doors, but it looks bad to have several prominent members of the same party disagreeing in public on what I’d consider the single most important issue today. Where is the leadership?

It’s the New Left all over again, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and assorted Soviet front groups are dominant once again. Thanks for making our campaign ads write themselves.

Bad economics, no security, bad criminal policy, and barely liberal on some sexual issues (Tipper Gore what? Free speech my butt). Good riddance to bad rubbish.

All right then, give me examples of extremism from a state Democratic convention in the last two months.

I know Daily Kos has come to stand for everything liberal in the Democratic Party, but if you read the writings of Kos himself, you see he strains to maintain his own kind of “open tent” while adhering to a few basic rules. In the world of Kos, a Democrat can fall anywhere on the right-left ideological spectrum between Ted Kennedy and Ben Nelson. Thus, one’s position on a particular issue will not get someone excommunicated from the Kos wing of the party. Being pro-war and anti-abortion might not earn you a lot of fans on Daily Kos, but you won’t be singled out and attacked solely on the basis of these positions.

Instead, Kos focuses on party loyalty and partisanship. Kos demands aherance to a certain code of public conduct – which includes never throwing fellow Democrats under the proverbial bus, never using derisive GOP talking points against fellow Dems, and never publicly undermining the party. Lieberman’s main sin is not his support of Iraq, then, but his willingness to publicly lecture fellow Democrats and seemingly take the side of the president at the expense of fellow Dems. In the Kos wing of the party, turning on fellow Democrats is the gravest sin one can undertake.

It remains to be seen if the Kos formula works. Unquestionably, there has been an inordinant number of Democratic politicians in recent years who contributed to Republican branding of the Party. And Kos is certainly willing to support candidates whose ideological positions are far to the right of Ted Kennedy (see: Webb and Testor and Hackett). Is this ideological flexibility offset by his rigid requirements for partisanship and party loyalty? Perhaps. But underlying what Kos says is a belief that Rove’s great success is a direct result of his ability to make his party look strong, even when its policies are wrongheaded or inconsistent. The theory is: it’s better to sound good and be wrong than sound inconsistent/hesitant and be right. Like Rove, Kos seems to be saying that Party members can vote any way they want, as long as they do their part to make the Party appear strong and consistent.

I am told in no uncertain terms that I fanning the flames of hysteria and “playing with fire” by ever accusing an Israel-basher of being anti-Semitic.

Oh, that feeling, I know. I get similar when I mention my views on Roe, which don’t track well with many of my Democrats. Briefly: Roe stifled a needed national debate; as much as I am pro-choice, I’m also aware that having such a decision meant we stopped explaining why choice is good and needed, and poured energy, time, and money into a single defense.
But I digress.

In short, it was biased, but the antagonism behind it seemed to have overtones of earlier, nasty stereotypes of Jews – that we are “only looking out for ourselves,” that we want others to fight our wars for us, that we are greedy land-grabbers, that we are conspiring to take over the world and getting our willing dupes (in this case, the US) to do it for us, etc.

I do think I understand, and sympathize with, your point, and I think I see exactly where you’re coming from. For me, it’s similar to the conversations I have “back home” — I’m Black*, and both my parents have been, and still are, politically active. And my fear, when I read your original commentary, was that your fears were a Jewish version of the “It’s all the White Man’s fault” business I hear, at times. Because, yea, a lot of it is his fault, both historically and today, yet much of it is about how the community has fumbled and fell, as well, with missed opportunities and failed leadership.
But, to be honest, I don’t know enough about the Jewish internal situation to judge that properly, which is why I asked. I try to keep up, because it’s pretty important to the current world situation, but I’ll be the first to admit I don’t do the job on it that I likely should.
I’ll close by saying that yes, I think I’d disagree on one or two of your points; yet I’d rather ask for aid in understanding. Can you point me to a couple of good blogs or other new sources that your prefer and recommend? That way, if I chose to debate in the future, at least I’ll be coming from having a background of some sort…and you never know, you just might make me change a bit of my mind.

Thanks, again.

—-Woodrow

Note to Jeff: Sorry to kidnap your space, man!

* Or, to quote BLAZING SADDLES, “I’m Black?!?!”

In fact the real issue is that the opportunities for the Dems to get their message out is limited. The big media is corporatist on one side and distinctly right wing on the other side. Where is the liberal equivalent to FOX, for example?

What is true on TV and radio is also true in print: Time, Newsweek, etc. have much more influence then The Nation. Studies have shown that on the talking heads shows the preponderance of pundits are conservative. In many cases they are “balanced” by a reporter, not a liberal. This is also part of the slight of hand, it subtly implies that reporters are not only “liberal” but will sacrifice their neutrality to support their (alleged) bias.

Then there are the “think tanks” whose flacks are heard from frequently. The biggest group of these, like the Hoover Institution are funded by wealthy conservatives. These provide an intellectual barrage as sort of covering fire so that neo-con themes can be promoted with the appropriate polish.

The real fact is that the super wealthy and corporate elite control the bulk of the money that is spent in the political arena and the Dems/liberals/progressives are outspent and kept from addressing the public. Stop blaming the victims and start following the money.

They just can’t help themselves, can they?

Yes, Ed, I’m Rip van Freaking Winkle, and I’ve been completely oblivious from then until now. I didn’t watch as the situation grew worse through the years. The extremism I saw then has nothing to do with the extremism I see now… it just happened, out of the blue!

The left wing faeries did it overnight with their magic leftist pixie dust.

I’d call that literally “conservative” and narrow-minded, provincial and parochial and defeatist – other words that describe the so-called liberal American left – and the democratic party, as well.

Dan,
As a lifelong republican (*ok, so I’m only 30*) I have been amazed at what has happened to the Right side of the spectrum.

I say this as a republican with little love for leftwing extremists – the extremists seem to have much more influence and power on the right than on the left. Michael Moore is a gasbag, but Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin tread close to intimidation and incitement to murder. Of course leftists can do, and have done, the same kind of thing – but I dont see any violent leftwingers who are bestsellers on Amazon.

I hope the Democrats go moderate. I plan on voting for any moderate Dem over any republican except McCain just to stick it to them over all their shit.

Dperl99,

You don’t like my charicature[sic] of the Dem party platform?

Well it’s simply not necessary to distort inanities. Think about it for a second or perhaps seek the counsel of your homeroom teacher.

Read Dperl99’s blog, it’s a paradigmatic example of this post’s point.

I think Dan is right, its headed in the opposite direction. From reading Kos, one would assume that moderate Democrats pose the greatest threat to our Republic, followed by the Bush adminstration, followed very distantly by terrorists who barely warrent a mention. Unfortunately, I see no way to heal the rift, which ultimately stems from votes on the Iraq war resolution. For Rove, the Iraq war is the ultimate wedge issue and the gift that keeps on giving. No matter how bad things get, it always manages to tear Democrats apart more than it tears apart the GOP. Has for the last three years, and will continue to for at least the next five.

You’re confusing a small gang of anti-Semitic nuts with a significant presence. There’s at least one nut who constantly spams the Huffington post with irrelevant drivel and screen names like NOWARFORISRAEL. And who is calling that guy out for what he is? The so-called left. The Bushpigs who infest the place either ignore him or pretend he’s somehow typical of the “left,” which is absurd.

Some try to use the discontent with Lieberman as an example of leftist anti-Semitism, but that argument is purely stupid. I hope Lamont beats Lieberman solely because Lieberman is a shameless hawk, and for no other reason.

I also find thoughtful discussions of the real issues debated by real people. It’s actually quite fufilling.

I hope that both parties have these internal debates, so they can actually find consensus instead of division, for all of us.

We desperately need leadership in these difficult times. Let’s hope we get some soon…..

I’m a Clintonite Democrat, who supports most free trade initiatives and every single military action of the last 15 years save for Iraq, yet somehow we’ve got you clapping in agreement when dishonest brokers like Glenn Reynolds lament about the “far left” Democratic party (you’re doing it in this very post). What you fail to get, with all your punditry on the media, is that you’re legitiziming the very same conservative extremism you claim to dislike.

Don’t you feel the least bit silly about basing your opinion of something occuring in the last few months on events happening a quarter-century ago? I mean, come now — as a rational, thinking human being, don’t you feel like a total turd for having such a stupid opinion?