The Democrats Meander

    This is something I think many people worry about and rightly criticize the Democratic Party for. Today, The New York Times has a front-page piece entitled, "For Democrats, Many Verses, but No Chorus." I don't generally think much of Adam Nagourney as a reporter--can you say "conventional wisdom?"--but this piece does expose what I think will be the continued failure of the party and its meek showing in 2006, despite how badly the Republicans seem to be stumbling.

   The piece picks up on various themes being sounded by Democrats around the country:

These scattershot messages reflect what officials in both parties say are vulnerabilities among Republicans on Capitol Hill, as well as President Bush's weakened political condition in this election year.

But they also reflect splits within the party about what it means to be a Democrat — and what a winning Democratic formula will be — after years in which conservative ideas have dominated the national policy debate and helped win elections.

And they complicate the basic strategy being pursued by Democratic leaders in Washington to capture control of Congress: to turn this election into a national referendum on the party in power, much the way Republicans did against Democrats in 1994.

    A party that has no vision for America will not succeed if it's entire strategy is to sit by and watch while the opposition fails. And leave it to Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to show how lost the party is:

While Democrats including Ms. Madrid of New Mexico want to set a timetable for pulling out of Iraq, others say that would be politically and militarily disastrous.

Mr. Emanuel, though, said he was not worried. "What divide?" he said.

"We agree on Social Security," he continued. "We also agree on the war, which is, not more of the same."

"Skelton has a position. Murtha has a position. Levin has a position," he said of Congressional Democrats who have raised questions about the war. "But all of them have one thing in common: Staying the course is a fool's errand. O.K.? I'm happy that our party has a lot of different ideas about how to solve a problem."

    Now, that is pretty dumb: "not more of the same." Clever, brilliant. As I grasp my head in my hands...

    The rest of the article is here.

Comments

[Charley]

It seems to me that the very least we can ask of an opposition party is that they have a strong respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. That would mean at least 3 things:

1. A declaration of the illegality of the Iraq War and a demand that the US withdraw ALL troops as soon as possible.

2. An absolute rejection of the use of torture, illegal wiretapping, and illegal search and seizure and a demand that the US abide by the Geneva Conventions.

3. A demand that we hold the Bush administration responsible for their usurpation of the Constitution and their crimes against humanity - a call for immediate impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on Constitutional grounds and for criminal prosecution all three and others who may be guilty of war crimes.

I simply will not vote for any candidate who does not have enough dedication to democracy and respect for the Constitution to support these 3 simple tests. Not in the primary, not in the general election, not ever.

[donald]

it seems like a stronger stance on iraq would be an easy thing to take, you know? i mean most of the troops think they should be pulled out in a year. i know they can spin pretty hard, but this is an easy one to take. even if it causes a little conflict in the short term, it'll reap rewards later on.

is there any way to just flat out usurp party leadership on this and get a unified media message? what role does dean have in it, if any?

[Jean]

I like your litmus test, Cherley. Works for me. Actually it worked for me in 2004. I absolutely refused to back Kerry.

It is simply incredible that the Democrats in Washington cannot adopt a strong and unified position on Iraq, as in Out Now (or at least soon).

The pace/antiwar movement is partly to blame for enabling this spineless wishy-washy-ness. Much of its momentum in the US was deflected into supporting horrendous pro-war Democratic candidates as the only alternative to Bush. Thanks in no small measure to groups like MoveOn, which is little more than a PAC for establishment Demcrats. What a waste. The Democrats in Washington need a major purge.

On the bright side, Tom Harkin came out the other day in favor of troop withdrawal. And that was just a day or two after voting (along with nine other brave souls, led by Feingold) against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act (or as I like to call it the FASCIST Act). Not all Democrats suck. Just most of them, and the damned DLC.

Feel free to see my recent blog posts, and an older one:
http://mojavas.blogspot.com/2005/09/pathetic-democrats.html

One of these days I'll devote a post specifically to taking Hillary Clinton to task. Lots of damning material and incriminating evidence. I am so glad there are pople like Jonathan Tasini willing to challenge the Senator from Israel who confidently believes "she has the left in her back pocket."