DNC Insanity: They Have No Cohesion
We’ve dealt with this before. The Democrats, after yet another defeat in 2004, saw the writing on the wall. They needed to come up with something. They lacked a cohesive strategy to win back their lost power. So, they went into their numerous committees and discussed it. Then they would emerge with no strategy, and they just continued to voice their hatred for President Bush. That’s all well and good, but it’s not a plan to win back power. Ironically, the Times and the Post today discuss the need for unity within the party, but point out that neither side of the rift in the party can come to a consensus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100831.html?nav=rss_politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/politicsspecial1/22dems.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=cb893f6d1bfe0772&ex=1282363200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.
Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush's handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, has said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy -- something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.
The wariness, congressional aides and outside strategists said in interviews last week, reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush's options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist. Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party's traditional vulnerability on national security issues.
The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.
The rejuvenation of the antiwar movement in recent days after the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq set up camp near Bush's Texas ranch has exposed the rift even further.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."
Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.
That’s from the Post. For their article, it’s all about the war, and how one side of the Left’s spectrum wants us out, and the other side—the elected side in Congress—believes that we should stay the course. Of course, those with the stay mentality may be looking at cooling their earlier heated rhetoric with 2006 looming so close to their political horizons. No one wants to lose their job in Congress, and the Democrats know that despite the president’s poll numbers, he isn’t up for election in 2006. They are, and so are a number of governors. The power they hold now, albeit limited, can’t be lost in 2006. Feingold isn’t worried about 2006 for himself. He isn’t facing reelection until 2010, like Sen. McCain. The Post also included this little nugget.
The internal disarray, according to many Democrats, reflects more than a near-term tactical debate. Some say it reveals a fundamental identity crisis in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world for a party that struggled to move beyond the antiwar legacy of the 1960s and 1970s to reinvent itself as tougher on national security in the 1990s.
They also took note of the strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio this month. House Democratic leaders now are recruiting other Iraq veterans to run in next year's midterm elections.
Talk about desperation, and an inability to get past the past. Granted, Hackett was close, but not that close. And once he opened up his mouth, people started to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing. His disingenuous ads killed a good majority of the momentum he had built up once the GOP mobilized its base of strategists in Ohio.
And the antiwar movement that they ran with so many times before just isn’t going to work. This war is not like Vietnam, where a number of issues were raised, including whether or not we should have even been there. This is the Global War On Terror. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 11 September, and they were harbored in Afghnaistan by the Taliban. So sorry, but you boys gotta go. When evidence was uncovered that Saddam Hussein had ties to not only al-Qaeda, but other terrorist groups, and the fact he was working on WMD programs, it was decided that he, too, had to go.
"The American people are much farther ahead in their thinking about the war than the White House or the Republican Congress," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "They understand we can't continue down this same failed course in Iraq."
Actually, senator, the American people are much farther ahead on this issue than you are. Sen. Kennedy calls this phase of the war a failure. He neglects and outright ignores the good that has come to that nation since Saddam was removed from power and captured. Do they still have problems with terrorism? Sure they do. And we’re dealing with it, and the Iraqi Security Forces are right there beside us. They need to be ready to undertake the running and protection of their nation. It isn’t an easy task. Maybe someone would like to remind Sen. Kennedy of how long it took to make America a whole and complete nation. We declared our independence in 1776, and we did not have a ratified Constitution until 1789.
But, what can one expect from such a partisan snob like Ted Kennedy.
The party's liberal base, whose contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year have helped the Senate Democratic campaign fund amass twice as much as its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his conservative credentials.
But as Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and other liberal stalwarts on the Judiciary Committee step up their criticism of Judge Roberts's record, other Democrats are reluctant to join them.
"I am turned off by senators trying to act like they have already found the guy out and they know what he is like," said Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Democratic committee member from Wisconsin who spent last week focused instead on calling for a pullout from Iraq. "I am not part of any Democratic effort to 'set the table' " for the hearings by laying the groundwork to criticize Judge Roberts, he said.
Several Democratic senators said the hearings on Judge Roberts were shaping up as a risky balancing act. Failing to press him could look weak to their liberal base. But attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle on the treacherous turf of abortion, race and religion at a time when Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts.
Mr. Feingold said that he considered a Supreme Court nominee too important to evaluate in only political terms, but that in those terms, a protracted confirmation fight "could take away time from issues where Democrats have a much better position politically, on things like health care, the economy, and, yes, Iraq."
This comes from the New York Times story. Yes, the Democrats are also split over Roberts. After a thorough vetting over the weekend by bloggers over the records released by the White House and the Reagan library, we could find little, if any, problems with Roberts. But again, both sides in the Democrat party are raising a furor over this.
Former Senator John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, said the hearings were a test of his party's independence. "The interest groups are going to be out there, and this is their issue, and they are going to fight it until the dead warm over, but gas prices, health care costs and Iraq are the things that motivate most people," he said. In a Supreme Court fight, "we are not expanding the base, and even if we get 100 percent of the base, we do not win a national election."
Judge Roberts "is a good family man with beautiful children," Mr. Breaux said. "You have to be very careful about how you approach digging into the background of somebody who appears to be a good guy."
That’s the smartest thing uttered by a Democrat since Zell Miller addressed the RNC last year. And the Democrats would be wise to heed the words of Mr. Breaux. If they raise a ruckus over Roberts, and nothing pans out, it’s not going to help them. Add to the fact that Mr. Breaux is right. In the Roberts fight, you may get 100% of your base, but it isn’t going to win you an election. That’s what this is all about.
Months ago Marcie and I pointed out that the power struggle in the backround of the DNC was slowly spilling into the open. Well, it has. The Democrats are split over Iraq, over Roberts, over Social Security reform, over taxes, etc. There is no consistency in the party. It’s falling apart, all under the command of Howard "Mad How" Dean, who is nothing more than just plain nuts. He’s embraced the extreme Left in his party, and abandoned the moderates and the FDR/Kennedy/Reagan Democrats. And he isn’t the only one. In addition to Sen. Feingold—highlighted in both articles—there are other loose nuts in the Democrat party.
Other Democrats were already publicly challenging the White House over access to Judge Roberts's work for Republican administrations. But during final negotiations on the timetable for the hearings, Mr. Reid told Republican leaders that he did not yet see obstacles to confirmation and did not expect Democrats to try to block the nomination on the grounds that the administration refused to release relevant documents, as they did with an appeals court nominee who had less of a public record, according to the draft and the aides.
The next day, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, stormed onto the floor, angry over reports that Mr. Reid and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, had agreed to a deadline for a committee vote on the nomination. Mr. Schumer, a member of the committee who had talked openly of blocking the nominee over a lack of information alone, argued that the deadline could limit the Democrats' ability to interrogate Judge Roberts.
Notice the term "interrogate?" People like Schumer want to grill this man over whatever little misstep he might have made in their eyes. And like Feingold, Schumer doesn't have to worry about 2006. But for Schumer, this is somewhat personal. He didn't get the answers he wanted out of Roberts the first time around, and now he's will to make an ass of himself if that means getting those answers. It’s this sort of nuttiness that is tearing the Democrats apart, and they’re doing in right in front of our faces. These are not signs of a party that has a solid vision for the nation, and the future of it. These are signs of factions vying for control based on their twisted ideology.
If the party continues it’s spiral down the drain, within a few years they may end up being equal with a third party, like the Independent Party, or worse, like the Green Party. I’m not blind to the fact that many people are moving towards the center on a great many issues. Some, like us here at the Asylum, still draw battle lines, and dig in our heels on a few key subjects, like national security, limited government, a firm belief in the Constitution, and lower taxes. That’s where our bread and butter is. The Democrats would be wise to watch people like Marcie and I, and understand that they’re convoluted ideas from the 60’s and the 70’s don’t wash with America anymore. America has moved on, and move forward into the 21st Century. We’re not languishing in the past, reliving bygone glory days, and disregarding what the future may hold.
Publius II
We’ve dealt with this before. The Democrats, after yet another defeat in 2004, saw the writing on the wall. They needed to come up with something. They lacked a cohesive strategy to win back their lost power. So, they went into their numerous committees and discussed it. Then they would emerge with no strategy, and they just continued to voice their hatred for President Bush. That’s all well and good, but it’s not a plan to win back power. Ironically, the Times and the Post today discuss the need for unity within the party, but point out that neither side of the rift in the party can come to a consensus.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100831.html?nav=rss_politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/politicsspecial1/22dems.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=cb893f6d1bfe0772&ex=1282363200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.
Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush's handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, has said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy -- something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.
The wariness, congressional aides and outside strategists said in interviews last week, reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush's options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist. Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party's traditional vulnerability on national security issues.
The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.
The rejuvenation of the antiwar movement in recent days after the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq set up camp near Bush's Texas ranch has exposed the rift even further.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."
Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.
That’s from the Post. For their article, it’s all about the war, and how one side of the Left’s spectrum wants us out, and the other side—the elected side in Congress—believes that we should stay the course. Of course, those with the stay mentality may be looking at cooling their earlier heated rhetoric with 2006 looming so close to their political horizons. No one wants to lose their job in Congress, and the Democrats know that despite the president’s poll numbers, he isn’t up for election in 2006. They are, and so are a number of governors. The power they hold now, albeit limited, can’t be lost in 2006. Feingold isn’t worried about 2006 for himself. He isn’t facing reelection until 2010, like Sen. McCain. The Post also included this little nugget.
The internal disarray, according to many Democrats, reflects more than a near-term tactical debate. Some say it reveals a fundamental identity crisis in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world for a party that struggled to move beyond the antiwar legacy of the 1960s and 1970s to reinvent itself as tougher on national security in the 1990s.
They also took note of the strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio this month. House Democratic leaders now are recruiting other Iraq veterans to run in next year's midterm elections.
Talk about desperation, and an inability to get past the past. Granted, Hackett was close, but not that close. And once he opened up his mouth, people started to see the wolf in sheep’s clothing. His disingenuous ads killed a good majority of the momentum he had built up once the GOP mobilized its base of strategists in Ohio.
And the antiwar movement that they ran with so many times before just isn’t going to work. This war is not like Vietnam, where a number of issues were raised, including whether or not we should have even been there. This is the Global War On Terror. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 11 September, and they were harbored in Afghnaistan by the Taliban. So sorry, but you boys gotta go. When evidence was uncovered that Saddam Hussein had ties to not only al-Qaeda, but other terrorist groups, and the fact he was working on WMD programs, it was decided that he, too, had to go.
"The American people are much farther ahead in their thinking about the war than the White House or the Republican Congress," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "They understand we can't continue down this same failed course in Iraq."
Actually, senator, the American people are much farther ahead on this issue than you are. Sen. Kennedy calls this phase of the war a failure. He neglects and outright ignores the good that has come to that nation since Saddam was removed from power and captured. Do they still have problems with terrorism? Sure they do. And we’re dealing with it, and the Iraqi Security Forces are right there beside us. They need to be ready to undertake the running and protection of their nation. It isn’t an easy task. Maybe someone would like to remind Sen. Kennedy of how long it took to make America a whole and complete nation. We declared our independence in 1776, and we did not have a ratified Constitution until 1789.
But, what can one expect from such a partisan snob like Ted Kennedy.
The party's liberal base, whose contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year have helped the Senate Democratic campaign fund amass twice as much as its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his conservative credentials.
But as Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and other liberal stalwarts on the Judiciary Committee step up their criticism of Judge Roberts's record, other Democrats are reluctant to join them.
"I am turned off by senators trying to act like they have already found the guy out and they know what he is like," said Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Democratic committee member from Wisconsin who spent last week focused instead on calling for a pullout from Iraq. "I am not part of any Democratic effort to 'set the table' " for the hearings by laying the groundwork to criticize Judge Roberts, he said.
Several Democratic senators said the hearings on Judge Roberts were shaping up as a risky balancing act. Failing to press him could look weak to their liberal base. But attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle on the treacherous turf of abortion, race and religion at a time when Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts.
Mr. Feingold said that he considered a Supreme Court nominee too important to evaluate in only political terms, but that in those terms, a protracted confirmation fight "could take away time from issues where Democrats have a much better position politically, on things like health care, the economy, and, yes, Iraq."
This comes from the New York Times story. Yes, the Democrats are also split over Roberts. After a thorough vetting over the weekend by bloggers over the records released by the White House and the Reagan library, we could find little, if any, problems with Roberts. But again, both sides in the Democrat party are raising a furor over this.
Former Senator John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat, said the hearings were a test of his party's independence. "The interest groups are going to be out there, and this is their issue, and they are going to fight it until the dead warm over, but gas prices, health care costs and Iraq are the things that motivate most people," he said. In a Supreme Court fight, "we are not expanding the base, and even if we get 100 percent of the base, we do not win a national election."
Judge Roberts "is a good family man with beautiful children," Mr. Breaux said. "You have to be very careful about how you approach digging into the background of somebody who appears to be a good guy."
That’s the smartest thing uttered by a Democrat since Zell Miller addressed the RNC last year. And the Democrats would be wise to heed the words of Mr. Breaux. If they raise a ruckus over Roberts, and nothing pans out, it’s not going to help them. Add to the fact that Mr. Breaux is right. In the Roberts fight, you may get 100% of your base, but it isn’t going to win you an election. That’s what this is all about.
Months ago Marcie and I pointed out that the power struggle in the backround of the DNC was slowly spilling into the open. Well, it has. The Democrats are split over Iraq, over Roberts, over Social Security reform, over taxes, etc. There is no consistency in the party. It’s falling apart, all under the command of Howard "Mad How" Dean, who is nothing more than just plain nuts. He’s embraced the extreme Left in his party, and abandoned the moderates and the FDR/Kennedy/Reagan Democrats. And he isn’t the only one. In addition to Sen. Feingold—highlighted in both articles—there are other loose nuts in the Democrat party.
Other Democrats were already publicly challenging the White House over access to Judge Roberts's work for Republican administrations. But during final negotiations on the timetable for the hearings, Mr. Reid told Republican leaders that he did not yet see obstacles to confirmation and did not expect Democrats to try to block the nomination on the grounds that the administration refused to release relevant documents, as they did with an appeals court nominee who had less of a public record, according to the draft and the aides.
The next day, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, stormed onto the floor, angry over reports that Mr. Reid and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, had agreed to a deadline for a committee vote on the nomination. Mr. Schumer, a member of the committee who had talked openly of blocking the nominee over a lack of information alone, argued that the deadline could limit the Democrats' ability to interrogate Judge Roberts.
Notice the term "interrogate?" People like Schumer want to grill this man over whatever little misstep he might have made in their eyes. And like Feingold, Schumer doesn't have to worry about 2006. But for Schumer, this is somewhat personal. He didn't get the answers he wanted out of Roberts the first time around, and now he's will to make an ass of himself if that means getting those answers. It’s this sort of nuttiness that is tearing the Democrats apart, and they’re doing in right in front of our faces. These are not signs of a party that has a solid vision for the nation, and the future of it. These are signs of factions vying for control based on their twisted ideology.
If the party continues it’s spiral down the drain, within a few years they may end up being equal with a third party, like the Independent Party, or worse, like the Green Party. I’m not blind to the fact that many people are moving towards the center on a great many issues. Some, like us here at the Asylum, still draw battle lines, and dig in our heels on a few key subjects, like national security, limited government, a firm belief in the Constitution, and lower taxes. That’s where our bread and butter is. The Democrats would be wise to watch people like Marcie and I, and understand that they’re convoluted ideas from the 60’s and the 70’s don’t wash with America anymore. America has moved on, and move forward into the 21st Century. We’re not languishing in the past, reliving bygone glory days, and disregarding what the future may hold.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home