Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Da Dems' Dilemma—and Ours
Last night's Democratic presidential debate at Maryland's Morgan State University provides more evidence that Fox News Channel is indeed biased toward the right-wing.
Why? Because FNC sponsored and aired a debate that was a stunning showcase of the banality and vacuity of the nine Democratic candidates. It was an evening filled the sort of bland, generally useless statements characterized by this Dick Gephardt line, ""I will be a president every day in that Oval Office who's trying to figure out how every person in this country fulfills their God-given potential, nobody left out, nobody left behind." I can't imagine that even the candidates' families were excited by the performances. The highlights, such as they were, came mostly from Al Sharpton (Sharpton missed the first debate, in New Mexico, due to airplane delays). When asked the toughest question of the evening--"What is your favorite song?"--the Rev. Al responded, "Talking Loud, Saying Nothing," by James Brown, reportedly the inspiration for Sharpton's signature coif.
But for the most part, it was the sort of tired, guaranteed-applause-getter lines that frustrates even diehard Dems. Consider the column by George Packer in the latest Mother Jones, which asks, "Is it worse for the Democrats to lose offering new ideas or to go down defending the policies of the past?" The column (not online as of yet) asserts, "Everyone knows that the Democratic Party has lost its way"--a conclusion easily reached by even comatose viewers of last night's debate.
At the same time, Packer's column unintentionally underscores the Dems' problems. After complaining about the lack of fresh ideas and appeal, the best he can muster as a "new organizing theme--one big enough to encompass a ranges of issues and constitutents--it would be that of the national community." Whatever that means. Worse yet, he proffers two-time presidential loser Adlai Stevenson as the new model for future Democrats (even he doesn't quite believe this, writing, "Adlai Stevenson is a dubious, if not perverse, political role model").
Why should any of this matter to a steadfast non-Democrat--and non-Republican--such as myself? Because in a two-party system (and that's what we're stuck with, however much we don't like it), it's always a good thing to have a strong opposition party. The big political successes of the '90s--welfare reform and balancing the budget--came only because Bill Clinton ushered in the unthinkable: a Republican Congress. There's more to this than simply divided government (though that's generally a good thing). A strong opposition party helps energize political discourse while reining in the worst tendencies of its adversary. Not long ago, the Republican Party played that role to the Democrats. Now it's the Dems' turn and so far it doesn't look like they're up to the task. Which may well mean even more overspending by supposed fiscal conservatives and any number of other policy excesses that tend to happen under one-party rule.
Hovig John Heghinian|9.10.03 @ 1:03AM|#
thoreau - You are certainly aware of the main criteria most
Americans use when selecting a president: national security,
domestic economy, and cultural issues; but you may not be aware of
the sentiment which governs their prioritization, i.e., "in
that order." Specifically speaking, the Democrats will not
return to power until they can demonstrate a plan for national
security.
More broadly speaking, I think history will show that it will be a
generation or two before the Democrat Party regains its hold. It's
a very rough exaggeration to say this, I concede as much, but I
think it's arguable to say the GOP came to power in the 1860s for
national unity purposes (and maybe even civil rights ones), and
lost it in the 1920s for corporate cronyism; that the Democrats
came to power in the 1930s for social welfare programs, and lost it
in the 1990s for irrelevance; and that the GOP gained power in 2001
for national security reasons, and will not lose it for a
generation or two.
That's just the way parties seem to work. A forward-thinking party
comes to power, because its members have a clear vision for the
future, then a second generation takes the reins, but live in the
shadow of their forebears, and don't have a vision so much as a
maintenance plan, and a third generation comes along which only
wishes to make the gains of the previous two generations permanent,
thus losing perspective on why parties exist in the first
place.
It takes another generation for the party to be destroyed, and
another to find leaders for a new incarnation. Maybe the total time
is two generations, maybe it's four, but it's still on the order of
decades, not years. Perhaps today these incarnations will take less
time, given the active communicative democracy America and the
Internet have created, but I have a feeling human endeavors will
always be measured in generations.
benrand|9.10.03 @ 1:06AM|#
He's right...I heard an answer from Dean that was serpentine in
it's jumping from one subject to the next. Howard "Non-sequiter"
Dean. But I like hearing his answeres to questions because they
make me chortle loudly. He's a pisser.
He really makes little sense, if Bush made as little sense, I'm
sure Norah O'Donnell and Terry Moran and the rest would be asking
about GRAVITAS. But it is funny that Fox put this one, I'm sure
that at least one person at Fox had this exposition of insanity
affecting the Dems in mind.
dude|9.10.03 @ 1:12AM|#
There was a british Whig party and an american Whig party which
makes it a little confusing. It basically means Liberal. 19th
Century Liberal that is. (Probably need to come up with a new name,
catchy as "Whig" is).
linky
linky
objective dissent|9.10.03 @ 1:17AM|#
this is the time that libertarians should be pressing harder
than ever at the local level to build an actual political presence
in America.
Essentially we'll always have the GOP & the Dems at least in
name but, as the trends are showing, they can make dramatic changes
internally.
Long story short, if we effectively press the important issues and
shed the perma-fringe element attitude, the libertarians will be
tomorrow's GOP and the George Bush's and such will be the Democrats
of the 2K 'teen' decade.
|9.10.03 @ 1:39AM|#
I agree completely that Fox set the Dems up for a fall - I
couldn't help thinking all through the debates just how
sophisticated Fox was in this.
The Dems need the black vote so the setting was guaranteed to
produce loud pandering to the black special interest group. Any
warm body with the franchise should realize that giving special
benefits to the blacks comes out of the pockets and the
opportunities of the rest of American society. This was the
Democratic Party at its worst.
"Give them enough rope" indeed! You go Fox!
joe|9.10.03 @ 2:21AM|#
"...the GOP gained power in 2001 for national security reasons,
and will not lose it for a generation or two."
The GOP lost seats in both houses in 2000, as they did in 96 and
98. Reverses can happen in the midst of realignments. When Carter
won in 1976, it wasn't because there wasn't a realignment towards
Republicans, but because of specific historical circumstances
(Watergate). There can also be counter-realignment elections based
on one party having a particularly good (or bad) candidate
(Eisenhower, for example). So maybe a great victory in Iraq or an
especially dull campaign by the Dem nominee will keep Shrub in the
White House. Still, history will show their gains in 02 to be
similarly short-lived.
Can any Democrat beat Bush? Sour economy, setbacks in Iraq, wrong
side of the public on health care and environmental issues, painful
cuts in DSS, pyschiatric hospitals, local schools, police - if
theis keeps up, Braun would be able to beat Bush.
|9.10.03 @ 2:53AM|#
..and I don't care what party you support (or even if you're one of those 'nya, 'nya losers who won't pick a side -libertarians, puh-lease), didn't you just about want to ring the neck of that smug SOB from Savoy? I think I saw Juan thinking "God, I hate NPR"
|9.10.03 @ 2:54AM|#
..and I don't care what party you support (or even if you're one of those 'nya, 'nya losers who won't pick a side -libertarians, puh-lease), didn't you just about want to ring the neck of that smug SOB from Savoy? I think I saw Juan thinking "God, I hate NPR"
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 3:09AM|#
Hovig-
I certainly realize that the Democrats will need to persuade voters
that they are credible on matters of national security. That's why
I plan to campaign for Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.) if he runs.
Some might wonder how I can call myself a libertarian and yet
campaign for Clark (or any Democrat for that matter). As I've said,
I think the best recipe for keeping at least nominal checks and
balances is a Democrat in the White House and GOP control of
Congress. It's already a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will
win in CA in November of 2004, the only question is who will win
the primary, and I hope it's Clark. He's the one who has the best
chance of winning nationwide, not just in CA.
|9.10.03 @ 3:10AM|#
Bush is a big spending, big regulating, hyper-foreign inetrventionalist liberal. The Republican candidate for president should not be nearly devoid of conservative principles. The liberals will win their finest victory if this very statist president is not opposed by that part of the political demographic that would normaly oppose big spending liberals, and they refrain from doing so because he happens to bare the "Republican" lable. The Republicans in congress who tend to be much more principled than Bush and the Democrats (See: the NTU site for confirmation) have rolled over for Bush's big spending agenda in a way that they never did for Clinton. This was fostered by the the new political environment post 9/11. With our prodding they are showing signs of more independence. It will be bad for the republic if the GOOD Republicans in congress (not all, but a lot of them are. Check that NTU site) suffer at the polls for Bush's errors.
joe|9.10.03 @ 3:20AM|#
thoreau,
There is no record on which to judge Clark on issues relating to
the environment, social programs, urban development, etc etc etc.
This should be a negative for a candidate, and might be if he were
running against an intelligent, accomplished, experienced public
official who could call him on it. As it is, he gets all the
positives of having a record (experienced with authority and
responsibility, proven ability to get things done), without
actually having a record to defend.
If Kerry's numbers don't start climbing soon, I bet he gets in, and
quite possibly wins.
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 3:32AM|#
Joe-
My main criterion is the ability to beat Bush. I figure that no
matter who the Democrat is, the GOP will make it impossible for him
to get anything done (whether those things are good or bad). Even
though I actually have some Democratic sympathies, it's not like
the Congressional Republicans would let a Democratic President do
anything anyway. So whether the Democrat is a liberal or a moderate
makes no difference: The GOP will block whatever he tries to
do.
Factor in that Bush is a pretty lousy President facing no
Congressional opposition, and it becomes quite clear that the
Democrats' only concern should be nominating somebody who can beat
George Bush. Any hope of implementing some sort of liberal agenda
is foolish, because it won't happen.
Lurch237|9.10.03 @ 3:41AM|#
Braun beat Bush?
On which planet? This one? A far left whacko? Heck Bush would have
to become Hitler (as many looney lefties posit) for people even to
consider Braun over Bush. Get real. Hell, I'd vote for Bush as
dictator if it came down to a choice between him and that fruit
loop Braun. I'd even vote for Billy Jeff if he ran again over
Mosely Braun. I might even vote for hitler over Mosely Braun (okay
that's stretching it, since Hitler's dead and well Mosely braun
is.... whacko...)
Wasn't Hitler's mistress a Braun? (okay wrong melanin mixture)
Lurch237|9.10.03 @ 3:52AM|#
I understand joe, but I was having fun with it. The sheer craziness of the idea was too entertaining to pass up.
|9.10.03 @ 4:04AM|#
Taylor, Dude,
An even closer parallel for the Democrats than the Whig Party would
be the Federalists.
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/fedparty.html
Here are some relevant excerpts from the link:
"However, Federalist obstruction of the war effort killed the
party's popularity elsewhere, and the Hartford Convention of 1814
unjustly won for it the stigma of secession and treason...the party
carried only Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Delaware in 1816...The
Federalist party lingered on in these three states but never
regained its national following, and by 1828 it had
disappeared."
Given that those who attended the Hartford Convention were indeed
Federalists I would disagree with the word "unjust" but otherwise
the article seems spot on.
One caveat to the "Democrats are like the Whigs/Federalists" meme
that I would throw in is that the Democrats have already survived
one period of being the party of secession and treason back in the
1860-1865 period (although this was mainly through the good graces
of those Democrats who had supported war effort). So it may be
possible for the Democrats to survive this
- Snark
|9.10.03 @ 4:13AM|#
The appellation "gutless wonders" really fits the Dems. Not one of their candidates is calling for the troops to be brought home from Iraq. It was conservative Republicans who have led the charges against the Patriot Act including the stipulation that some parts of it be subject to "sunset" provisions.(Bob Barr, Dick Armey,Ron Paul,etc.) Contrast this to the Democrats cowardly silence. To be fair the Dems have gotten better of late in joining some conservative Republicans against Patriot. However, it is way to much to expect the Democrats to act as a countervailing force for fiscal responsibility against Bush's big spending agenda. The Dems political nature is currently just the opposite of course. For spending restraint, we will have to pressure the Republican congress to assert itself as it did with Clinton.
objective dissent|9.10.03 @ 4:28AM|#
A bunch of fringe element types sitting around talking about how
to make the Dem party viable.
What a hoot. I'd take a few potshots but shooting fish in a barrel
isn't much of a sport. Too easy.
thoreau,
Voting for the opposing party just to do it is farcical. You should
focus your energy on building up the credibility of the libertarian
party in your local area, or at least among your reachable peer
group. To do this, you will have to display a certain level of
civic competence and that can't be done tilting at windmills or
picking up any ol' campaign, as long as it's anti-Bush.
joe|9.10.03 @ 4:30AM|#
How does voting in favor of divided government at the federal level interfere with building up a third party at the local level?
objective dissent|9.10.03 @ 4:38AM|#
joe
Because it robs you of credibility.
"What do you stand for?"
"The opposition."
"What do the opposition stand for?"
"Doesn't matter, as long as it's the opposition."
You and thoreau can come up with some convincing arguments for
along the divided govt line but it doesn't float with the general
public.
You have to give them something to believe in and opposition for
the sake of it doesn't exactly stir the spirit.
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 4:47AM|#
Well, when I'm campaigning during the primary I'll only be going
to registered Democrats, since they're the only ones who can vote
in the primary. And among registered Democrats I could probably do
quite well with the argument "Clark is the one who stands the best
chance of throwing out Ashcroft and Cheney!"
In the fall election, when we have to appeal to swing voters, that
message won't work, but it won't matter: There's no way Bush will
win California. So it will just be a matter of going to heavily
Democratic areas and reminding everyone to vote so that Bush loses
(my statement that "Bush won't win" can still fall apart if the
Democrats don't show up).
And obviously I'm not so stupid that I'd tell registered Democrats
on the campaign trail "Actually, I'm a libertarian who supports
smaller government and opposes most of those social programs, but
I'm supporting Clark because I believe divided government is the
best way to keep the government in check." I'll just say I'm
campaigning for the person most likely to get rid of Bush, Cheney,
and Ashcroft.
|9.10.03 @ 4:48AM|#
FWIW, I'm pretty sure Kucinich is calling for the troops to be brought home-- at least he made a strong statement to that effect in Albuquerque.
objective dissent|9.10.03 @ 4:58AM|#
thoreau,
What about your credibilty within your own circle?
You're talking about people you will probably never see
again.
That and, getting back to the shooting fish in a barrel point,
making something out of the current Democratic party is a fool's
errand.
|9.10.03 @ 5:01AM|#
Thoreau -- you almost have me convinced. It's too bad Lieberman's campaign is sucking wind.
|9.10.03 @ 5:19AM|#
I love reading the fringe whackos masturbating over Clark. Hey
whackos, he's not even a declared candidate.
You want him because he looks strong? He's going to get shredded by
both sides: the left because the left loathes the military, and
although he's willing to play along as if he loathes it too, it's
gonna be pretty tough for him to campaign on the platform "Vote for
me because I'm a strong, miltary guy...and uh, I hate the
military."
He'll get shredded by the right because he can do nothing but carp.
He sounds like that bitter little bitch Hackworth, whining, "Well,
if they had only had the good sense to ask me...."
What's his envronmental plan? Where does he stand on taxes?
Education? Energy? LOL. The reason he hasn't declared himself a
candidate is because he has no more idea of where to turn than a
moth in Las Vegas at 2:00 a.m.
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 6:05AM|#
Objective Dissent-
There's another good reason to campaign for a candidate in the 2
major parties if doing so advances either divided government or
(ideally) one of the handful of good ones (and I freely admit Clark
is nothing special by any libertarian yard stick):
Get experience volunteering inside a well-funded, professional
campaign organization. See how the pros do it. Then use that
experience to campaign for a libertarian seeking state or local
office next time around. And if my local LP puts forward somebody
credible I will gladly do just that.
|9.10.03 @ 6:14AM|#
Not all states are only allowed to vote for the party they
register for. For instance in Wisconsin we can vote for whomever we
want. I'll be voting for Leiberman because he's darn near the only
guy I could stand losing to.
It's also my wish to see the Democrats self-destruct and to see a
more fiscally responsible Republican party emerge to challenge the
existing Republican party.
Robert Tagorda|9.10.03 @ 6:57AM|#
We could have had a livelier debate if Juan Williams had directed his vouchers question to Gephardt and Kucinich instead of Edwards.
joe|9.10.03 @ 9:10AM|#
"I love reading the fringe whackos masturbating over Clark. Hey
whackos, he's not even a declared candidate."
Terry McAuliffe ordered a tenth podium for the debate in New
York.
"...the left loathes the military..."
Is the weather nice in 1972?
"What's his envronmental plan? Where does he stand on taxes?
Education? Energy? LOL."
His positions are about as well known as Eisenhower's.
Kevin Carson|9.10.03 @ 10:18AM|#
RollingMyEyes,
Since when are Democrats "the Left"? The party mainstream are
interventionists, perhaps not so much so as cold war liberals like
Truman, but nearly so. The main difference Kerry, Gephart and
Edwards have from Bush is an emphasis on internationalism, but that
was true of the Democrats who gave us the Cold War and the national
security state. Even the antiwar types on the fringe are just
tampon-brained social democrats.
Hovig,
Or maybe the Democrats need to have the guts to present a coherent
*alternative* vision of national security, instead of being gutless
me-tooers. A tough-minded isolationism, with roots in both the Old
Right and the Jeffersonians, backed up with an honest argument for
why interventionism leads to blowback and corrupts our
distinctively American constitutional tradition, might do the
trick. Persuading the American people that having a proconsul in
every nation in the world, and taking a position in every internal
civil war, will bring more terror back home, might not be too hard
right now.
|9.10.03 @ 10:53AM|#
"So proof of the bias is to allow the opposition air time?
Fascinating."
For all those telling others to read harder, I got it. I got it
from the beginning.
So many of you read so much into one word.
Fascinating, as in truly fascinating w/ no sarcasm.
|9.10.03 @ 11:15AM|#
"A strong opposition party helps energize political discourse
while reining in the worst tendencies of its adversary. Now it's
the Dems' turn and so far it doesn't look like they're up to the
task."
I though the blog-o-meme was that the Democrats were too partisan
and opposed to George Bush and the GOP.
Now, all of a sudden they're not partisan, not strident, not
resolute enough?
Damn guys, make up your mind.
And don't dare blame the Dems for the excess of the GOP.
Good Riddence|9.10.03 @ 11:17AM|#
The Dems won't be the first American party to
self-destruct.
Hopefully the Repubs will then split into two, the traditionalists
and the classically liberal (the new Whigs?).
The degenerate Left (the Greens?) will join Pat and the paleo-Right
on the margins.
Undertoad|9.10.03 @ 11:18AM|#
No, silly; the bias comment is tongue-in-cheek in order to set up the point. Read harder.
|9.10.03 @ 11:19AM|#
"And don't dare blame the Dems for the excess of the GOP."
No we blame the GOP for spending too much, a bad habit they copied
from the Dems!
joe|9.10.03 @ 11:19AM|#
Opposition party? The Democratic Party will be the majority party by the end of the decade, and for several elections after that. The only question is whether it will occur in this election, or the next.
Watcher|9.10.03 @ 11:20AM|#
"Last night's Democratic presidential debate at Maryland's
Morgan State University provides more evidence that Fox News
Channel is indeed biased toward the right-wing."
Are you suffering from some form of mental retardation, or are you
just really bad at sarcasm?
Desert Rat|9.10.03 @ 11:24AM|#
It's funny reading some of these comments - someone is going to
have to post a note at the top: WARNING, before you comment, make
sure you read more than one friggin sentence
DR
dude|9.10.03 @ 11:25AM|#
You guys are thick: it's a joke - Fox is helping the republicans
by putting the lame dems on the air, get it? A joke? Thus proving
its rightward tilt?
Anyway, bring on the New Whig Party!
If the dems self-destruct then maybe the fight in the future will
be between Bush-style Republicans and libertarians. Which I would
like.
|9.10.03 @ 11:27AM|#
Opposition party? The Dems LOVE huge government and oppressing
US citizens. They are just pissed because some other guy's name is
on those issues.
Maybe they are also irked that the other guy is killing and
imprisioning terrorists (i.e. actually doing his constitutionally
mandated job and defending us) instead of expelling six-year old
Cubans at submachinegun-point, burning down compounds of religious
weirdos and harressing legal gun owners.
|9.10.03 @ 11:29AM|#
Actually, the sarcasm was quite good. Let me help, since you
seem to have a problem with basic comprehension:
1) Fox is sometimes accused of having a conservative bias;
2) Fox sponsored the Dem debate;
3) The Dems were pathetic, totally bereft of any ideas except "I
hate Bush badder'n him";
4) Fox could only have sponsored and aired the debate to make the
Dems look like the pointless ninnies that they are;
5) Thereby proving Fox's bias.
And if you miss the tone of sarcasm in my post, well, you're wrong
yet again.
|9.10.03 @ 11:33AM|#
Note to sarcasm-impaired: 'irony' does not mean 'made
out of iron'.
Sheesh. It's hardly a new idea, either. It's called 'giving someone
enough rope to hang himself'. Not that that's what Fox were doing,
I hasten to add for those whose reading comprehension skills are
somewhat atrophied...
|9.10.03 @ 11:55AM|#
I have to agree; you are very bad at sarcasm. Good sarcasm needs
to be 'over the top'; It can't be something obvious.
Of course, Fox has a right-wing bias, but everyone knows that. Fox
is just playing by the mainstream media's rules: pretend to be
objective while slanting the news. At least, Fox puts leftists on
air to explain their positions: you can't say that of the Rather,
Jennings and company.
BTW. who cares? This is a somewhat free country. People have a
right to have weird political positions. As long as a reporter
warns me of their bias I can discount it. But, if they are biased
and don't tell me; they are misrepresenting themselves. That, not
their opinions, is what makes them frauds.
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 12:00PM|#
OK, now that we've established that the comment about FOX bias
was a joke, on to substance (and remember, this post is fair and
balanced. I distort, you decide! ;)
I saw part of the Dems' debate last night. While I realize that
none of them are likely to turn into Lincoln or Douglas when
debating Bush, the 9 candidate format doesn't make for great
debate. A debate with fewer candidates might make for better
arguments.
|9.10.03 @ 12:01PM|#
"Opposition party? The Democratic Party will be the majority
party by the end of the decade, and for several elections after
that. The only question is whether it will occur in this election,
or the next."
Exactly which decade?
Amber|9.10.03 @ 12:08PM|#
Last night's debate was the definitive proof that the Democratic
Party is in full self-destruction mode.
Will the party die completely? Probably not, but with performances
like last night, it will be never again be in the majority.
|9.10.03 @ 12:16PM|#
RE: "it's always a good thing to have a strong opposition party"... Would it be a good thing if the strong opposition party were the Communist Party? A party can become a strong opposition party by espousing ideals and ideas that appeal to the electorate. At the moment it's difficult to detect any such ideals or ideas in the Democratic party of today, so for me it's not in the least bit disappointing that they do not appear to present strong opposition.
Dodd|9.10.03 @ 12:20PM|#
Opposition party? The Democratic Party will be the majority
party by the end of the decade, and for several elections after
that. The only question is whether it will occur in this election,
or the next.
You just go right on believing that, 'joe.' Go right ahead and rely
on the that "Emerging Democratic Majority" book all you want. Pay
no attention to the self-destruction the Democrat leadership is
wreaking on their once-proud party. The sooner they collapse, the
sooner a genuine Opposition can arise in their place.
Liberty Lover|9.10.03 @ 12:22PM|#
Last night I saw High Schoolers pandering to other HS students.
Plus lots of badmouthing of people who were not there to defend
themselves. It was pathetic.
Dems still cling to the New Deal collectivism. Wanted: new
ideas.
Taylor Sartorian|9.10.03 @ 12:23PM|#
Being unfamiliar with ancient political history, could someone
post a decent link on the Whig Party, and how it might be relevant
today, or how it might distinguish itself from the, um, To-Pay
Party?
Sarcasm Disclaimer: The phrase "To-Pay Party,"
in the post above, heretofore referred to as "the offending
phrase," is a humoristic device designed to draw upon the
distinction made by a poster above (heretofore reffered to as "a
poster above"), between Pat Buchanan and the rest of the Republican
Party (heretofore ... oh, never mind), and a word-play with the
word "Whig," which sounds like "wig," which starts with "w," and
that rhymes with, um, well it doesn't rhyme with anything, but "w"
stands for Dubya, and anyway, it was only intended as a little
levity, a wee bit o'humor, a small joke, a toss-away line for a
smile, maybe a smirk, okay, sorry, I mean, they can't all be
Ferraris, can they. Serious question about the Whig Party,
tho.
thoreau|9.10.03 @ 12:34PM|#
I've said many times that the best way to at least try to
restrain the government within the confines of a 2-party system is
to have a Democrat in the White House and the GOP running
Congress.
The Democrats, for whatever reason, don't mount opposition. Maybe
they're stupid and timid. Maybe they love gov't spending and so
they have no desire to oppose Bush. Whatever the reason, they don't
mount effective opposition. (Shrill rhetoric doesn't count unless
it has an effect.)
The GOP, on the other hand, kept Clinton in check at least some of
the time. And they swoon all over Bush like he's some sort of
Messiah, so they certainly won't keep him in check.
Indeed, the weakness of the Democrat Party is precisely why there
should be a Democrat in the White House: The Congressional
Democrats would form a circular firing squad, and the Congressional
Republicans would unleash their most vicious attack dogs. A
Democratic President would hence have zero Congressional
support.
The only question is, can any Democrat beat Bush? I think Wesley
Clark can, and I'll be going to the next Clark meetup in October if
he throws his hat in the ring. I'm not going to campaign for a
Democrat, I'm going to campaign for the defeat of George Bush.
There's a big difference.
|9.10.03 @ 12:44PM|#
I tend to think the GOP will lose one of the houses of Congress
pretty soon. IT takes about 18 months for the voters to believe
what they're being told, and with the fiscal problems of most of
the states, there will be a tendency to elect more "tax and
spenders" as Senators and Reps. Right now we've got two houses of
"don't tax but spenders" and the states are in the position of
blaming the feds for their financial problems (which isn't entirely
false).
It's sad that a party in the federal executive branhc can only be
checked by the opposition party of the legislative branch (and vice
versa) rather than the states checking the feds, but the states
surrendered their power over a century ago and this is what it's
degenerated into.
thoreau|9.11.03 @ 1:18AM|#
When did I say I'd lie? I see no obligation to tell people every
single detail of my political philosophy and motivations when
urging people to vote for a candidate. To be honest, I doubt many
people would WANT to know every detail of my political
philosophy.
My plan is that in the primaries I will approach people who share a
common goal: Removing George Bush from office. I want that, and
most registered Democrats want that. I'll tell them (with 100%
honesty) that I support Clark in the primaries because I think he's
the person most likely to succeed in that task.
I won't alienate them by pointing out that I have substantial
disagreements with the people I'm approaching. There's no point in
that. I want Clark because I think he's the person most likely to
(unwittingly) restore checks and balances. They'll want Clark
because he's the person most likely to win the Presidency so he can
attempt to push a liberal agenda. So what? I want Clark for my
reasons, they want Clark for their reasons, and we'll both want
Bush out.
It's called finding common ground, Darkjethro. If the Democrats
rejected volunteers, donors, candidates, and voters who didn't
pledge 100% agreement with their entire platform they wouldn't have
a single governor, Congressman, or Senator. Kind of like the
Libertarians...
|9.11.03 @ 2:07AM|#
Ummm, Joe, I said that Bush tried, really tried, to enlist the
U.N. in the war in Iraq. You found that ludicrous. Apparently you
think the President saw some advantage in having the U.N. kick sand
in his face in full view of the world.
No offense, Joe, but I don't think you're quite a rational
oberverver of the world scene.
With respect to your other points of view, I'd love to see them,
but I can't get my head that far up my ass.
A.W.|9.11.03 @ 2:25AM|#
Let me get this straight. FNC gives the dems a chances to shoot
their mouthes off, and end up looking stupid in the process, and
this is Fox's fault?
A.W.
RollingMyEyes|9.11.03 @ 7:37AM|#
Kevin asks, "Since when are Democrats "the Left"?"
Heh. Kevin thinks the "mainstream Democrats" are the ones who will
choose the party's candidate. Kev, check out the activists--the
ones who drive the primaries. Check out the freak show at the
circus. See if you can tell the difference.
Kevin says, "The party mainstream are interventionists...."
If that is true, they'll also be ones the punching the buttons for
Bush in 2004.
Kevin says, "The main difference Kerry, Gephart and Edwards have
from Bush is an emphasis on internationalism...."
Heh. Kev makes it all sound so dignified. My recollection is that
Bush tried with everything he had to get the U.N. to enforce its
own resolutions. It would not do so. So apparently to Kev and the
Dem weenies, whose only coherent message is "I hate Bush, and I
should be President because I hate him more than all the other
candidates," Internationalism = hand our sovereignty over to the
U.N. Don't protect ourselves unless dictatorships like Syria and
China say we can. Don't act unless bedwetters like France and
Germany decide that actions by us aren't harmful to them, so it is
okay if we act.
It's okay for France and Germany to act unilaterally and in their
own interests because they are sophisticated. Like in the Ivory
Coast. Algeria. Auschwitz. We must defer to them, because they are
clearly Better Than Us, right Kev?
It is not okay for the US to act in a small coalition in its own
interests because we are run by a mere cowboy, and we are tres
simplisme, non?
Mmmm, Kev. Keep it up.
joe|9.11.03 @ 9:23AM|#
"My recollection is that Bush tried with everything he had to
get the U.N. to enforce its own resolutions."
Bwah haw haw haw haw haw haw! Stop it. You're killing me.
Defend ourselves? Yes, I was so afraid that the Republican Guard
was going to invade Massachusetts. Now, at the cost of only a few
thousand human lives, that threat is...exactly as nonexistant as it
was before. Oh wait, it wasn't Republican Guard formations I was
afraid of, it was diagrams and disassembled lab equipment buried in
gardens.
And the "Clark lied about the phone call" story has been debunked.
He didn't claim the White House pressured him, but that the White
House's allies pressured him. Which they did. Go to
spinsanity.
Kevin, arguing against "interventionism" in the abstract isn't
going to accomplish a thing. Sometimes troops should be sent
abroad, sometimes they shouldn't. Blanket arguments for and against
are meaningless, and open to distortion.
|9.11.03 @ 9:39AM|#
Joe is right.
We should give our sovereignty over to the U.N. After all, they are
Better Than Us. We can count on them to take care of us.
Sarcasm//off.
With respect to Joe's claim that "Bush didn't even try to get the
UN to enforce its own resolutions," his claim is totally,
completely, blitheringly asinine. Bush lost a lot of prestige and
support when the U.N. told us to pound sand. It cost him.
Swell arguments, Joe. They are why I sign myself...
Kevin Carson|9.11.03 @ 10:12AM|#
joe,
I can't imagine any circumstances when I'd advocate using U.S.
troops for anything but defending the territory of the U.S.
Certainly not humanitarian missions or exporting democracy.
RollingMyEyes,
I'd rather go back to the sovereignty of Arkansas, Massachusetts,
Virginia, etc.--at least as a first step.
|9.11.03 @ 11:32AM|#
For a reference, Joe says, "Go to spinsanity."
Great source, Joe! What next, Democratic Underground and
Indymedia?
I can see Joe's next argument: "Well, as 'shrubsux' said on
Democratic Underground...." LOL.
joe|9.11.03 @ 11:55AM|#
Recent Spinsanity columns: Big Lies and Little Mistakes; Moore Alters "Bowling' DVD in Response to Criticism; More Excesses from Bush Critics; Bush Critics Mucking Up the Truth. Current front page has four criticisms of liberals, two of conservatives.
|9.11.03 @ 12:35PM|#
Thoreau thinks that lying to people is ok as long as it gets
Bush out of office. And nobody objected to this tactic.
I'm certainly glad I know where your values lie...
And you would lie for Clarke, the same guy who was caught last week
making up the story that the White House "pressured him" to make
false statements about Iraq?
Yeah, he's who I want in the Oval office.
You two deserve each other.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245