Posted on 02/28/2006 6:24:52 AM PST by mathprof
Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.
These activists -- spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns -- have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.
First, liberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush's speech next Tuesday. Kaine's political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.
Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. "What the hell are they thinking?" was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington's column blasting the Kaine selection.
"Blogs can take up a lot of time if you're on them," Kaine said to reporters Thursday. "You can get a lot done if you're not bitterly partisan."
The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party's base. "I'm not anybody's mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter..."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Liberals - the gift that keeps on giving.
The only time the rats will reach for the center is if my wallet is there.
I don't think that is going to complicate the efforts to win seats. The democrats are going to vote democrats doesn't matter what.
"Dems reach for center"??????????
Didn't we see how mature and reasonable the left was last week when the dem's got rid of the center President of Harvard.
The left can turn on "establishment" Democrats and drive them out of the political arena, as they did with Lyndon Johnson. They are the worst nightmare of the "centrist" Democrats, who will sit back quietly until the heat of the primaries is over.
If the Daily Kos faction of the party wins, the Republicans win huge. If the "establishment" Democrats succeed in running their candidate, whoever that may be, it's a much greater threat than if they run Dennis Kucinich.
Yeah, well. Don't worry about it. The crazies are in full control of the flight deck, and the reinforced cabin door will keep the "moderates" at bay. I don't see how this situation can change as long as Islamofacisim is a real threat to our security. The left has no answer to this problem that makes any sense to Mr. and Mrs. America.
Clinton only became president because, with the fall of Communism, the Baby Boomers wanted to take a vacation from reality and blow the peace dividend on a big party. In the years before that, the tangible threat posed by Soviet nuclear missiles kept the left in a cage (think McGovern, McCarthy, etc.).
When the party broke up, and while the revellers were sleeping it off, the real world bashed in the front door on 9-11.
(steely)
What this article confirms is that it's the Left that is in real political trouble. When the left "reaches for the middle", the kook fringe is usually waiting to dump a big pile of excremate on them.
Imagine that. I actually agree with a communist on something.
Clinton only became President because of a fawning media simultaneously shilling/covering for him, he was willing to tell any lie necessary, and GHWB's "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!".
The pendalum always swings and I think the left has gone about as far as they can go and the backlash is beginning. Their salvation is massive voter fraud. Look for it! It will happen. Will it be enough? Depends on us.
Don't forget that Ross Perot helped Slick Willie get elected too!
Who listens to Huffington? She strikes me as 100% opportunist.
Don't read too much into it. Keep in mind, the Democrats outnumber the Republicans, even without the fraud.
The majority of Dems don't have a computer, or pay much attention to politics. Indeed, nearly all Democrats were born into a family of Dems, and vote for that party from tradition.
This is just a squabble over leadership and direction, and the leftwing bloggers are more than a bit shrill, because this is the only way they can get attention.
The center of mass for both parties is moving slowly to the left. It just isn't moving fast enough for the extremist freaks.
Your facts are correct, of course. I'm a believer in large-scale trends, though. The media can always be counted on to fawn over whatever bozo the Donkeycrats nominate. They fawned over Carter, but he won because of Watergate. They fawned over Mondale and Dukakis, but they lost because Reagan was the best president of the twentieth century and everyone knew it; he restored America's sense of greatness and purpose, and he fulfilled that purpose by making the Evil Empire pop like a balloon.
They fawned over Slick Willy too, but Bush lost because he wasn't that enthusiastic about being President. In my view, the Perot candidacy was more of a consequence than it was a cause.
(steely)
You are right! I did forget that. Thanks.
Perhaps without the first two - the media distortions of who Slick is and Read MY Lips, Perot may not have been attrative to as many people. The media gave Perot lots of free time and he spent very little money and time himself so it is hard to guess if he would have even made the effort.
But you are right, also, even with the first two, without Perot Slick wouldn't have made it.
Move to the Center? Sorry but there has been NO move to the Center by the Dems. More compost from the Wash Poop.
They fawned over Carter, but he won because of Watergate.
Probably correct but had Reagan won the nomination over Ford, which he almost did, the outcome would have probably been different. Not only was Reagan charismatic but Ford was the opposite, a cardboard cutout who was easily portrayed as a dunce. He looked and acted the part.
They fawned over Slick Willy too, but Bush lost because he wasn't that enthusiastic about being President.
Yes, that looking at his watch thing played a part and he had been listless for awhile. It seems he had a potassium imbalance that was discovered later and corrected, after he threw up on the PM of Japan IIRC.
I read somewhere, a source that seemed to have the facts, that Perot was persuaded to enter the race by the Clintons who offered to give Perot Systems to administer 2 of the 5 districts the soon-to-be National Healthcare Program if he would help elect Clinton by entering the race.
The first hint was a long article that Perot wrote for the Dallas Morning News criticizing the plan to eject Saddam from Kuwait, the first Gulf War. Perot argued to let Saddam keep Kuwait and that he would be satisfied and cause no more trouble.
That was such a whacked out position for a reputed super patriot that many wondered what that was all about. The speculation was that he had a long running feud with GHWB over some supposed MIA issue when Bush was head of the CIA. It was all very mysterious and murky, just the way he likes it.
I think the healthcare thing is the truth.
No, they don't.
That used to be the conventional wisdom. People used to believe that the greater the turnout, the more it suited the election of the Democrats.
2004 was very high turnout. G.W.B. won by around 3? Million in popular votes. This with noted fraud in areas like New Mexico with ballots found in bathrooms or in Wisconsin with GOP GOTV vans having their tires slashed on election day.
Republicans registered for the first time equalled Democrats in that election. The rest of the makeup of the public included individuals like myself that may overall support one party by default, but refuse to commit to that party in registration so they declare themselves "Independents". Others that also label themselves Independents only because they can never make up their mind until election day.
Through this statement the Washington (Com)Post is admitting the Dems are too far left and are fearful of being pulled hard left.
Go, Daily Kos! Your doing a great job of pulling the Dems to the Left. Go Daily Kos, Go! Pull Hillary Left!
As if she wasn't already there
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.