The Democrats Richochet to the Left

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | January 8, 2004 [sic] | Dick Morris

[BenLurkin]

"The Democrats Richochet to the Left"

And why not, the Republicans are doing their work for them in Washington.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
26	Alabama	230.00	7	32.86	215	1.07	339.50	19

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Land of the Free 04]

Why does the opposition party tend to become dominated by its own extremists when it is out of power? [...] Why did the right under Newt Gingrich take over the Republican Party during the Clinton years?

Nothing "extreme" about Newt---his Contract With America won the House for the GOP for the first time in several decades. Slick Dick Morris would love for Republicans to think they must steer clear of conservatism to win, but it just ain't so.

[jsbankston]

And why not, the Republicans are doing their work for them in Washington.

Exactly, If the Democrats were to stay where they were 10 years ago the The Republicans would now be the leftest Party.

[Billthedrill]

President Bill Clinton's policies of reforming welfare and balancing the budget attracted moderates...

Sorry, Dick, this isn't quite right. Gingrich was such an "extremist" that he achieved a majority in the House for his party, and Clinton stole credit for the very policies that effected this, i.e., welfare reform and a balanced budget (and eight more). The thesis doesn't really hold water in light of that.

[My2Cents]

Not only this, but I would hardly categorize Bob Dole -- GOP nominee when the party was out of power -- as a fringe right-winger.

[My2Cents]

Hey, let's cut a deal. Let's let the GOP lurch to the center, gobbling up moderate statists in the Democrat Party, thereby precipitating the complete demise of the Democrat Party, and once the Dems are dead, you can start a new viable second major party to the right of the Republicans to take the Democrats' place. Deal?

[reed_inthe_wind]

"This phenomenon is precisely why Joseph Lieberman is losing"

It is Dick Morris that is the phenomenom. He has us all shaking our heads in agreement that Lieberman is a moderate. Shrewd is as shrewd does.

[Alberta's Child]

Excellent point. Gingrich didn't acquire the "extremist" label until after his movement had succeeded.

Even after he had been out of Congress for several years, some Democratic candidates were trying to appeal to their moronic voting base by running against "Newt Gingrich's extremism" -- Hillary Clinton being one of them.

[Alberta's Child]

Morris has it all wrong. Lieberman is losing because no more than 5% of the people in America would ever tolerate a "leader" who spoke in that pathetic whine of his.

[WOSG]

Well, Newt was *called* an extremist the whole time.

But in fact, although Newt's rhetoric was strong (we could USE more Repubs with rhetoric like that these days!), his policies were center-right, not "right-wing".

Dick Morris is talking in marketing terms, not reality terms. Liberman is a Liberal, Clinton was a liberal. The "center" is whereever the midle of the voters are.
JMHO.

[futureceo31]

Exactly.. Cant believe all the conservatives who could even think of sitting out this election for an issue. "Heard someone on Hannity who said that he would much rather have a president Dean and fight against him than support Bush... I am like.. WHAT??? He thinks the repbs can get even anything done if Dean becomes president. The media will paint the repbs as obstructionists and hate mongers and the rest and will effectively reduce the party to nothing...

[futureceo31]

Dean still uses Newt Gingrich in speeches, if I am not mistaken last week..

[BenLurkin]

"Center"? Massive social programs such as recently enacted in Medicare are not in the "center" of anything except the center of socialism.

"Right"? All I want is for governance in the U.S. to comport to the intent of the Constitution. That's the true "Center" as far as I'm concerned.

[My2Cents]

Funny, I thought Medicare was put on a course toward privatization...a noble goal. I guess to simply see the Medicare reform as a "massive social program" depends on the spin on wants to entertain.

[My2Cents]

All I want is for governance in the U.S. to comport to the intent of the Constitution. That's the true "Center" as far as I'm concerned.

Then you should be 100% behind Pres. Bush's re-election, because his judicial nominations have given every indication that that is what they will do. I support Bush for his judicial nominations alone...that is enough for me.

[BenLurkin]

To truly "privatize" Medicare IMO would mean terminating Medicare, BUT if as a result of the Bush plan our tax dollars are never used to pay for the increased drug benefits, then . . . good.

Now on to doing away Social Security, agreed?

[BenLurkin]

I've voted straight Republican for nigh on twenty-five years. Not likely to change in 2004 . . . but am really feeling taken advantage of lately.

You see the difference between the democrat party and the Republicans is that the Republicans have one hand in your pocket: the democrat party has BOTH hands in your pocket.

[Joe Bfstplk]

The democrats must stay in a dead run to the left to keep left of Bush!