Oct 16 2006
The Endagered Centrist Democrat
One of the reasons I am not so sure of a Democrat take over is there are no centrist voices leading the Democrats. In fact, the Democrat party has been distilling itself down to its far left core for years. Gone are strong centrist Democrats John Breaux and Zell Miller. And with these more moderating voices gone so did the moderate voters. Now the party is led by Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Kennedy’s, etc. Even the liberal media see the problem and lament what is happening to their party. One such liberal at the WaPo let slip the problem while assessing the 2008 hopes for the party:
With Mark Warner out of the 2008 Demstakes, the chief anti-Hillary centrist is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana. This is a depressing commentary on the state of the Democratic Party. Bayh may have cleared his schedule to woo Warner supporters on Thursday. But he has yet to prove himself a real contender — and he may not be a real centrist, either.
…
Bayh is not the only senator to take dictation from the steel lobby. When the sunset hearing convenes at the International Trade Commission tomorrow, the steel lobby will present a petition from Sens. Arlen Specter and Jay Rockefeller, co-signed by perhaps 10 others. But Bayh stands out because centrists like him have traditionally been pro-trade and because his sights are set on the White House. Presidential aspirants are supposed to champion the national interest, not special interests.
Sebastian Mallaby is not the most credible person to look for guidance. He suffers from some serious naive fantasies, and is basically shocked Bayh has taken a political position he disagrees with. But the general point is accurate. There are only a small fraction of Centrist Democrats left. And few are willing to take on their party to save their party, like Joe Lieberman is doing in CT. This is probably their last chance to save the party from a mortal electorial blow. And I am suspicious they can win on the issue of Mark Foley’s personal criminal behavior.
This too funny. Liberals accusing the republicans of closed minds.
You know, Barbara, there are some thoughtful, honest conservative commentators who I really enjoy listening to. People like Bill Kristol, Andrew Sullivan, John McWhorter, and others. I like listening to them because they actually talk about ideas and policies, instead of creating unrealistic caricatures of liberals to mock and taunt. The rest of you, the dittoheads and slavish followers of people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, are just BS-ers, name-callers and sometimes even outright liars. To you, politics is like gang warfare, where being honest is less important than sticking it to the opposition. You simply make stuff up and then apply it to people that you actually couldn’t be bothered to listen to. Like saying that liberals are closed minded. Says who? I thought the problem with liberals, in the eyes of conservatives, is that they’re too permissive. So which is it? Too permissive, or too closed minded? It really doesn’t matter. It’s just more BS anyway, right?
GUMBO,
Thanks for your reply.I will endeavor to respond in a thoughtful manner.
• Iraq/al Qaeda ties- Please see the following links:
The Mother of All Connections
Q&A: Stephen F. Hayes on The Connection: Al Qaeda & Iraq on NRO
• WMD Programs- See following links:
New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida
Captain’s Quarters: Search Results
• Daddan and Terrorism- See following links:
Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror – by Deroy Murdock
• Regarding the economy:
Bush’s much maligned “Prescription Drug Plan” introduced market ideas for the first time into Medicare and he tried to do it in SS but was opposed by the Dems.
Clinton’s much touted economy was traceable directly to:
1. Reagan’s tax cuts
2. Tax cuts forced on Clinton
3.Cold War dividend
The Dems have never accepted the Laffer Curve or the fact that some of the most advantageous tax cuts for the economy tilt towards the wealthy, but create jobs (ie reducing capital gains rates .)
Jumbo, study the above information .
I have said it before and I will say it again, liberals accuse the republicans of the same things the liberals are doing now or have done in the past. The main difference between Republicans and Democrats is love of country as it is now, not as the Democrats want it to be. And I am not talking about which party is in power. Love of country and our way of life no matter who is in power. And if it is corny to love this country no matter what, then I am corny (according to the liberals).
Macker, I will take one of the examples you posted, about “The Mother of All Connections†as a case in point. It is claimed in this piece that an Iraqi detainee in Guantanamo Bay provides proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. But reading the details, all that is said is that (a) this person was once in the Iraqi military and (b) he was later recruited by the Taliban, went to Afghanistan, and eventually became an associate of bin Laden. Can you see the logical inconsistency here? This seems like more disingenuous word games to me. When someone says a phrase like “links between Saddam and al Qaeda,†we should understand it to mean active collaboration, not just that some guy who was once in the Iraqi army later joined the Taliban. This is weak stuff indeed. Was it because of this quality of intelligence that we spent 300 billion dollars and sacrificed 3,000 of our soldiers lives over there?
As far as your points about economics go, you were supposed to prove that “Democrats don’t understand free markets.†Keep in mind, I’m not making such claims about Republicans. I’m just complaining about such phrases being thrown around about Democrats without any factual basis at all. The points you raised are just debatable assertions about economic policy. You could easily find knowledgeable economists who would argue otherwise. But merely holding a different opinion about such things doesn’t mean that “Democrats don’t understand free markets.â€
In general, I’m complaining about the tendency for Republicans to be intellectually dishonest in inventing accusations to make against Democrats. Elections should be based on facts and policies, not on whether smears and baseless accusations can damage political opponents if enough conservative bloggers and radio jocks repeat them over and over. Can you guys at least ask yourselves whether statements like “Zell Miller is a centrist,†“Democrats don’t love this country†or “Democrats don’t understand free markets†have any basis at all in reality, before you go spouting off about it?