On their strongest card, the war on terrorism, I think that they are just flat blowing the defense side of the equation, and moving the country a step or two toward abandoning our civil liberties.

Honestly, that's not happening now any faster than it has happened any time in the last twenty years. "No knock" warrants, civil forfeiture, abuse of eminent domain and the like are more troubling than anything that has been passed since 9-11.

Heck, the dumbass "RAVE" act is more troubling than a rational look at the "Patriot" act, and it wasn't connected to the war at all.

I'll have to think about this for a while. It's really hard to say. The Primary will change everything. The general election will change everything. And then the post-election will change everything again.

The situation isn't going to sit still for some time, which is the biggest reason I don't know what to make of it all yet. I know what I think today but I don't know what I will think six months or a year from now.

The only thing I know for sure is that no matter what happens I will not become a Republican. Leaving the party for the Independent center is on the table, though.

A.L.,

Take a deep breath and remember your roots.

The Bush administration is not fundamentally opposed to civil rights or civil liberties. There's no money in it either way.

The feds (institutions, bureacracies, "black world", spooks and pointy-heads) are the same as always. THEY want unaccountable power and always have. And they are quite non-partisan in getting it.

I.e., the only relationship between the Bush administration and current threats to our rights and liberties is that the Bush administration is in power at the moment, and so is being used by the feds the same as they use every administration, and did including Carter's. Ashcroft is a threat only because he is innocent, gullible and tends to believe whoever talked to him last. Given his position as AG, the feds are usually the last.

If you really want to motivate the Bush administration to protect our rights and liberties from the feds, figure out a way for their big contributors to make money doing it.

I used to be a Democrat, and still know how to think that way.

AL --

First of all, the endless carping about Bush and Ashcroft being "threats to civil liberties" is more leftist mythmaking. In the blogosphere, Eugene Volokh and his follow co-conspirators have also written quite a bit on the subject.

For the rest, I think you need to rebalance your priorities a bit.

National security should be the overriding question in the presidential election 2004: "Which candidate do you trust the most to prosecute the war and to prevent the loss of a US city?"

Everything else isn't terribly important in comparison. If we were to lose a city (or otherwise suffer a major terrorist attack), the impact on the economy would dwarf the impact of 9/11. It would prevent your pet policies from being implemented for decades; the money just wouldn't be there.

National security must come first; it's a prerequisite for any and all domestic policies.

Fredrik,

For many Democrats war is not real.

So they cannot in any way interact with the concept on any level. It is impossible to hold a civil conversation with them on it because they lack the intellectual basis to have one.

It is like talking to a man from the 1860's about the strong and weak points of the Microsoft Windows NT operating systems and how it will effect your business's I.T. budget and hiring for the next fiscal year.

Frederik:

Ultimately, I think the Administration is doing an excellent job tactically, I am not yet comfrotable with what they're doing on a strategic level.

That's a gloss for a longer thought that deserves a post or longer comment; give me a few hours and I'll get to it.

A.L.

I'll just say this: the real test will be to what extent the Democratic left is relieved and gladdened by the news of the Hussein brothers' demise. My guess is, the most vocal among them will recoil in horror at the very thought of rooting for victory--in any emotionally engaged way, at least. But real, actual joy over such a big score for the coalition--don't count on it.

For that reason, the various Presidential cadidates will be unable to express any but the most reserved and mitigated sentiment of vindication at the news. Average people will witness this, along with a thousand other instances of the same, and wonder how these folks can be trusted with our security, when they and their constituents can't even get a little bit excited about winning.

Setting aside quibbling over this or that which, as I've written about, I think can be done in ways that are much more on-point and show that they share the same concerns as the rest of us but would go about it a different way (in the manner A.L. wants, for example) than the Ds are doing - they're going at it sas akwards, and it does mean something. There's no reason they have to wait for the primary, or the general election, to do it the right way.

Though it's hard to feel that way right now, having heard that Uday & Qusay are deaders, I've felt blue, too. I think the reason that you folks, Democrats and Liberals yourselves are, is that you have a sense of the distinction between what is the right sort of critique, that shows they are "with us", and what doesn't fit.

Let me put it the way I did when I wrote a response to a letter sent to me by Richard Meixner today (and which exposes my inner Jacksonian): family may bicker among themselves and some of the fiercest grudges can be among family members. But when someone attacks your family, you stand shoulder to shoulder, back to back, against them.

Tony Blair and George Bush, the British and Americans, have a lot of policy differences. But Blair has shown that he understands when those differences take a back seat which doesn't mean they're forgotten, nor even that they aren't raised and dealt with; even in how to proceed in the war. But when Blair says he's got our back, we believe him. He's family, whatever differences there might be. Chretien and Chirac and their like have not behaved like family. They're outside the circle.

When the Democratic candidates say they've got our back, a lot of us are starting to look for dagger wounds because their attitude and critiques have been antagonistic rather than supportive.

They could be speaking in ways that demonstrate that not only do they have our back as Blair does, but they'll be more vigilant and insightfully articulate about it - as Blair can be and as A.L. & I agree that we need to be, since one of the fronts is intellectual, rhetorical persuasion - than the current head of the family. I articulate what I mean about this in several posts up over on my blog.

They're taking a different path. One that shows that they don't see the problem, understand our situation.

Can they change tack by the primaries and beyond? Well, Michael, the way to do that is to be pro-active, and I'd recommend raising hell the way A.L. is planning on doing.

I mean, IMO there's no reason that a Democratic candidate can't sound the same notes that Blair has and they should be pressured to. The fact that none of them are and few national Democratic politicians are (I can't think of any) says a lot about their attitude, and what they really feel.

I mean, lots of people are pointing to possible alternative questions that the Democratic candidates could be raising other than the ones they are (some examples, again, in posts over on my blog), but the attitude towards those, by and large, seems to be that those reflect "right wing" concerns.

Bloody why? To me, they are questions that reflect a concern with our success, and I don't see why that should be "right wing". I think that you folks have that same sense and that's why you're blue about the way the Democrats are behaving now.

They're missing real, serious concerns because they are going at discrediting not just Bush, but policies we think are needed to win the war, in ways that show they don't have the same understanding of the scope of the war that we do (see "Dividing Lines", where I express this a bit more eloquently).

Richard "Dick" Gephardt made a speech today that was a major example on this score. I'll try to find a link to the text.

Here is another Democrat, of my vintage, who thinks the Party's continued existence is at risk on this:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/447801.html

"Although I am a Democrat, I don't think that my party deserves to win the presidency next year. One reason is because most of our candidates have become demagogues. ...

With Democratic propaganda spreading widely, at least one prominent conservative, Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, now is advising the White House to be prepared for the introduction of impeachment resolutions. Based on my own experience with impeachment politics, I agree with his advice.

In my case, I believe that political parties that thrive on demagoguery destroy themselves. These days I fear that the Democratic Party that I have known for 60 years now may be close to extinction.

Jerome Zeifman (jzeifman@yahoo.com) was the Democratic chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings."

Sage: The Comments section in CalPundit's post on Uday and Qusay includes the sweeping view of left-wing opinion. It ranges from "Woo Hoo!" to "Who Cares?" to "It Was a War Crime."

Click here to read it.

A.L.

The next volley in the "Will the Democratic Party survive 2004" debate is served.

See my new post.

Porphyrogenitus --

Dean has been very effective in framing the nomination as a fight between the "Democratic wing" and the "Republican lite wing".

This fight will mostly be decided by the various interest groups that make up the party base. These interest groups will choose the party's nominee based on hatred of Bush, and the candidates' pandering to their pet issues; gay rights, abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, opposition to the Iraq war, Hillarycare and what have you. To the extent national security is a factor here, it will be an afterthought.

Given this, wouldn't it hurt a democratic candidate to now change tack? The base wants pandering, not unpleasant talk about war. Especially not if such talk suggests that Bush might be doing something right.

Or am I misreading the political dynamics of the party here? I hope so!

Fredrik,

The problem for Pro-War Democrats like A.L. is that your analysis of Democratic Party internal politics is spot on.

Ahem.

"I think that the GOP fiscal and tax policies are outrageous. I don't think they have a clue as to what to do to try and offer Americans who are middle-class and below a tighter grip on the ladder."

Outrageous?

Please offer us a clue. Give me some small hint as to what we MIGHT do to offer less well-off Americans a tighter grip on the ladder.

Foster business growth (employment) through capital release? Done.

Earning potential is a variable thing. The state does not and should not control the means of production.

It's good to look at suffering in the world and take action, but it's always a mistake to assume that everything is reparable. Sometimes you have to let things develop naturally. Like the business cycle.

Fredrik, this article from the NYTimes commented on the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/18/politics/18MEMO.html]massive, pathetic pandering to the special interest groups.[/url] I couldn't help but read the article as a warning. I must say the head of the NAACP came off as a major asshole and the rest of them like tardy school boys.

I seem to remember public opinion polls that indicated the Democrats were split down the middle on the issue of Iraq. I wish I could find them. I'm sure there are a lot more alienated Dems.

Shite.

So I take it Dean is the Anti-Christ around here. But he's not the only candidate generating excitement. What do you all think of Gen. Wesley Clark? And lest you say "I don't know enough about him", here is a good place to start. Also, here is an hour-long audio interview of Clark on "Sound off with Sasha"

Fredrik:

To the extent to which that's true, it says nothing good about the overall situation and supports my point.

Their reaction to that has been "no I'm not, see, I'm like you" rather than confronting it. If I were still a Democrat and if I were a candidate I would be able to shread that tactic with little effort, confronting it and out arguing it. I wouldn't resort to a meek retort "I represent the electable wing of the Democratic Party" (yay. Whatever) as one did. I'd go after it. This is precisely the sort of attitude I that shows up in the "oh, those are right-wing concerns" attitudes to certain pointed questions. Like hell, Truman might retort; why is such a position "Republican", lite or not?

Dean hasn't ever been confronted like that and I think that under incisive rebuttal, he'd collapse; he's already demonstrated he's not all that quick on his feet when he is questioned in ways he's not prepared for.

Perhaps doing that would mean I would sink to oblivion with zero support because there aren't enough Dems out there looking for a candidate like that. Perhaps there aren't enough Democrats out there who want the American version of Tony Blair, and a campaign waged the way I outline would starve and die.

It would be very sad if that's true, but I'd love to see someone TRY. He could talk as Blair does on the war AND raise the sorts of questions that would really be on point - does the Administration seriously think that sending a guy to go ask around while drinking mint tea is an effective way of verifying intelligence? I mean, if we have intelligence failures then perhaps this sort of method of verification helps explain why.

We don't have enough troops to go around, so why isn't the Administration focusing on creating the military we need for a war we didn't expect - why have they been acting like off-the-shelf will suit a very different sort of conflict situation than we built our military to handle? Gephardt talked in his speech today about how good the military is (which is fine) but how if "Bush listened" he'd put more troops here or there - with an obvious disconnect, lack of understanding, that the forces are stretched and our Clinton-era military is too small. He should say clearly that he understands this and propose an expansion with new units formed on a TO&E designed to the missions we face; JFK would. JFK did. Current Democrats have blind spots here and have little or no understanding of military and defense matters.

The "model candidate" I'm talking about could still be a Democrat: they could still run on a platform of solving the fiscal wreckage by saying that the problem is that Bush isn't spending enough, that the reason for huge deficits is that 5-6% per annum increases in the non-defense, non-homeland security line items is not enough and has created fiscal wreckage and the solution to the deficit is to vastly increase spending vastly beyond what Bush has. They don't have to be "Republican lite" and can strongly articulate Liberal domestic policy differences with Bush (ones I'll disagree with, but it would be "in the family" - that is, IMO differences like this are perfectly expected, where the current tack the Dems have taken on F.P. critiques is - disapointing, dispiriting, gives one the blues, for all the reasons already discussed).

They could go after the Saudis and instead of harping on yellowcake make a fuss over the administration's minimization of intel on Saudi involvement in Sept. 11th (but, then, the Sauds have tenticles in both parties. Still, someone can confront that). On this question and a number of others that A.L. raise I think it's possible that the Administration has and is doing those things, behind the scenes.

But on many of these things, the problem is they're running the precise opposite of such a campaign - narrower, rather than larger, vision of the war. Running on "not upsetting our allies" and "turning the world against us" - people campaigning like that don't sound like they're going to have a sit down with the Saudis or anyone else. Likewise, Democrats really have a mmisunderstanding of civil rights themselves and aren't very good on that score.

Btw, thinking on it, you need a more positive label for your group than "Disaffected Democrats"; Liberty Democrats, Victory Democrats, (*not* "Security Democrats", IMO; but what's a turn off to me might sound good to you). None of those are perfect suggestions, but something along those lines.

The fact that our Democrat "Dream Candidate" would be pegged as "Republican lite" - I mean, someone like Arlen Spector or Olympia Snow or Lincolin Chafee might run a campaign like I outlined, but no true Democrat could! - is sad and depressing. Someone's gotta change the Democratic paradigm so that no longer holds.

roublen:

Dean isn't the Anti-Christ. He's just the Anti-Blair.

As for Clark, his sole purpose for existing is to serve as a V.P. candidate to camoflage and mask their deficiencies on the things we're talking about; "look, see, I've got a General".

But the fact that he's a General doesn't mean he's saying anything all that different; his critiques show the same flaws. It's a matter of policies and positions, not personalities that makes the Democratic field disapointing. I mean, sure, you find Clark attractive - but you find him attractive for the same reason you find the other anti-war D's attractive - policy. The fact that he had stars on his shoulders once is seen as a plus simply for the political effect you think it will have, but his positions and statements are to your liking for the same reasons they aren't to mine.

He'll be the V.P. selection for a Dean, Kerry or Graham (fat chance) ticket because his positions and views mirror theirs but they (and you) think his General status will deflect criticism of those stances.

A. L., Michael, et al.--

There is one Dem out there who's better on the WoT. He's too multi-lateral for my taste, which is probably a plus for the party. He's knowledgable, experienced, and like most long-time pols, occasionally a whore (my biggest gripes, which I've made known to him, are the Bankruptcy Bill, and RAVE).

Yes, that Joe Biden. I haven't heard him join the feeding frenzy. Back last year, I watched him, with Lugar, run the Foreign Relations Committee hearings. I also listened carefully to his speech in voting for Lieberman-Warner, which was (gasp) non-partisan. I haven't found a way to access the debate in the Congressional Record; if you can, it's 10/10/02 beginning on page S10290, and runs six close-packed pages.

What he was arguing then, and I wholeheartedly agree(d), was that the we, the people, needed to be told the price up front. My take was that I didn't want us to go in and not stay the course; I saw that as the worst possible outcome and still do; I know the Brits had neither the manpower nor the money to pacify a recalcitrant Iraq after WWI. I (naively?) thought there'd be a better chance of full commitment if we knew we might have to pay both lives and butter, for an unknown but significant period, unless we got unbelievably lucky.

And here we are.

BTW, a close reading of this speech negates almost every brick on the Yellowcake Road. I have a copy; if it isn't soon accessible on Senator Biden's website (I'm asking that he make it accessible), I'll make copies and snailmail 'em to interested parties. Use viberk at comcast dot net to request. Two short quotes:

"...while Iraq's illegal weapons of mass destruction programs do not-do not-pose an imminent threat to our national security, in my view,they will, if left unfettered."

Or try "...just as Mark Twain said "The reports of my death are much exaggerated,' the reports of al-Qaida in Iraq are much exaggerated."

But he voted to authorize, insisted on the U.N. route, wanted the full case and costs to be made clearly (though his 'failure reference' was to Vietnam), and recognized the need to act--
"The United States has a singular capacity to act alone, if necessary. We must-and this resolution does-preserve our right to do so...Acting alone must be a last resort, not a defiant retort to those not yet convinced of our policy."

Biden for President?

About Wesley Clark, I can't say I'm impressed. He comes across as a generic D politician, not a general.

During the war, when he was doing the "military expert" thing for CNN, he was part of the quagmire chorus. Not good.

I happened to catch him on Hannity&Colmes last week (the 17th), and again, he sounded like a generic D, complete with the usual carping we've heard on endless repeat the past year; "rush to war", "unilateral", yada yada.

So sorry, no, I don't think that Wesley Clark would help the D's win many votes.

As for Howard Dean, I don't think anyone here considers him the anti-christ. Personally, I consider him naive, arrogant, and unqualified for the position he seeks.

But my real issue with Dean isn't the man himself, but the effect he is having on the political climate. By running as an anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-Establishment candidate, he is legitimizing the lunatic fringe -- the ANSWER, WPP, Noam Chomsky, and Ramsey Clark crowd -- by using the same arguments that they do.

With the political dynamics being what they are (see my post above for thoughts about that), he is forcing the rest of the candidates to do the same.

Bottom line: the Democrats, as a party, end up sounding like ANSWER, WPP, Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd.

Democrats would be wise to mind the old agage Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

I've been chastised for this many times, but I'll take the chance again.

While you guys put forth extensive analysis of the dem party, I'm wondering why you care so much?

If nobody in that party comes forth that represents your views, don't vote democratic.

Totten declares he'll be independent before he'll be republican. Well, that's better than voting for a party that doesn't reflect your views.

But it's still idiotic to me...this whole yellow doggism.

I mean, sheesh, these parties have changed so much in their history of existance. What is the benefit of calling yourself a democrat if the democrats are unhinged from reality. AL wants his party back. Well, AL, you seem to be a minority. Would you want it back if it has changed forever? If the moderate democrats moved so far to the right that they became republicans, would you still want to call yourself a democrat.

And just what is it about the republican party that is so offensive? They were began as a party against increased slavery. Now they have been slandered into the epitome of bigotry, despite the fact that it was the dems not the reps who failingly tried to filibuster the voting rights act. Even Strom didn't join the republicans until that filibuster failed. All those other dixiecrats (with the exception of 4) remained democrats (Byrd for instance).

It's just silly, particularly in this blog (at least to me). Generally, there is a tone of individualism here in the blog. All voices are accepted. There is no collective group think here. And yet AL wants to belong to the fold again. But not just any fold, his special demo fold.

And what is so special about that fold?

Bill?

Hillary?

Daschle?

Carter?

Byrd?

McKinney?

...

I would be more sympathetic except that I agree completely with Fredrik.

I've almost always voted democratic but I never belonged to the party. So I have no desire to belong to the fold. I want a fold that belongs to me. Without benefit of that, I vote for the man that best represents my views and desires, regardless of party.

Most of my friends are democrats and they too are beginning to sound like idjits (like ANSWER, WPP, Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, and the rest of the blame-America-first crowd).

The hate-Bush-more-than-they-love-their-country-brigade.

They are worse than the yellow dogs. They actually relish our injuries in Iraq. They can't wait for the US to look stupid to the world through the words of Bush. They can't stand it that Blair stands beside Bush on this because they are just waiting for any opportunity to sink their teeth in and shake him. Even if it means disaster for the US. Worse than dogs. A pack of mongrels.

And poor AL reminds me of those old Lucky Strikes commercials, "I'd rather fight than switch."

Truly, I'd like to see fine folks reclaim the dem party. But hey, if it goes down in a stinky pile, it shouldn't shame you any. Some other group will take it's place. Parties come. Parties go. They change for good and bad. Isn't that the nature of our dynamic culture? Why grapple to 'conserve' this group?

Gephart?

Kerry?

Dean?

Pelosi?

Kuchinik?

Sharpton?

BIDEN?

Sheesh...Alene says she disagrees with Biden on two very important bills, but as long as he's got a donkey on his lapel he's better than Bush.

Gimmeabreak.

The dems, like all good politicians, are going to pander the loudest voices. And with our media as it is, those voices are the moonbats. So, yeah, without better leadership, the party as you fondly remember it, AL, is on it's way out.

CBK

Biden? Mmm... no. In addition to the RAVE act, he's been one of the RIAA's hardest-working employees over the last couple of years. You know, the whole "we're gonna make it illegal for you to modify your own computer without our permission" crowd. Sadly, I've noticed that the majority of politicians busy introducing DCMA-extension bills are Democrats, particularly the creators of the 'share a file, go to jail' bill introduced last week. I'd vote for Bush if the choice was between him and Biden. Or Berman, or Conyers... can we dump these guys, please?

Seems the Dems in AZ are very unhappy with McCain because he's more popular with Democrats then the candidates the Dem party puts up.

Maybe you could draft him into the Democratic Party. (The conservative Repubs consider him a RINO anyway.)

What's a "RINO"? McCain is one of the few Republican senators I really do like and would elect.

I do believe that would be Republican In Name Only. Damned ungracious of them, if they're still saying that. He's spent a lot of time stumping for Republican candidates in the last three years or so.

cbk -

I want a party because in reality, it is the mechanism of the party - the electoral staff, funraising lists, volunteers etc. that make it possible to wage a campaign for more than maybe a state Assembly seat. You need the infrastructure.

Now some ideologs on both the left and right got smart and realized that by capturing the infrastructure, you could capture the ideology of the party.

They took it, and a bunch of us want it back.

A.L.

Suppose they don't want to give it back?

Will you fight for the soiled vestment or craft a new one?

How much can they defile the party before what you are fighting for is worthless?

Really, I wish you luck. But from where I see things today, the left has so seriously tarnished the name democrat that maybe you should just create a new label for your self and the others who have been forgotten by the current leadership.

Or begin a grassroots effort to boot the moonbats. That would be rich. To see Kerry et al denounce Dean, Kuchunik and their followers as quasicommies.

This whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing is fouling the whole lot.

Or stump for Leiberman.

CBK

I'd love to boot the moonbats. Trouble is they've damn near booted me.

Screw 'em, I say. They'll get what's coming to them and then maybe they'll call me.

If not, fine.

cbk
thanks for those thoughts. I have been a long time dem. What concerns me is the elitism of the current crop of young demos. My current decision (a lot can happen in a year) is I vote for Bush, but support the field of local dems. I actually believe the cleansing of the party with a resounding defeat in'04 would be healthy. Political reality says that core Americans will not support the weird left (and they are NOT liberals, but snobbish brats who can’t articulate a decent argument) and the current national candidates seem unable to discipline these anti-WTO nuts. IF, and it’s a big IF, the party can focus the domestic debate on important things like healthcare reform in Congress, then a strong Bush victory means the war on terror is properly prosecuted for 4 more years, and then the dems can regroup. It’s the only way I see to deal with my malaise. A democratic congress and a republican presidency; the best (better) option?

Hey David,

The elitism bothers me too. Immensely.

For lack of a better term, I call it nannystatism.

They don't trust the common man. They know what's better for us. If we don't agree with them it is because we are ignorant or misinformed. How like the EU? How unlike our founding fathers?

I find it highly ironic that the party that wants to tout tolerance and moral relativism is so adamently opposed to any thing republican or conservative. So relativism is only relevent when it is in agreement with the elitists. How very democratic.

I feel like I'm watching the party on some self-destruct mode, like on startrek..."self destruct sequence...1 year and counting. Self destruct sequence 11 months and counting."

I hope that is not the case. I hope you are right about the regroup. I'm afraid, like in other cases, it will get worse before it gets better.

CBK