I think Andrea Neal is engaged in some wishful thinking in this column. She suggests that the primary defeats of Senator Garton, Rep. Budak, Sen. Borst, and Sen. Johnson were cases of “voter imposed term limits.” In other words, she thinks that these legislators were removed primarily because they had served too long and lost touch with their constituency. If you look at their defeats, I think there is a different story to be told. I don’t know much about Budak, but Garton, Borst, and Johnson were all economic conservatives, but were reasonably moderate (by Indiana standards, anyway) with respect to social issues. They were taken down by social conservatives in primary fights where highly motivated and well-organized right-to-lifers can control the show.
The Republican Party in Indiana is becoming less and less friendly for social moderates and libertarians. If you are in favor of a government that stays out of your pocketbook *and* out of your bedroom, today’s Republican Party is not for you. This is not the Republican Party in which I was raised. This is not the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Rockefeller. It’s not even the Republican Party of Goldwater or Reagan. It’s something else. The theocratic wing of the party is taking over. They want an end to abortion. They want their version of Jesus Christ in the classroom, the courthouse, and the State House. If science conflicts with their preconceived notions, they want it out of the public discourse. Evolution must be diluted and placed along side Bible-friendly pseudoscience. Medical opinion on the beginnings of human life must be put aside in favor of religious dogma. Sex education must be abstinence only, even if it’s ineffective. Gays must be condemned, not tolerated, and certainly not treated as equals.
Ms. Neal’s theory that Garton, Borst, and Johnson were ousted because constituents regarded them as legislative deadwood that needed to be cut out in favor of fresher ideas ignores the politics of Walker, Waltz, and Drozda who defeated them. All of them are part of the so-called “Christian” right. (Though most of the social policies coming out of the “Christian” right seem more in line with select bits of the Old Testament than with the Sermon on the Mount.) Whereas the mantra of Goldwater Republicans was “smaller government,” with the current batch it has morphed into “government small enough to fit into your bedroom.”
In today’s Indianapolis Star we see one of Senator Drozda’s efforts at social engineering cropping up again: prohibit orphans from being adopted if they’re being adopted by the wrong sort of caring, competent parents, i.e. unmarried and/or gay ones. Advance Indiana’s Gary Welsh was featured prominently in the Star article:
Gary Welsh, a family law attorney and Republican who worked in the 1980s for the Illinois House speaker, said the adoption issue could become politically charged if the case ends up before the Indiana Supreme Court and justices issue an opinion before the election.
Impact: While preventing gays from adopting is important to many in the “Christian right” and would spur them to vote, he said, other, more moderate Republicans might be turned off.
Comment: “A lot of people just see it as mean-spirited,” he said, “particularly if they know of a (gay) couple raising a child. Gay couples often are adopting very hard-to-adopt children. Often they are children no one else wants.”
So many of these social policies seem counterproductive to me. They steadfastly oppose abortion, and they discourage informing young women about birth control. Inevitably this is going to lead to more unwanted pregnancies and, presumably, children in need of adoption. Then they turn around and actively try to reduce the number of potential qualified adopting parents.
This is part and parcel with a “right to life” agenda that seems to envision only a right to life without rights except before birth and after brain death but not in between. That may explain why the United States has an infant mortality rate almost three times as high as Japan’s and on par with Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Judging from the comparative efforts of the Christian right to improve access to healthcare for citizens or improve the lot of impoverished citizens generally versus efforts to make sure they don’t get accurate reproduction information from their doctors or have the ability to obtain an abortion, the theory seems to be that it’s important to get them out of the womb alive (even if only just barely) and the heck with them after that.
There are more angles and links to this issue that I’d like to add, so I may end up updating it, but for now, suffice it to say that Andrea Neal’s suggestion that the victory of Walker, Waltz, and Drozda over Garton, Borst, and Johnson is merely a sign of “voter imposed term limits” is to miss the big story, in my opinion. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. More and more, the Republican Party is the party of the social conservative with economic conservatism being an afterthought instead of vice-versa as it used to be.
Hi Doug-
I’m a Christian and a conservative, and–as you might suspect–a Republican. However, I really enjoy your blog. It’s one of the first things I read every morning.
Your broader point about the Republican party–that it has moved rightward over the last 20 years or so–is of course correct. However, I have to point out that the obverse is true of the Democrats, who have lurched leftward.
There is little room in today’s Democratic party for the likes of a Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, or Bob Casey. For that matter, you could make a compelling argument that even a Democratic icon like JFK might be uncomfortable with the party’s activist base.
Not that long ago, there were a large number of evangelical Christian Democrats, Democrats who opposed abortion, Democrats who held traditional family values, Democrats who believed in a strong national defense, but still felt quite at home in the Democratic party. Today, these people would be hounded for apostasy by the likes of Atrios, Kos, and perhaps even the party leadership.
I’m not just pointing this out to start a game of tit-for-tat. Rather, I’d like to know why you think both parties have moved away from the so-called vital center that used to dominate American politics.
I think the Indiana GOP has just learned how to use the election issues they need to win. Would you reather fight a hard fight in your district explaining economic development and the positive impact you’ve had? Or make it easy for voters to choose you by appealing to emotional political issues that help them feel more in control by voicing their inner opinion. Gay adoption? Horrible! Abortions? Wrong! No Jesus in the State House? What Is This World Coming To?!
I haven’t lived in Indiana that long so it’s hard for me to say whether or not it’s a conservative shift — or just more of the same song, louder now that I’m paying attention. But what really pisses me off is that the conservative Christians are hijacking the party for political gain.
For example, I’d much rather see a smart, affluent gay couple adopt a child than a child go without a home or grow up in a trailer park meth lab or get stuck in the foster care system. But explaining how these families can work is a lot more difficult than appealing to a voters knee jerk reaction. Frankly, it’s become all about getting re-elected.
I see nothing in the Indiana Republican Party of Brian Bosma that in any way resembles the party of Barry Goldwater.
Doug,
Clearly Drozda, Waltz, and Walker are social conservatives and too extreme for those who don’t share their social agenda. But to call Borst, Garton, and Johnson “economic conservatives†is simply untrue.
Borst, Garton, and Johnson are responsible for many years of unbalanced budgets and raising taxes. The main issue Drozda had against Johnson was that Johnson voted for a major tax increase. Waltz also used similar arguments against Borst. If Governor Daniels and the House didn’t force a balance budget on the Senate, it would have never happened.
Many people disagree with the agenda of the far right. But when labeling, it is simply untrue to label any Republican who supports liberal social positions as moderates or economic conservatives. If you truly are a libertarian who wants the government to keep it’s hand out of your pocket book, Borst, Garton, and Johnson are no friends to you. The question that you have to ask is which do you value you more — your social agenda or your economic one.
This is “what’s the matter with Kansas” applied to Indiana. The Christian fundamentalists are squeezing out the moderate Republicans. Garton’s loss will have a profound effect on our state during the upcoming years. I doubt the new Senate leader will be able to temper the prolife fundamentalist crowd nor will he/she try.
Andrew, I disagree with you that the Democratic Party has moved leftward. It is quite the opposite. People like Zell Miller and Sam Nunn were Democrats because of the traditional (but dead) southern aversion to the party of Lincoln. Southern Democrats did not vote the party line and they even sat near Republicans in Congress. They were often Democrats in name only.
The base of the party has still lurched rightward. The net activists like atrios and kos are trying to move the party leftward, but they have found it difficult. If you have any doubt who is in control, look at John Kerry’s victory over Howard Dean in the primary. The party won handily.
There is a bit of truth in all of the comments. The rightward shift is largely about easy electoral politics – but it also more complicated. Republicans have discovered that issues like God, guns and gays play well because they allow emotional reaction and motivate a new base to go out to the polls. (Always the hardest part of a modern campaign). But in order to keep these issues alive election cycle after election cycle, they must be extremist on these issues – compromise dampens the fervor and may, ultimately, put the issue to bed forever.
More traditional politicians who lived in age of compromise, where the issue was governance and not electioneering, have become increasingly out of place in today’s political world. And no one was a better example of meaningful compromise than Senator Garton. He was a man who utilized his enormous power to force those within both parties to find common ground. Rep. Budak, too, was at home with her colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Unfortunately, this uncompromising attitude adopted for electioneering reasons on social issuses has bled into other areas where bipartisanship used to be common and so the rightward shift is not just about the social issues, it has also leaked into economic ideas as well.
The fans of Barry Goldwater are gravitating to the Libertarian Party, because the GOP left them years ago. Bush/Rove/Bosma are anathema to Goldwater conservatism.
I really do think Budak and Garton were turned out because they were out of touch. Sure, social conservatives defeated them, but Budak lost because she voted for Major Moves while her constituents in Toll Road counties were firmly against it. Garton lost because he clung to the lifetime health care benefit for the Statehouse. Both of these were economic issues second. They were emotional issues first.
I think a paper clip could have defeated Budak. You’ll recall that Mitch Daniels did a fundraiser for her, and only 30 people showed up. That shows you how damaged Budak, and Daniels for that matter, are up north.
The Democratic Party has moved rightward, not leftward. Also, anyone characterizing the average Atrios or Kos reader as far left isn’t really reading the posts or comments. There’s more than enough to be written about Bush incompetence, fraud, trampling on our rights and freedoms without needing to go to far left. A lot of what is written should be gobbled up by the “U.N. black helicopters are coming to impose a new world order” paranoia crowd that used to piss and moan during the Clinton years, but has now magically vanished since our government started cataloguing all our phone calls and imprisoning people indefinitely without charges. Where did those loons all go once what they were afraid of started actually happening? I digress. And we’re not anti-defense. I spent a fair amount of my six years of military service learning how to kill people in defense of this country, and training others to do so. There are a lot of veterans on those websites you mentioned. We agreed to defend the country, not turn a blind eye to abuses of power. Also, why would I listen to a candidate talk about Jesus Christ instead of policy? I’m looking for a government that is pragmatic to solve earthly problems? If said candidate is telling me about his relationship with Jesus, I’m assuming he’s just killing time because whatever policy initiatives he has aren’t worth discussing or would lose him votes. OK, I’ve vented.
If you live in Indiana and haven’t read “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” you should. (Get it from a public library while such institutions still exist. Do it fast.)
One point made in the book is that the far-right politicians who benefit from this sort of madness CANNOT AFFORD to be too effective. In fact, their failure to turn us into a Christian Taliban society are what continue to allow them to use these issues for political advantage. After all, once they’ve locked all the gay people into camps, and women are giving birth no-less-than annually, the far-right base will be (I guess) content and no longer motivated to vote. But if the far-right politicians CANNOT accomplish such goals, well, that just proves there is a left-wing conspiracy to defeat the Forces of Good (or God, or both) and THAT is what gets folks to the polls.
Andrew,
I’m going to disagree with your premise that the Democratic party has moved leftward. (Go figure!)
I agree with torpoindy that some of the names you mentioned had never been truely part of the party.
Obviously all we are talking about is abortion. Because thats all everything is really about to the right in this country. War, poverty, healthcare, wages… of little consequence to your theocrat. And obviously so as the Democratic party has long remained in line with the pulse of working Americans on these issues.
So the theocrats shall divide and conquer on abortion, and gays, and bashing immigrants.
On the issue of abortion I will concede that special interests like NARAL have had a disproportionate influence on National Democratic candidates, but I believe this is changing. Casey will be the next Senator form the Blue state of Pennsylvania no matter what NARAL says. And really the majority in the party stand for a platform of “get Tom Delay out of my wife’s OB-GYN appointment.” Most of us are all for reducing the number of abortions. We believe it is done with good health care and excellent education. The right believe its done with fear and a heavy hand.
We’re the big tent party, and that has hurt us at many times, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. America is a melting pot, and so is the Democratic party.
Doug,
I agree with your analysis of the takeover of the GOP by the Christian right. As you know, I’ve been complaining loud about that. One point I would raise, though, while each of the challengers in the case of Garton, Borst and Johnson relied heavily on support from the Christian right folks for their grassroots efforts, their direct appeals to voters did not rely on their hot button social issues. Instead, they used other issues, such as the lifetime health insurance legislative perk, to raise the ire of voters towards the incumbents and show how out of touch they were. In the case of Johnson, he was badly damaged by his highly publicized extra-marital affair with a Senate staffer and the tragic death of his wife because of her inability to cope with the breakdown in their marriage and the publicity surrounding her husband’s transgression. You may recall that Garton actually wanted to expel Johnson from the Senate; he later agreed to a lesser reprimand and stripped him of all seniority. That played more of a role in his downfall than any other issue.
I think TB said something above that is a key.Americans have always been pragmatists..Just solve the problems and get things done. Now pragmatism is considered ‘too secular’and it may not serve the ‘right’ adovacy group’ and who will get ‘credit’? And it seems to me you cant discuss anything with anyone who doesnt already agree with you.Everyone just goes to ‘his blog’ so he can get more facts to support what he believes,and put the other side in their place,and this is exactly the type of government we have.
If I go out socially I avoid all political chat with anyone who doesnt think like me politically.Intellectualism is dangerous! I just dont want to spoil the evening with unnecessary emotionalism. so where do I go? to a blog!
I’ve felt that way at times too, Lou — just avoid politics altogether to avoid a knock down, dragout fight.
But I noticed something interesting. I have several very good friends from college who are Republican True Believers. If I mention names or parties, there will inevitably be problems. However, if I simply stick with issues and solutions, there isn’t a great deal of difference between us and we get along fairly well.
Then again, with those particular friends, we get along even better if we stick to talking about booze, women, sports, and the stupid stuff we did while in college (mostly involving booze, women and sports).
I can’t really add anything to this. I just wanted to say that you are right on with your assessment.
Neal’s piece read like a classroom assignment where one argues a point of view assigned by the teacher. “Term limits” might hold up after a general election, if one saw a widespread and otherwise unconnected pattern. To claim it after a primary, when the victors share a political agenda, and when it’s the second primary in a row with such results, is more than wishful thinking. It’s choosing the proper cosmetic regimen for a pig.
‘Course, we’ll get another chance to test her hypothesis in November with Sodrel and Hostettler, won’t we?
I think the point of distinguishing the primary from a general election is well taken. From what I have seen neither party, but particularly not the Republicans, can take much comfort from the fact that most of their incumbents survived the primary, though I’ve seen just that point argued by apologists for the GOP (The Howey Political Report for example). Turn out seems was low (again particularly for the Republicans) even here in Allen County where we had hotly contested fights for two County Commissioner spots. What is the use to a disgusted Republican of changing his/her legislative candidate when you know the problem is the Governor (and for that matter the President)?
Doug,
yes, thats interesting. The more you have a history with another person,the more the disagreement on any issue gets dissolved into the whole of the experience youve had with this person. Maybe that’s an apt definition of what ‘relative truth’ is?
Andrew,
Many democrats in Pennsylvania are pro-life ethic conservative democrat voting catholics, (especially in the coal mining regions),so often they dont vote pro-life if there are other issues.They also have a labor union background. Thats what makes PA difficult to forecast.
Lou-
Good point about PA Democrats. In fact, it sounds like a pretty darned good description of Democrats down here in Evansville.
One of the things I’ve always found interesting about SW Indiana is that the entire “Reagan Democrat” phenomenon seems to have missed this area completely. Unlike so many other places in the country, working class, union-family, pro-life Democrats in SW Indiana did not become Republicans in the 1980’s. Instead, they voted for Republican presidents while holding onto their ancestral Democratic ties.
Fascinating stuff, really. If we didn’t live way out here in the middle of flyover country, someone would write a book about it!
I don’t know how anyone could read an Andrea Neal column with a straight face and believe anything she writes. She has been paid to shill by the same folks (Roe Foundation) that bring you the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform Foundation (Grover Norquist) and other extreme right wing groups.
Your wife thinks you should stop talking about women with your buddies if you know what’s good for you.
Obviously all we are talking about is abortion. Because thats all everything is really about to the right in this country.
Same goes for the left. If you say that abortion is just one issue that has the same priority as the others, then drop abortion. If the Democrats dropped abortion from the platform, I think they would regain the House, Senate, several states and the White House.
There are MANY people that want the social reforms the Democrats are for but see abortion as such a critial issue that is more damaging than war(s), big business, or privacy concerns.
You can debate how wrong or backward that assumtpion is, but I think we can agree that many voters would switch.
Really Jason?
If Democrats dropped any position on abortion from their platform tomorrow, a mojority of Americans would go “phew” and join ranks?
And how do you “drop abortion”? Roll over as the Religious Right tries to put women in jail for not obeying their men? Turn a blind eye toward the causes of abortion (lack of healthcare, poverty, rape, etc.)? Bring up a whole generation of young people with complete ignorance to the dangers of STDs and how they are really transmitted and how they are prevented? Become morally bankrupt?
Can’t wait to sign up for that party!
First, no, not a majority. My point is that many that currently vote Republican would swing Democrat. That would put Democrats with a higher base than Republicans, resulting in less “automatic” Republican votes.
Second, why are you saying that if Democrats stop pushing for more abortion rights, then that means they need to stop sexual education, public healthcare, and start jailing women Taliban style? That is exactly my point, KEEP the sex ed, public healthcare part of the platform.
I just think many people AGREE with much the Democrats want to do, but the single issue of abortion makes them feel that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion. That is a moral conflict for many people.
And, as you seemed to just prove Andrew Smith correct, many Democrats tie abortion restrictions to a slew of other issues. You seem to feel that less abortion rights lead to rape and poverty, just as some on the right feel that gay people from Mexico are causing kids to shoot each other.
Jason,
The critical demographic for the Democrats to motivate to vote inorder once again become the majority party is single and divorced women. The key is for Democrats to get these women interested again in politics. One of the major reasons young women do not get into the habit of voting regularly is they see so few women discussing politics on TV and on the Traditional Media Editorial page of their local paper. And when they do the female pundits are often spokewomen for the right-wing.
Thank God that the Blogsphere has a number of funny, sharp and brilliant female voices. Thank God for Jane Hamsher and the many other progressive female voices found on the web
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/10/meet-the-new-boss/
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/10/gender-and-identity-politics/
Clearly abandoning a Pro-Choice/Keep Abortion Legal principle and letting the Religious Right run wild is no way to reach out to these millions of potential voters.
Jason,
You are completely deluded if you for one minute believe that the Anti-Abortion religious right are not commited to undermining birth control, public health and sexual education and sexual freedom in general. The is no way Democrats can triangulate away a commitment to Pro-Choice and not loose millions of key base supporters and at completely confuse the vast majority American of what they stand for.
Please Read the following
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114717556279008962
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/03/after-south-dakota-pt-1-side-of.html
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/03/after-south-dakota-pt-ii-stand-up-for.html
Jason,
You seem to feel that less abortion rights lead to rape and poverty.
Whoa, no. I argue that a lack of public policy towards dealing with rape and poverty issues is in part the underpinnings of the abortion rate in America. I think we should be in the business of curbing abortion rates without banning it.
Banning abortion to me seems akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. Often, making something illegal is society’s way of not dealing with the issue.
Again, if we’re not abandoning education, healthcare, etc what do you want the Democrats to do?
What is “dropping abortion”? I just can’t understand what you mean. either you deal with the issue or you fail to engage, making your platform morally bankrupt.
Isn’t that the charge against liberals? That we have no values, no ideas, no vision?
I don’t support abortion and I plan on doing everything in my power to stop it, but I won’t tell a woman what to do with her body or make it illegal. I refuse to not confront the issue.
All this being said, I agree that abortion can be Democrats Achilles Heel, but it doesn’t have to be. If our leaders would talk honestly about how to confront this issue. The Republicans offer to make things go away by any means. We offer an opportunity to create a world where things don’t have to come to pass.
I agree that abortion can be Democrats Achilles Heel, but it doesn’t have to be. If our leaders would talk honestly about how to confront this issue. The Republicans offer to make things go away by any means.
And they (R) DO win votes that way. Most people don’t like to debate or hear that a problem doesn’t have a quick fix. We judge those we vote for / against by sound bites, not debate (Howard Dean’s howl?).
The same point can be taken with drugs or illegal immigration. Sure, we could beef up ICE and make sure we deport millions, and we DO ban many drugs, but that won’t SOLVE the problems. Democrats MIGHT have some of the solutions. People won’t listen, though, when the first words are ones they don’t want to hear. “I won’t vote against abortion…”
So, in the end I suppose my point about “dropping abortion”, along with similar issues, isn’t rolling over. It is getting the wings in check. Just as there are people making points like yours, about disliking abortion but feeling strongly that it is a personal choice, there are those that highlight and push the issue. Opposing parental notifications for those under 18. Giving federal money to abortion clinics, etc…
If the Republicans want to remain in power, they will have to get their radical people under control. It may be too late for them not matter what now.
If the Democrats want to take the power back, they also will need to get their radical people under control. I don’t think it is too late for that yet, except for Clinton and Dean.
Imagine if a candidate, when asked about abortion (or drugs or the border), said “I would look at each law to find what is approprate for balance. Furthermore, I intend to propose _____ action to reduce (insert abortion, drug use, illigal employment). In fact, here is an example where this is already happening _______”
I think they would have my vote. I wish I could find someone like that to vote *for* and feel *good* about it. I really hope I don’t have to choose between someone like Kerry or Bush again….
Brian,
You want to know how to stand up to the Anti-Abortion wing-nuts. Simple if they want to make Abortion illegal force them to in specific detail describe the penalities, against whom they will be enforce, and how. Force Anti-Abortion forces to describe how evidence will be collected. Accuse your ex-girlfriend of having an abortion, do the police have the right to force to have an internal exam. (See how it is done in El Salvador, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?ex=1302235200&en=d855d80018cd6c56&ei=5088&partner=rssuserland )
Make the wing-nust discuss where the funding for law enforcement and proscutors and public defendors is going to come from. If one in three women in America has had an abortion where are all the new prison beds going to come from? Who is going to look after mommies’ children while she is in prison.
Democratics who don’t back down and take this making Abortion illegal issue head on have their Republican opponents pissing their pants. And if the Republican is a closet Dominist or Theocrat, his references to their Biblical interpretations of the penalities for abortion will have the electorate in an uproar. The problem with Democrats is they let their Republicans opponents get away with all sorts of phony sentiments on Abortion. I believe Abortion is a sin. I believe Abortion is immoral. I believe Abortion is the taking of a human life. The bible is against Abortion … Yadda Yadda Yadda… Well, screwing your neighbor’s spouse and cheating on your spouse are sins and immoral too. What the hell do Anti-Abortion forces want to do about it, bring back public whippings and stoning? Because that is sure the hell is what fundamentalists like Greg Walker fanatize about doing. If a abortion is murder, then force the make abortion illegal forces to tell us do we put the woman and her doctor away for life or do we just hang’em.
Look, Doug is the lawyer. He can tell you that legal philosophers since the Enlightenment have developed a long list of moral issues that do not lend themselves to remedy via POSITIVE law. Up until the post-civil war era the legal and medical profession was united in this opinion on abortion. For the last 150 years pandering politicians and fundementalist whackos have polluted the public debate on abortion. Today Abortion is the new prohibition.
For and excellent history of abortion pre-Roe vs Wade see
http://www.counterpunch.org/bollinger10222005.html
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.1/br_14.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/ 072000-110.htm
Read the entire excellent When Abortion was a Crime by Leslie J. Reagan
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft967nb5z5/
I could go on all day about the absurdity and injustice of an American where abortion is once again illegal. The overwhelming majority of Americans are longing for the day when the Democrats stand up to the Anti-Abortion bullies.
Matters of belief dont lend themsleves to compromise,but democracy demands compromise regardless of what one’s personal moral view is on any subject.Roe vs Wade itself was a compromise( as I understood it) ,making abortion more and more difficult as the term of pregnacy advanced, and that reflected the increasing objection people had against abortion. The trouble with ‘believers'( as opposed to ‘thinkers'( I dont mean to be demeaning) is they cant think in degrees.Using birth control and having a late term abortion are put in the same category of ‘murder’ by the most extreme of the extreme( and they sometimes call the shots) WE just can’t have a surviving democracy with that kind of thinking!
And many other issues are similarly handled,and the result is the impasse we have now in our federal and many state governments.
So I say throw anyone who thinks morally,(rather than constitutionally)both liberal and conservative, and lets forge compromises and get on with things.
The problem is that the “radical” part of the Democratic party is the part that is smarter and has the good ideas. You might remember us as that zany fringe that chose to believe inspectors on the ground in Iraq in Feb. 2003 who said there wasn’t WMD production or stockpiles, while the non-loons (the rest of the American body politic) decided to listen instead to old and poorly sourced intel. We were also the loons who said the war would drain the treasury, destabilize the country, and without sufficient troops would be a disaster. Oh how weary my crazy fringe gets of being DEAD ON RIGHT ALL THE FRIGGIN’ TIME! Yeah, we’re unelectable. You gotta be a butt-sniffin’ moron to get a job in this racket.
TB
I agree about the liberals being right about everything…about the war,about Bush.The extremist pre-war view of Iraq has become the accurate one,and the most dire predictions of Bush administration incompetence and rampant corruption also have been the accurate predictons.Now it’s the liberal types wanting compromise and bi-partisan government. We’ve set our goals relatively low ( speaking for myself anyway).
T.B. stated that the radical wing of the Democrat party “is the part that is smarter and has the good ideas,” as they were the ones who argued against Iraq.
If memory serves correct, it is also the radical wing of the Republican party who argued against Iraq, including John Hostettler, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan.
Unless you think the “radical wing†of the Republican Party “is the part that is smarter and has the good ideas,” you might want to rethink your argument.
Though they few in number, old school Republican isolationists would naturally have opposed Iraq, just as they opposed entry into World War II, Eisenhower, NATO, Korea, the UN, etc. If you oppose everything sooner or later you get something right.