Showing posts with label DLC Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DLC Democrats. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

McCain and The Disaffected Demsbulbs?


John McCain just can't catch a break.( Could it be that he is a Republican, the party of deception and terrorism?)


Rarely has a presidential candidate traveled the campaign trail facing such bleak odds of victory, what with his party's unpopular wars, unpopular economy and even more unpopular president. Add to that McCain's unpopularity within his own party, and one wonders what gets him going in the morning.


Amphetamines? They worked for Hitler, not to mention our troops?


But his party happens to be shrinking, so McCain has gone hunting where he hopes the ducks are: among independents. As the Washington Post summarized his now familiar position: "Since clinching the nomination he has often reminded voters of his more moderate stances while professing his fealty to conservative positions."


Whoa! My head is spinning!


His other hope, of course, is that those hidebound conservatives to whom he professes may yet come home in November. It's hard to say at this point if they will, but McCain can only naturally assume that they're not so suicidally reckless as to help install in the Oval Office a liberal Democrat over the candidate who is, after all, a conservative Republican. Surely, only the pettiest of the petty would be so foolish.


Of course, they will stay home or vote for Obama. McCain is a disaster for them.


But, praise their little activist hearts, that's precisely what they intend to do, at least for the summer's balance. Reports the Post piece quoted above: "Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September's Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles" -- that anachronism of modern politics known as the party platform.


Say what? This sounds a little psychotic, but what hasn't in the last 6 years?


Said, for instance, Jessica Echard, executive director of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum: "Our job is to make sure that the grassroots continue to have a say" -- even, I guess, if that means the conservative grassroots will have absolutely no say in the next government.


It's a puzzler. A real puzzler. And McCain must be stumped more than anyone.


McCain doesn't give a damn about abortion or the Christian Right. Neither did Bush, except for their votes. Junior was taught how to speak fundy, McCain is having a harder time with that.


Why, he is most certainly asking himself, can't my own party's base see the same electoral realities that everyone else sees? My only hope is to barely eke out a victory through some combination of a reasonably respectable turnout among the base, plus some marginal support by independents in the purple states, which I'll secure only by straying from the official party line.


Independents who support this man ought to be horse whipped!


Yet the Eagle Forum and its ideological ilk just won't leave well enough alone. They intend, it appears, to pester McCain right into defeat. They'd rather be right than in power. Many may still turn out for him, but with far lesser (*) enthusiasm and all its overall number-depressing consequences.


Even more stunning, however, is the flipside to all this -- the side on which Phyllis Schlafly's counterparts seem determined to rob its own candidate of a massive victory and therefore solid mandate.


Massive victory? Oh, Pulleeze!


Here we are, finally, with a virtually in-the-bag election. So what must Barack Obama suffer from his base? Why, sniper fire, of course -- just like McCain.


And frankly, I'm beginning to think that a few among the progressive grassroots would -- much like the Schlaflyites -- rather be absolutely right than in power. I'm beginning to think power -- the actual means to accomplish something -- scares the bejesus out of them. For they'd then have to perform and deal with all the problematic compromises that political reality serves up daily, rather than carp with self-satisfied superiority from the ineffectual sidelines.


(Me thinks they would rather be right than wrong. Power has little to do with it, but it muddies the waters just the same.)


They may, in fact, be quite few indeed. It may well be that much of the progressive unrest we read and hear about is largely a ghost of this week's media narrative -- spooky and exciting as hell, but not really all that real.


That would be my guess.


And there's no doubt, or at least I strongly suspect, that much of the vocal unrest comes merely from the scattered but intensely malcontented windbags of Clintonland, still fighting the last battle and still trying their best to be as obnoxious as politically and humanly possible. But those particular dead-enders are fewer and fewer by the day indeed; so let them be, if such behavior amuses.


They, The Clintonites, are GOOPER LITE.


What worries are those progressives -- small in numbers, perhaps, but destructively vocal -- who prefer to dwell exclusively in the uncorrupted light of the political empyrean; who much prefer, that is, to throw tomatoes from the bleachers rather than wield power, because deep down they're frightened to death of what actual power implies. It's so damn messy.


fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter




(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.


Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Think There Are No NeoCons In The Domocratic Party?


Think again!

P.M is right on as usual.

Most of us I.U are old enough to remember the bad old days that led to the horror that was Chicago '68. Many of us then chose a more spiritual kind of politics and chose to be independents, and we remain so today. We are not independents because we don't care. We are independents because we do care.

The parties mean nothing. They are both big lies. We need political parties that mean something; that are honest about who they are and what they stand for. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats come anywhere near that.

And that's why we are independents; independents who will now crawl over hot stones to vote for Obama. He is really our only hope.

The headline, "McCain Profits in Iraq as Democrats Brawl," was followed by a textual emphasis on only the brawling. Such is news.

The Arizonan's tremendous good fortune in the primaries -- his ultimately revealed and colossal mismatch against a pathetic horde of ultimately revealed and colossal blockheads -- was, I'm sure, enough to convince him of the power of his assorted superstitions.

Now, however, I imagine the senator believes that he's transcended the rewards of mere superstition; that, indeed, God Himself has partisanly aligned by celestially commanding, "Let Democrats be Democrats."

For when afforded such divine permission, Democrats are sure to fill the hard-copy news with phrases like "Democratic infighting," "the campaign fracas," "their warring," and as "the Democrats feud," Republicans "profit."

And are they ever profiting: "In a hypothetical match-up against Clinton, a weekend Zogby poll gave the Arizona senator 45 percent to her 39 percent. Against Obama, McCain led by 44 percent to 39." Juxtapose that with match-ups of but a month ago, when Obama led by a margin of 12.

Then juxtapose that with this remembrance as well: This was to have been the year of the Great Conservative Crack-up. Social conservatives, economic conservatives, foreign policy conservatives -- they were all at each others' throats, a much-anticipated if not inevitable development springing from the historically uneasy construction of the Great Conservative Synthesis of the early 1960s.

George W. Bush may have engineered the train wreck, but John McCain was sure to bring it home. When the neoconservative McCain wasn't insulting social conservatives he was offending economic libertarians, or at least his history of doing so was both unforgettable and unforgivable by the insulted, offended constituencies. Conservatism's uneasy alliance was shattered: the 2008 general election would be more mop-up for Democrats than match-up.

What Democrats failed to remember, however, was that their own party, since at least 30 years before the conservative synthesis, has also been an uneasy alliance of competing political sentiments, if not actual ideologies. Their unifying difficulties -- their repeated inclination to scatter philosophically hither and yon -- run much deeper than mere organizational disorderliness.

Beginning in the New Deal era, throughout the Great Society battles and now, to today, the tensions within the Democratic Party have been, in the most sweeping terms, those between its progressive elements and the older-school conservatives. Reaganism appropriated most of the latter in the 1980s, only to have its hold attenuated somewhat in the '90s by the triangulating Bill Clinton, and whose wife now wishes to call them home en masse.

But whose home? The progressive dwelling erected by FDR and furthered remodeled by visionaries such as Bobby Kennedy, George McGovern and Paul Wellstone? Or the conservative Democratic home of Scoop Jacksonism, which tosses a socially progressive bone now and then but adheres to the fundamental electoral attractions of a globally muscular and intrusive America.

And let there be no mistake: the latter is precisely what Hillary Clinton represents, and that representation is precisely what lies at the heart of Democrats' modern disunity.

The representative's gender, along with her opponent's race, has merely complicated the divisive equation. Older white women, especially, would no more reward with their votes a white, neoconservative, Democratic male in 2008 than they would write in a vote for the late Jerry Falwell. They have to know that, and the energy required to suppress the knowledge must be as exhausting as it is embarrassing.

I'm not unsympathetic. As a male, I try my best to keep in mind the allure to women of a woman candidate, no matter how unprogressive some of her past may be. I would hope, however, that if I were a woman I would also wait till a genuinely progressive one came along, rather than throwing in with the Democratic neoconservatives for gender's sake.

Hillary's Iraq speech yesterday was intended to alleviate widespread concerns about her voting past, but to me it only drove the pain home. As Reuters summarized it: "She said the war has sapped U.S. military and economic strength, damaged U.S. national security, taken the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans and left thousands wounded."

In other words, Hillary reminded us that the war has produced exactly what progressives predicted in 2002 that it would produce. Mrs. Clinton was a knowing voice in the institutional body that handed Mr. Bush a blank check to prosecute this militarily and economically sapping, security-damaging, life-taking and human-disfiguring war, nevertheless she knowingly sided with the neocons -- and all for the Scoop Jackson-, Joe Lieberman- and Ronald Reagan-Democrat vote.

Some political acts are so cowardly, so callous, so cynically motivated and lastingly harmful as to shut down any consideration of forgiveness. Hillary's was one of them. Absent it, her admittedly overplayed "35 years of experience" would have blown away Barack Obama. This would have been no contest.

Her gender and her opponent's race now keep her afloat, but again, let there be no doubt that at the core of the party's modern-day split is the deeper historical and ideological division between long-term, visionary progressivism and short-term, opportunistic neoconservatism.

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter



(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.