| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Left Aims to Take Over Dem Party - No Matter Who Wins Election |
| 2004-10-10 |
| Hat tip: Penwil in Roger Simon's comments. EFL Fights over a political party's future are common after the party loses a big election. But John Kerry figures to face a fight over control of the party from fellow Democrats even if he beats George W. Bush on Nov. 2. *snip* Whether they succeed in electing Kerry or not, key leaders see the newfound unity among these groups as a first step toward building the kind of political movement any president, whatever his party, must heed. *snip* With Bush vanquished, the Democrats' internal battles will begin. "We're going to celebrate with John Kerry the night of Nov. 2. But the morning of Nov. 3, we're going to start organizing to take the party away from him, Not very far away, as far as I can tell. You'll just be more open about your plans to damage America by turning it into a Tranzi paradise. For the Islamonazis to destroy. because we have serious disagreements about what the party should stand for and where this country needs to go," Not as serious as the disagreements the majority of Americans - the normal people - have with YOU, Big Bertha. said one activist at the "What We Stand For" conference, Bertha Lewis, co-chair of the Working Families Party in New York state and a leader in the grassroots "In 2004, we have to elect anyone but Bush," OK, I can go with that. Let's elect Cheney! said a veteran labor strategist working to link unions with other progressive groups. "But if we keep working and build on the lessons learned and the partnerships we're forging during this fight against Bush, we can elect somebody we really like four or eight years from now." Who? Nader? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? That must make sKerry feel warm all over. All this signals a historic shift in the American left's approach to national politics. In the past, left-wing groups and individuals would moan about a Democratic nominee's perceived deficiencies and defect to a protest candidate, such as Ralph Nader or Jesse Jackson. By contrast, the Beat Bush Brigades are showing a new patience and maturity. Which makes them very dangerous to our country's future. They are working in the short term to elect a Democrat they see as imperfect in order to build their movement's strength over the long term. *snip* If Bush wins on Nov. 2, the battle for control of the Democratic Party will probably come quickly. Dibbs on the popcorn concession! :-D Leftists will argue that Kerry and the centrists forfeit any right to leadership if they cannot defeat the most vulnerable incumbent since Jimmy Carter. Nope, no bias there. If Bush is defeated, Bite your tongue! the battle will unfold more gradually. The left will probably cooperate with Kerry on some issues and fight him on others, while it focuses on building the media, research and grassroots institutions that can swing the party in its direction. Building? Hell, they've already got the "media institutions that can swing the party in its direction." Like ABCNBCCBSCNNLATNYTWaPo, et al. Read it all at the link. Normal Democrats, watch out. You'll soon have no party left. This is your last chance to take the party of Truman and Kennedy back; it may already be too late. |
| Posted by:Barbara Skolaut |
| #8 I thought the Democratic Party was taken over by the leftwing wingnuts long ago. What would a further left party look like. I mean to the left of Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton. That is pretty weird to think about. Members will be channeling Jim Jones or Charlie Manson??? |
| Posted by: A. Bungfodder 2004-10-10 11:29:39 PM |
| #7 The far left Monied MoonBats can try. They have the $$$ and more than a few Dems are seasoned Political Whores. Who'll hike up their skirts and lie back. While others in fly-over states defect to the Republican party. Jack. |
| Posted by: Jack Deth 2004-10-10 7:01:50 PM |
| #6 'Opie' Edwards was being interviewed on the Fox News Sunday show. He was not laughing non-stop and treating everything as a joke, in fact seemed really fed up with being put on the carpet by Fox's Chris Wallace, who did not back down on the issue of the 'entire' the new WMD report, which Opie tried to duck. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-10-10 6:00:34 PM |
| #5 defend liberal wesetern civilization against a fascist enemy ummm... Lex. The LLL doesn't like liberal wesgtern civilization. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-10-10 5:21:51 PM |
| #4 It would be nice if some grown-ups took over the Democratic party. I rather like the idea of having a functional two (or more) party system. Of course, I must admit I would enjoy the hideous spectacle of the Dems running Al Sharpton for President. Not sure who they could chose as V.P for 'balance', though. Pelosi? Boxer? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2004-10-10 4:19:26 PM |
| #3 So stupid, really: a hawkish centrist or even a hawkish liberal would win this election easily. Kerry could have trounced Bush merely by running to Bush's RIGHT on Iraq, Iran, the jihadists, because at bottom this is a war to defend liberal wesetern civilization against a fascist enemy. Hitchens, Paul Berman and a handful of others get it, but the vast majority of the Deanie/Mikey/Jimmah idiotarians do not. A leftist Dem party would be a permanent minority party commanding maybe 25% of the national vote and dominant only along four narrow axes: Cambridge-NYC-DC, LA/SF, Chicago-Detroit and Portland-Seattle. A party symbolized by Mikey Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmah and Howard Dean would not be capable of winning single state house or senate seat between the Hudson River and the Sierra Nevadas. In other words, the Dems would be most competitive in the states that are LOSING POPULATION, and increasingly less competitive in the states that are gaining population, electoral votes and congressional seats. These states are the bellwethers for America's political future: Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Texas. Absolutely insane to argue that a party dominated by government employee unions, a demented Wall Street billionaire and a crackpot conspiracy-monger can win over a majority of voters in the high-growth, suburbanized, increasingly yuppie and anti-government core states. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-10-10 3:05:16 PM |
| #2 This is interesting. Doctrinally, JK is *the* most left of the lefties. So what are the radicals *really* proposing? In other words, are they willing to abandon socialism for what amounts to anarchy? That is, whoever can stimulate the herd to stampede in whatever direction is the new leader, until they run into an obstacle. At this point, the cease to be a political party, except clenching the bones of the old organization. Something has to give: they have lost the Presidency, the Congress, the Governorships, and even the State houses. Except for pockets of the bureaucracy from which they are being excised like little planar warts, they have nothing left. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-10-10 2:57:01 PM |
| #1 Well, hell - I see Dave D beat me to it. Sorry, Dave, didn't see yours. Editors, please delete mine. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-10 2:14:23 PM |