[Vision2020] Democratic Party Civil War?

[Ted Moffett]

Dick Morris's analysis is grossly oversimplified and panders to
historical and political stereotypes and inaccuracies.  The numerous and
overly broad references to "the left" in the Democratic party are typical of
the button pushing labeling of those who oppose the Iraq war being pushed
into an ideological corner to marginalize their position.  The opposition to
Bush's Iraq policies are now becoming far less of a partisan dominated
orientation, rendering the lumping of those who forcefully oppose Bush's
Iraq plan as "leftists" a disservice to an objective rational fact based
analysis of the war that will best serve the interests of all in the USA.

Morris writes:

"So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad - a
circular one - and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in
the late 1960s.  The battle lines are the same:  The New Left vs. The Party
Establishment.  Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to
squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to
cut back - or cut off entirely - funding for the war."

Of course there are divisions in the Democratic party over Bush's planned
escalation in Iraq, with some wanting much more aggressive action against
Bush's plan.  But the Republican party at this time is also seeing a split
along these lines, with many Republicans openly and aggressively opposing
Bush's Iraq policies.  Does this make them leftists?  And if not, why label
the many mainstream Democrats who vehemently oppose Bush's policies
"leftist," at least when describing their views on this critical issue?

When current Idaho governor Butch Otter voted with Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, who has been called the first Socialist member of the US Congress,
to oppose the Patriot Act, did this make Otter a Socialist?  Is it not
possible for Americans to be united in opposition to a war without this
opposition being labeled "left wing" or "right wing?"  Do views on all
issues have to fit stereotypical partisan political agendas?  Info on Otters
vote with Sanders:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200309%5CNAT20030925a.html
---------
Pelosi and Reid may very well not be able to cut off funding for the Iraq
war, if indeed they attempt this, but I doubt this will result in them
squandering their credibility, as Morris claims, with Morris's fantasy group
of a unified "left" that thinks and acts in lock step.

A lot of the discontent that resulted in the Democratic victories in 2006
were based on the scandals and lies coming from Washington.  Oppostion to
scandals and lies is shared by those of all political orientations.  The
recent Democratic victories were not the result of some massive "left wing"
power grab, but came in part from a realization among many mainstream
Americans that the Iraq war was indeed a mistake, and that continuing the
same approach to that war appeared to be making Iraq worse, not better.

Consider Republican Chuck Hagel's comments that I heard on C-Span this past
week regarding Bush's planned Iraq war escalation:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html

"Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska described the move as "the most dangerous
foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

Morris also appears to forget in the following comment that massive protests
involving tens of thousands in numerous cities across the USA against the
immediately pending Iraq war were already held in February 2003, thus
discontent with the Democratic Party and whoever else was not listening
already did "overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the
streets:"  Info on anti-Iraq war protests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#Other_U.S._cities
Morris wrote:

"As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left
on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political
process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress.  But now that the
Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left,
"betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan
politics and go into the streets."

Morris also suggests that we will see opposition to the Iraq war like "the
1960s all over again."

The massive protests against the Vietnam war in the late 1960s and early
'70s were made possible by mainstream political support across partisan
lines, in large part due to the US military death toll impacting so many.
Morris's oversimplified and all too easy claim that we will have protests
like 1960s protests against the Vietnam war is doubtful, unless the US
military death toll rises into the tens of thousands, as it did during the
Vietnam war.  And of course the Vietnam war era protests were also linked to
massive racial unrest of a kind not part of the current cultural landscape.

The May, 1970 killing of four US students at Kent State by US National Guard
during an anti-war protest was also a factor.  If students on a US campus
were killed by US National Guard during a protest of the Iraq war, then we
would really find out what protests during the Vietnam war era were like,
and the resulting protests would not result just from "the left."  Info on
Kent State killings, May, 1970:

http://www.may4.org/?q=node/5

"The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and
protests, online petitions, and the like.  It will be the 1960s all over
again."

Morris ends his political commentary with this laughable nonsense:

"Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9-11 debates.  Now a
new entrant is in the field: The New Left."

In fact, in the immediate post 9/11 period up till the invasion of Iraq, and
for a period after, the political landscape in the USA was dominated by a
"one party" approach, with both Democrats and Republicans for the most part
supporting Bush's Iraq war agenda.  John Kerry, one of Morris's "leftists,"
voted to support the war.  Now there is a new party emerging:  Average
mainstream Americans who have woken up to the lies, mistakes and scandals of
the Bush administration regarding the Iraq war.

Dick Morris should put that populist reality through his partisan spin
filters....

Ted Moffett

On 1/12/07, Tim Lohrmann <timlohr at yahoo.com> wrote:

> *Dick Morris may be a political prostitute, but he's a smart one.*
> TL
>
>
>
> THE COMING DEMOCRATIC PARTY CIVIL WAR
>
> http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60458236.phtml
>
>
>
> By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
>
> January 11, 2006 -- Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to
> dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war.  It's about to
> happen to the Democratic Party.  Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop
> strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are
> contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a
> timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.  The liberal
> activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not
> focus on winning a Congressional majority so that it would take merely
> symbolic action.  Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority
> party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.
>
> So the Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad - a
> circular one - and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in
> the late 1960s.  The battle lines are the same:  The New Left vs. The Party
> Establishment.  Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to
> squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to
> cut back - or cut off entirely - funding for the war.
>
> The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with.  It is a
> massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations
> such as Moveon.org <http://moveon.org/>.  It has plenty of political
> leaders - like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry - who are more than willing to
> articulate fundamental differences with the Party's Congressional leadership
> and are not shy about doing so.
>
> The Congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to
> hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq.  They are deeply
> skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides
> increasing casualties.  But they are not about to take the rap in front of
> the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their
> funding and forcing the Administration to retreat.  Nor are they ready for a
> constitutional confrontation with the Commander-in-Chief over his wartime
> powers.  So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade
> of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements,
> past and present.  It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a
> Congressional stage.
>
> But this theater is not going to appease the left.
> They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings.
> They expect laws not shows.  Their frustration will become increasingly
> apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop
> commitment in Baghdad.  The left will launch campaigns of civil
> disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like.
> It will be the 1960s all over again.
>
> As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the
> left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political
> process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress.  But now that the
> Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left,
> "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan
> politics and go into the streets.
>
> One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left
> seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity
> of the Party's Congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to
> add to troop strength committed to Iraq.  Moderate candidates like Barak
> Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked
> by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry.
>
> Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9-11 debates.  Now a
> new entrant is in the field: The New Left.
> ***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006***
>
>  ------------------------------
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49982/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html>
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49982/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070113/5b0b66d1/attachment.html