Democratic Schism
Democrat opposition to the war is beginning to split. The usual far left wacko suspects are continuing their unfounded rant of the illegality of the war and bleating about all the reasons we shouldn’t be in Iraq, but the more moderate, sensible, and decent Democrats are finally getting tired of all the deception.
Joseph Lieberman,, one such decent Democrat has recently returned from Iraq with praise for all of the remarkable progress we have made there both societal and regarding infrastructure. He stated that two-thirds of Iraq was doing great and that what he saw heartened him. He also stated how hopeful he was that the Iraqis would be able to take of themselves fairly soon and we would finally be able to start withdrawing troops.
Another Democratic Congressman, whose name I have forgotten and cannot find on the internet, has expressed similar views.
This appears to beginning of a split in the Democratic Party. It coincides quite conveniently with the beginnings of a dramatic upturn in Iraq. It seems it is becoming increasingly less convenient to toe the line of the craziest party supporters, and smart and decent Dems are changing the rhetoric.
What does this mean for the ’06 elections? It’s a sign that the GOP is stronger than the MSM and Democrat talking heads want America to believe. It means that going into the “06 elections there will likely not be such monolithic opposition to everything Republican, and such a split after such a long and protracted unified resistance will almost certainly anger many of the Democrat’s supporters. This could mean some damaging primaries for many Democrat hopefuls.
This split is the right thing to do, but it comes at both an opportune, and an inconvenient time for the Democrats.
Joseph Lieberman,, one such decent Democrat has recently returned from Iraq with praise for all of the remarkable progress we have made there both societal and regarding infrastructure. He stated that two-thirds of Iraq was doing great and that what he saw heartened him. He also stated how hopeful he was that the Iraqis would be able to take of themselves fairly soon and we would finally be able to start withdrawing troops.
Another Democratic Congressman, whose name I have forgotten and cannot find on the internet, has expressed similar views.
This appears to beginning of a split in the Democratic Party. It coincides quite conveniently with the beginnings of a dramatic upturn in Iraq. It seems it is becoming increasingly less convenient to toe the line of the craziest party supporters, and smart and decent Dems are changing the rhetoric.
What does this mean for the ’06 elections? It’s a sign that the GOP is stronger than the MSM and Democrat talking heads want America to believe. It means that going into the “06 elections there will likely not be such monolithic opposition to everything Republican, and such a split after such a long and protracted unified resistance will almost certainly anger many of the Democrat’s supporters. This could mean some damaging primaries for many Democrat hopefuls.
This split is the right thing to do, but it comes at both an opportune, and an inconvenient time for the Democrats.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
11:38 AM
23 Comments:
What I want to know is, why must everything be one extreme or the other? The fact is that we're too deeply involved in security and politics there for any balance of power to emerge that will survive our withdrawal.
The options are:
* a significant drawing down -- keeping troops ready to intervene if things get too bad, but eliminating our involvement in daily operations so that the government can find its own feet (though I advocated this months ago, let's call it "the Murtha Option"); or,
* the emergence of a client state which will be so dependent on the deep involvement of US forces that we'll be there forever, and the government will be compelled to play ball with US economic interests as a matter of survival.
Now, I know which option the oilmen in the White House would call success, and I know which option I would call success. Which one would you prefer?
By
catastrophile, at 1:54 PM
As to things looking better for the GOP in 2006, that's certainly to be expected. Just like they did last year, we can expect the Reeps to play up the notion that victory is just around the corner . . .
On November 2, 2004, our troops were cleaning out Fallujah once and for all -- scattering the terrorists to the winds -- and the impending January 2005 elections were going to mark the beginning of the end for hostilities and US involvement. Remember that? It's a fair bet that they're going to try the same game for next year's elections.
They're excellent campaigners, without a doubt.
By
catastrophile, at 2:07 PM
"the illegality of the war"
Can they point out any war at all which has been defiend as "legal"?
"Joseph Lieberman,, one such decent Democrat has recently returned from Iraq with praise for all of the remarkable progress we have made there both societal and regarding infrastructure"
Old tacticts of the radical-left; - Cannot win on our own?
Infiltrate another party and government institutions and bingo we are winning without the numbers.
By
Anonymous, at 2:41 PM
Considering Lieberman was the guy who introduced the Iraq War Resolution in the Senate, his support for the White House on this issue is hardly new.
By
catastrophile, at 2:52 PM
I believe the plan is to get them on their own and get us out. THAT is the best solution.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 4:44 PM
I am struck by the real lack by most of the political left in making mature decisions regarding foreign situations like that in Iraq. Rush Limbaugh talked about it today, but it is nothing new that the Democrat party began a spin downwards in leadership with the nomination of McGovern in 1972. I know this full well having been a Democrat in those days and hearing the prediction by the party old timers then about the future of the Democrat party with the McGovern wing of the party in charge
Playing your hand to enemies, and publically committing to time tables, or suggesting a cut and run strategy does not work. The left also needs to learn that this is not Vietnam, to quit rooting for the enemies of the US, and to come up with their own plan for success without making our country look like a bunch of whimps.
It is a disgrace that the Democrats are led by naysayers and gloom and doom politicians. Their message is one of despair, who wants to hear that. No wonder people voted out Jimmy Carter who talked about 'malaise' in the nation for a positive and upbeat Ronald Reagan.
By
Rick's Corner, at 6:41 PM
Message to Catastrophile.
How does one make a comment on your site?
By
Rick's Corner, at 6:44 PM
Rick,
On Catastrophile's site click "screaming people".
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:59 PM
Couldn't have said it any better then Rick....
OT: Daniel - 2005/11/30 14:16 Attempted Delivery - Customer Closed - What, you don't work 24 hours?? .. lol
By
ABFreedom, at 7:03 PM
Rick: I agree that, in principle, telegraphing our war plans is a terrible idea, and I don't really support having a public timetable.
The thing is, these calls for a timetable or an exit strategy are really intended to put pressure on the administration not to hang out indefinitely and build a dependent client state.
The point is that the confidence that has been invested in the administration to run the war competently and honestly has, to a significant degree, dried up. Profiteers and mercenaries, and now death squads, have us more entangled in this then we ought to be, and the administration is absolutely unrepentant. What should the response be?
(Comments on my blog work very much the same way they do here. What problem are you having?)
By
catastrophile, at 7:04 PM
ABFreedom,
They left a notice on my door. I signed it, so they will leave the letter tomorrow.
Thank you.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 7:07 PM
Rick said:
"The left also needs to learn that this is not Vietnam, to quit rooting for the enemies of the US, and to come up with their own plan for success without making our country look like a bunch of wimps."
No one (serious) on the left is rooting for the enemies of the US. Strawman.
Our plan is to leave the country. If the invasion is, as we believe, wrong and is therefore only making things worse, then the only strategy is to apologize, leave, investigate whether any of our leaders have committed war crimes and ask what we can do to help straighten up the mess we helped create.
That IS a plan (mine and many progressives, not the Dems). You may disagree with it but to say that we don't have a plan is misleading. Red herring.
And this plan doesn't make us look like wimps because only brave adults can admit mistakes and accept consequences. Frankly, talking about concern over looking wimpy is part of the problem with this administration: It is a bit childish to worry about appearances when lives are on the line.
To the point of whether or not the Dems are having a split: One or two Conservative Dems talking out hardly makes for a schism. Or does this mean because several Republicans have questioned our Iraq invasion there is a split in the Republican Party?
By
Dan Trabue, at 7:51 PM
"Or does this mean because several Republicans have questioned our Iraq invasion there is a split in the Republican Party?"
The Republicans always debate, disagree, and reach a consensus through debate. The Democrats have been monlithic in their message and general opposition to everything that the Republicans do no matter what. 2 Democrats having the courage to do what is right will embolden others. Just wait and see.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 9:10 PM
I will echo that, Daniel: "Just wait and see!" It's evident they are becoming fractured, but there is a danger in that too. The danger being that many may not see the duplicity. Some Democrats, knowing they have gone too far, are going to sound more "mainstream" than they really are. Like Hillary, pretending to be "moderate" when we know she isn't. We cannot let ourselves fall for it.
By
Gayle, at 9:34 PM
"The Democrats have been monlithic in their message and general opposition to everything that the Republicans do no matter what."
Wha? On what issue have the Dems presented anything like a monolithic united front?
By
catastrophile, at 10:47 PM
"On what issue have the Dems presented anything like a monolithic united front?"
The war, taxes, judges, social security, abortion . . . need I continue?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:50 PM
It will be interesting to see where people stand right before the elections.
The moonbats are already mad at Hilary for not being "peacy" enough.
We shall see...
By
The Conservative UAW Guy, at 2:05 AM
This is rich, to accuse the Dems of being in lockstep, coming from the my way or the highway party.
Not that you're too wrong about Dems, they have been pretty much in lockstep in being spineless to stand up against the Republicans (or their own leaders) when they were wrong.
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:15 AM
I'm usually somewhat suspicious of moderate Democrats' sincerity but I think Joe Lieberman is right on with this one. I'm proud of him for being willing to stand up to the whacko leftists of his party.
Great blog!! I'm putting you on my blogroll.
By
Dionne, at 7:30 AM
"The war, taxes, judges, social security, abortion . . . need I continue?"
I'll give you Social Security -- which is a gimme, considering how overwhelmingly unpopular that plan was -- and (sort of) abortion, but what was the vote count for Roberts again? How about the war? The Gang of Fourteen was half Democrats, wasn't it?
To be honest, it appears to me that the DeLay/Abramoff money machine has got the Reeps scared to break formation without permission, while the Dems have been the party where consensus is the exception rather than the rule. Or did we all just imagine the Dem Senator delivering the keynote at the RNC last year?
By
catastrophile, at 11:00 AM
"If they would have known that Iraq had no WMD, they would not have voted to go to war."
Jeebus, this is getting tiresome.
"This is not a blank check for the use of force against Iraq for any reason. It is an authorization for the use of force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to disarm, as it promised after the Gulf War." --Senator Joe Biden; October 10, 2002
The reason the resolution was handled this way was because there was not enough evidence to justify war.
"We have an obligation to lead the efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. In the process, we may tragically end up at war with Iraq. But my prayer, my prayer is that by passing this resolution, we will not have to go to war against Iraq." --Senator Mike DeWine; October 10, 2002
Supporters of the war all seem to conveniently forget that fact today. Even with all the "evidence" "produced" by the administration, Congress gave them permission to use force only if it became necessary, and specifically required further evidence, which was never produced.
"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort." --Senator Hillary Clinton; October 10, 2002
Hence the illegality argument. The administration never intended to submit to the UN process or to give Iraq a chance. Invasion and occupation was always the goal. Just because many Dems were too dumb or spineless to realize that in 2002 -- at the height of our national paranoia and rabid jingoism, when anybody who questioned the administration was accused of treason -- doesn't mean they're trying to have it both ways now.
"Given the President’s recent statements of support for action through the U.N.; if he were to invade Iraq now after passage of the resolution, he would have completely misled Congress and the American people." --Senator Chuck Schumer; October 10, 2002
By
catastrophile, at 11:20 AM
"Or did we all just imagine the Dem Senator delivering the keynote at the RNC last year? "
Zell Miller was ostracized by the Democratic part for that.
I am witholding opinions regarding the agument about the legality of the war because it is not relevant to this psoting.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:49 AM
I disagree about the relevancy. As the quotes I gave demonstrate, it's just as easy to argue that the "schism" is between the Dems who -- like a growing segment of the general population -- are furious that the administration deceived them by claiming it intended to pursue a peaceful solution, and those (like Lieberman) who have always been for the war.
By
catastrophile, at 12:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home