I think the knee-jerk reaction for the netroots is going to be to support Murtha, simply because he enabled us to put Iraq on the ballot this fall. I'm glad Jonathan points out Hoyer's success as Whip - he has been very good.
But the Majority Leader position is more visible than that of Whip. It requires somebody not just skilled at procedure, but someone who represents the party well. Hoyer is a pork-loving good ole boy. Murtha ain't perfect, but he represents the notion that the people elected a Democratic Congress to change things in Iraq. He's in line with the party on other issues like the minimum wage, health care, etc.
It's a gamble, because if things don't change in Iraq, the voters will blame us. Still, I think picking Murtha is our best bet.
Why should people in RI be proud of Chafee? It's pretty obvious he did this for politics. He's facing a tough re-election, even if he does get past Laffey (unfortunately, I think he will). The last thing he wants to do is look like a Bush foot soldier. Do you really think Chafee would vote this way if it wasn't an election year?
Yeah, that's kind of what I thought, too. I kind of took it as, "Lieberman doesn't want to be hanging around with Lamont."
I think it's still a valid question as to whether he will really caucus with Democrats and vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader, but this article doesn't seem to indicate that his campaign is having that conversation. Yet.
Give me a break. A Republican talking point? So everything that any Republican agrees with, we have to oppose?
This President has been an unmitigated failure. He has made this country and the world a rotten place to live. We all know that. But you're saying that because Republicans and Democrats agree on some issues, this demonstrates that Dems are spineless wingnuts.
I just don't buy that security is a right-wing value. Why are we letting the right own that? They're the ones who have been sitting on the commission recommendations and not making us more safe.
Ford talks about security, so he's conservative? Sounds like you guys are doing exactly what you criticize the DLC for doing: propping up right-wing talking points.
By going after the GOP's perceived advantage (security anxieties), Ford is neutralizing the issue. Once he crosses the threshold and voters trust him on security, then the debate can center around the issues that Dems have an advantage on.
Just because something is supported by Republicans doesn't mean that a Democrat has to be opposed to it. Most Republicans think that America is a good country. That doesn't mean that Democrats shouldn't believe that America is a good country.
Similarly, it's not dumb for Democrats to support adopting the commission's recommendations just because it takes terrorism seriously. It's the GOP Congress that has thrown out the recommendations and failed to make us safer.
But the base is much smaller than it was in 1964. There is no New Deal coalition anymore. It's all been fractured by the Republicans. That's what they spent the 70s and 80s doing. So now, if we brought out our base, we'd still be way behind, plus we would have alienated some moderates. In the meantime, we would have energized the right wing base.
By the way, the last time the triangulation strategy worked was in 2000, when Al Gore won more votes than the other guy.
It's more complicated than that. Most Americans believe that a woman should have a right to choose, but they don't think late-term abortions should be legal. In other words, they're pro-choice to a point. Similarly, Americans believe that everyone should be treated equally under the law, but they're uncomfortable when you throw the word "marriage" in there.
So, while most Americans are against what the Republicans are preaching, they're also not really with NARAL.