Decision ‘08

The WaPo on Dems Vs. Bloggers

Jim VandeHei, writing in the Washington Post, notes a dynamic that will be no surprise to readers of this blog:

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists — spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns — have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush’s upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts.

Not everyone is bowing and scraping to the mighty Kos or the flighty Arianna:

…[L]iberal Web logs went after Democrats for selecting Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to deliver the response to Bush’s speech next Tuesday. Kaine’s political sins: He was too willing to drape his candidacy in references to religion and too unwilling to speak out aggressively against Bush on the Iraq war. Kaine has been lauded by party officials for finding a victory formula in Bush country by running on faith, values and fiscal discipline.

Many Web commentators wanted Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of the Iraq war who advocates a speedy withdrawal, to be the opposition voice on the State of the Union night. Most Democratic lawmakers have distanced themselves from the Murtha position. “What the hell are they thinking?” was the title of liberal blogger Arianna Huffington’s column blasting the Kaine selection.

“Blogs can take up a lot of time if you’re on them,” Kaine said to reporters Thursday. “You can get a lot done if you’re not bitterly partisan.”

The Virginia Democrat said he will not adjust his speech to placate the party’s base. “I’m not anybody’s mouthpiece or shill or poster boy for that matter. I’m going to say what I think needs to be said and they seem very comfortable with that.”

Good for Kaine…

Most telling of all is this excerpt:

The blogs-vs.-establishment fight represents the latest version of a familiar Democratic dispute. It boils down to how much national candidates should compromise on what are considered core Democratic values — such as abortion rights, gun control and opposition to conservative judges — to win national elections.

Isn’t that paragraph nothing more than an admission that the core Democrat values are not shared by the nation?

Time and time again, we see the Democratic leadership in denial of this basic truth: it doesn’t matter how you dress up the message; it’s not the presentation voters reject, it’s the message itself…

10 Responses to “The WaPo on Dems Vs. Bloggers”

1 Fred Fry Says:
January 28th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
I bet the press is sure ot hunt down Murtha for his reaction to Bush’s speech. The Dems are completely blind to the massacre they are marching into with the next election.
2 Stop The ACLU Says:
January 28th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Clinton Joins In On Alito Filibuster Efforts

There isn’t enough votes to support a filibuster over the nomination of Samual Alito to the Supreme Court, but that isn’t stopping some of them from making a statement out of it. Earlier this week Senator John Kerry announced his desire t…
3 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Et Tu, Hillary? Says:
January 28th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
[…] 2008 : Jan 28th - 2:06pm « The WaPo on Dems Vs. Bloggers […]
4 The Right Nation Says:
January 28th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Weekend (Open) Round-Up / USA

According to this Gallup poll, 51% of American citizens say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 (while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp). So, while the New York Sun writes that “Clinton…
5 peter Says:
January 28th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Core Democratic values not shared by the nation? Today’s Washington Post-ABC News poll “shows that the public prefers the direction Democrats in Congress would take the country as opposed to the path set by the president, that Americans trust Democrats over Republicans to address the country’s biggest problems and that they strongly favor Democrats over Republicans in their vote for the House.”

The full story is at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012801086.html
6 Muffin the Cat Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Peter,

You believe the Post and those polls. If so let me sell you a quit-claim deed to the Golden Gate Bridge. If this is the case, why are there 55 Repubs in the Senate and a majority of Repubs in the House? Newspapers do polls to write stories to generate controversy to sell newspapers.

The only poll that counts is on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and the last time I looked, the Repubs won. As Whitey Herzog would say, the only time first place counts is on October 1st.
7 peter Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
The Republicans have 55 Senators because they are over-represented in smaller states. If Senate seats were distributed in pro-ration to population — e.g., if the four Democratic seats in New York and California were given their proportion of the US population, instead of its existing four percent of Senate seats — then there would be a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The Republican majority in the House is due largely to gerry-mandering and the power of incumbency. The churn rate is virtually non-existent, so change there is glacial.
8 Mark Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Well, peter, your argument is with the founders, then, who had the foresight to see that the 99.99% of the country’s land mass that doesn’t reside in NYC or the California coast deserves representation, as well…

The Senate is composed that way for a reason…I can only refer you to the Federalist papers, here…
9 peter Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Not at all. The implication in Muffin’s post is that the polls are inaccurate because otherwise there would be a Democratic majority in the Senate. However, unlike the Senate, the polls reflect national sentiment.

In other words, the fact that there is a Republican majority in the Senate does not indicate that a plurality of Americans want Republican Senators — it only means that a plurality of states want Republican Senators. I’m not suggesting that it should be otherwise — only that you can’t draw the inference from 55 GOP Senators that the US is therefore 55% Republican.
10 Muffin the Cat Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Shall we go into state governorships and state senates and houses also. The last time I looked at these numbers, the Repubs controlled there also. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Democrats gerrymander also. The third district in Kansas all of a sudden juts out to take in Lawrence, which being the location of KU, is a big haven of left wing groups. The third district is represented by a Democrat. I wonder why?

I have become very cynical with newspapers and other forms of print media. I no longer read the Kansas City “Red” Star. I feel it is a joke. I look at it and wonder who paid for what. They have now gone to offering subscriptions for $5 a month.

I will repeat my previous post. “Newspapers do polls to write stories to generate controversy to sell newspapers.”