More On Bill Clinton, Progressives And The Democrats
Now Dean Esmay weighs in on Bill Clinton, what he meant to Democrats and what he should mean. Here’s a small portion of his lively post where he starts out differing from one of our constant contentions:
The Bush presidency isn’t of the base, by the base, and for the base for nothing. There has been an outright refusal of the Democratic base to take even the tiniest twig of an offering the Bushies have given them. Indeed, if you look at them on the issues, the truth of the matter is that absent two or three things, George W. and Bill Clinton are very similar in their political views and positions.Congress has been deadlocked between anti-Bush and pro-Bush forces. This in part is Bush’s failing, one of style and maybe other things. But when the Deaniacs took over the Democratic Party with their screams of “lies, lies!” they also alienated a lot of people. The message was loud and clear: compromise no, attack yes. It’s been like that ever since.
The current Democratic leadership has made reaching out to the White House–at least in any overt way–nearly impossible for Democrats. They as a party have no clear agenda except opposition to whatever Bush does. Is that Bush’s fault? Well I’m sure he, his style, and their dislike of him are part of that. But sorry, ultimately Democrats are responsible for their own behavior and their own choices.
Read it in full — and you can leave your comment in comments.
We would only repeat again: in our lifetime we have never seen a crew such as the Bush folks in charge of the Republican party, who seemingly consider “consensus” a dirty word. And the Democrats? People can debate their course of action as they battle amongst themselves over whether to veer center, left and purge the party of some who are too friendly with the White House. But we’re quite confident history will echo what you read here about the Bush White House’s lack of political skills — and seeming lack of desire — to work at getting more support than from just Republicans.
Oop’s we’ll amend that: from angry Republicans (who are angry as buttons are skillfully pushed by the party elite on issues such as judicial appointments, gay marriage, flag burning amendments and Terry Schiavo to get them out to vote).
11 Responses to “More On Bill Clinton, Progressives And The Democrats”
Mr. Esmay has moved to bizzaro world.
Democrats offered Mr. Bush strong support after 9-11, and were ignored. They offered strong support on Afghanistan and were rewarded by having their patriotism attacked when some demurred on aspects of the Patriot Act or the Iraq war.
Blaming the Democrats for the Rove tactic of playing solely to the base is absurd. The all-base, all the time strategy is what made Rove famous.
Mr. Bush backed himself into a corner. The tactics that made it possible for him to be elected made it impossible for him to govern effectively. Now, when even his base is crumbling, Esmay is blaming Democrats? Democrats who control precisely nothing? They should reach out to a president whose surrogates and supporters have attacked Democrats as un-American, anti-American, useful idiots, even traitors?
Mr. Bush burned that bridge.
Now, when even his base is crumbling, Esmay is blaming Democrats? Democrats who control precisely nothing? They should reach out to a president whose surrogates and supporters have attacked Democrats as un-American, anti-American, useful idiots, even traitors?
I feel like I should cheer or applaud.
Seriously, though, the Republicans (led by Bush) have screwed up. And every time the Democrats have offered a differing opinion they’ve been villified for it.
We want checks on the warrantless wire-tapping so obviously we want to hamper the intelligence community and let terrorists attack American citizens.
We asked for a balanced budget so clearly we mean taxes should be raised for poor, hard-working people.
We questioned the President’s motive for going into Iraq and now we’re anti-American and un-Patriotic.
That bridge wasn’t just burned – Rove sowed the ashes with salt and danced on the remains.
With all due respect to Dean Esmay, what insight does he really have into the Democrat base?
He cites no polls. He offers no specific examples of anything. There’s some vague history about Bob Dole and Tip O’Neill. He does provide a lengthy quote from Groucho Marx, so he gets some points for style. But where’s the substance?
I imagine he wishes these things were true. But Republicans are solidly in charge. Many problems we face are the result of their failures. This idea that Democrats aren’t helping to solve their problems is kind of laughable.
Does he think that Democrats are even capable of coming up with solutions that would satisfy a Republican majority?
Nobody expected the Republicans to come up with Democrat-style solutions that would have bailed Jimmy Carter out.
This is complete horsepucky.
In essence, Esmay is claiming that Bush has tried to govern in a bipartisan and magnanimous way — but that a vicious and partisan pack of Democrats have savaged him and obstructed him. Poor guy.
Huh? Those same Democrats that don’t control anything?
I am sorry. That claim doesn’t pass the laugh test with anyone who has observed the Bush administration in action, much less observed American politics from the period of the Clinton impeachment forward. In fact, this is a neat flipping of the historical record.
The Democrats have been and still are offering standard politics. It is the GOP that has declared total war and stated its intention to “destroy” the opposition party. And the GOP has acted accordingly, on multiple fronts, in a remarkably disciplined legal, financial, public relations and political effort over a course of years. And it has worked remarkably well until recently.
Lastly, it is also worth addressing this recent trend of convervative commentators of claiming that Bush is “like” Bill Clinton, as Esmay does here. A related claim is the assertion that Clinton did something too so it must be OK — like, say, warrantless wiretaps. This seems like faint praise, given the intense dislike that these same writers had of Clinton and his platform when he was in office. Clinton was supposed to be an unprincipled crook, right? And a threat to our liberties, right? And a leader who frittered away America’s power and made us weak before our enemies, right?
Given that, I think this trend can only be explained one way — it is a tactic. It is a deliberate attempt to confuse and muddle the issues, and divert people’s attention down a blind alley away from the critical issue at hand — which is George W. Bush’s actions and shortcomings.
Which are legion.
– Bokonon
Well Esmay has officially become irrelivant as hell. I’ve called him a partisan hack and had Esmay himself chew me out for pointing this out. Well now I am vindicated by this Limbaughesque post of first rate moonbattery (is that even a word? who cares it works for me LOL). I fear for his sanity, and really hope he seeks proper help for his “condition”.
Joe,
Your own posts over the last two years have completely debunked Esmay’s central thesis. It isn’t just that Democrats have no power. It’s that every time they tried to come across the aisle and support the Republicans on something, they got stabbed in the back by Karl Rove. When you use dirty politics to stay in power, you can’t complain when the opposition no longer wants to hold hands.
Hahaha, you’ve gotta laugh when all the responses to Esmay’s post back up exactly what he was saying….
I’m living in Australia, so feel free to discount my opinion in advance… but I see a lot of truth in what Esmay says. The post 9-11 bonhomie was not “ignored” at all, it’s just that dems quickly realised they would simply become a satellite party of the repubs unless they acted to differentiate themselves from them.
Unfortunately, most of their subsequent actions were in fact reflexive rejections of anything Bush. Joe is right to say that Bush is now acting the same way – but it’s a product of extreme factions in BOTH parties. Not just Bush.
I think dems may struggle to progress to real leadership unless they can stand to look at themselves in the mirror without averting their eyes. The reason that they might prevail in November is ironically one that the president seems to be most in accord with the dems on – immigration.
Esmay has perfected the Rovian spin—never take responsibility for any failure, when you can demonize the other party.Karl Rove is really a modern day Machiavelli!
The last several presidential elections have been almost too close to call-the country is split about 50/50.
Lets face it GWB must have known some of his policies were going to be unpopular with at least half of the population. He knew, and didn’t care, as long as he could play to his base. There has been little bi-partisan debate or compromise in his 5 1/2 years in power. Bush brought Rove, Bush’s brain to the White House so he could demonize any opposition to his policies, and it has worked beautifully.
The Democrats were cowed by accusations that they were unpatriotic, still living in a pre 9/11 world, too weak on national security to be trusted, etc. We have had Republican rule and Bush has had unprecedented presidential power.
Unfortunately, he was unable to handle the power, and he realized that he couldn’t demonize the 2/3 of the country that opposed the war.Positive spin that the insurgency was on its last legs failed, as people watched the casualty lists mount and read reports of soldiers wounded by roadside bombs.
All of a sudden, it became all right to have a difference of opinion.
Public opinion finally caught up with Bush, right after Katrina, his most monumental moment of failure.My most vivid memory is of him back-slapping Brownie and the governor of Mississippi, and all the politicians congratulating each other, posing for photo ops while the people of Mississippi and New Orleans suffered, waiting for relief. That was the turning point, and his presidency has never recovered. When he lost the public, we began to see cracks in his own party support, especially when he made the bone-headed nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
The Democrats, due to Rove’s tactics have been weak and impotent (which is why we are having trouble envisioning them in a leadership role). We can blame them for inaction, but not for Bush’s incompetence.
There was a cartoon just after the 2004 election which put it quite well. It portrayed a donkey gazing soulfully into heaven, and expressing the wistful hope that the moronic chimp would govern magnanously and in a generous, bi-partisan spirit.
Ever since the Democrats tried to steal Florida and the presidency in 2000, were stopped by the Supreme Court, and then tried to reverse the charges on Dubyah, their opposition has been pretty much entirely ad hominem. They have dripped vitriol from every pore. If, in the immediate wake of 9/11, they briefly fell silent, it was more from political necessity than from
higher instincts.
Get real, guys. And as to Dubyah’s lack of political instincts, suffice it to say that he won in 2004- and that only the most twistedly partisan Bush-hater could suggest that it wasn’t fair and square. Though admittedly John Kerry’s bile-filled campaign so revolted voters as to make the result nearly inevitable.
Bob and Carnage:
I’ve always wondered: do the tinfoil hats chafe?
“…tried to steal Florida …”
Ahh, I see.
The out-of-state GOP activists who were photographed “protesting” the recount while pretending to be Florfida voters were really DNC deep-cover double agents.
OK.
All is clear now.
We now return control of your television set….