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).
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.