The phony internecine fighting on the left
I've done my share of writing on the DLC's attacks on the blogs, and the blogosphere's resentment of the DLC's continued efforts to show their conservative credentials by attacking the blogs, etc. But the latest twist on the story is just silly.
Ed Kilgore, policy maven at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (which recently accused war critics of "anti-American bias"), urged caution: "At this sensitive moment in Iraq, there's no position unifying Democrats about what to do next. We need to give it a little bit more time. Troop withdrawal doesn't represent the full range of our party. It doesn't make any political sense."
What exactly are Democrats supposed to do when everything's being run by the other party? Is there really any point in chastising your own party when the GOP is not only rsponsible for this catastrophe, but continues to claim that everything's just fine in Iraq? And what exactly does represent the "full range of our party"? Nothing, that's what. And how disgraceful is it to say this "makes no political sense"? I kinda figured our duty was to stabilize Iraq, not to score political points with Republicans. The DLC is, regrettably, in the thrall of Beltway thinking. Josh Marshall points this out on TPM today, too, when he mentions the " tensions between the party's liberal base and its Washington establishment." Unfortunately, the establishment position continues to be-- in true bureaucratic fashion-- hedging bets and waffling.
The responsibility for this war lies with the Republican party. They made the decision, they walked in lockstep with the adminstration, and they're the ones who have the power to change our policy. Our job as the opposition party is to oppose, and that's what the blogosphere is doing. The DLC's job seems to be squelching the call for Republican accountability. Which is weird, given the low ratings for the president, Congress, the war, privatization, overturning Roe v Wade, drug prices, conservation, et al. But that's a bureaucracy for you.
Ed Kilgore, policy maven at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (which recently accused war critics of "anti-American bias"), urged caution: "At this sensitive moment in Iraq, there's no position unifying Democrats about what to do next. We need to give it a little bit more time. Troop withdrawal doesn't represent the full range of our party. It doesn't make any political sense."
What exactly are Democrats supposed to do when everything's being run by the other party? Is there really any point in chastising your own party when the GOP is not only rsponsible for this catastrophe, but continues to claim that everything's just fine in Iraq? And what exactly does represent the "full range of our party"? Nothing, that's what. And how disgraceful is it to say this "makes no political sense"? I kinda figured our duty was to stabilize Iraq, not to score political points with Republicans. The DLC is, regrettably, in the thrall of Beltway thinking. Josh Marshall points this out on TPM today, too, when he mentions the " tensions between the party's liberal base and its Washington establishment." Unfortunately, the establishment position continues to be-- in true bureaucratic fashion-- hedging bets and waffling.
The responsibility for this war lies with the Republican party. They made the decision, they walked in lockstep with the adminstration, and they're the ones who have the power to change our policy. Our job as the opposition party is to oppose, and that's what the blogosphere is doing. The DLC's job seems to be squelching the call for Republican accountability. Which is weird, given the low ratings for the president, Congress, the war, privatization, overturning Roe v Wade, drug prices, conservation, et al. But that's a bureaucracy for you.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 9:07 AM
<< Home