Centerfield

While I too am not necessarily a huge fan of the way Bush has done things I do like this trend. It is an important move away from the outdated notion of stability at all cost, aka Realpolitik. It is hypocritical for us to enjoy freedom at home but ignore oppression abroad as long as we get oil (Middle East) or cheap trinkets (China) out of the deal.

American support for democratic movements is important but equally important is the loss of support for non-democratic movements. Funding that might otherwise have been directed at keeping a dictator in power or supporting terrorism has had to be diverted to fighting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that American (and European) support for democratic movements is more likely to have the desired effect than before.

I am not worried about American democracy. We have a strong system in which all sides have strong advocates. I am more concerned with the anti-democratic trends within the EU and their support of dictatorships for the sake of the balance of power—a 19th century idea that is no longer relevant in the 21st. The French and Dutch “no” votes will likely be the first step toward positive change in the EU-US relationship. I would expect to see more cooperation and less confrontation especially since Chirac’s wings have been clipped and Schröder is a lame duck. Bush also becomes a lame duck after the 2006 elections. I suspect he will begin to think more about his legacy and less about new initiatives.

There is no reason we cannot make democratization the center of our policy toward China. The current policy toward China, followed by every president since Nixon, has been a disaster. China is richer and more of a threat politically and militarily than ever. We need to divest from China and move that money to places like the NAFTA and CAFTA areas or other friendly countries. In short we need to show China more of the stick and less of the carrot. (Never mind the fact that both the stick and the carrot were made in Shanghai.) A democratic China would be an ally. The potential is there but we have to help the process along more than we are now.

What I want to know is how the current trend is going to continue with lackluster cooperation from the international community, and how is sending John Bolton to the UN going to help the situation? Clinton, whether or not he accomplished it, made clear statements that spreading Democracy needed to be an international endeavor, not just an American one. I don't see the same urgency from Bush. In fact, I see an expectation that the rest of the world will follow our lead without diplomatic effort, which I highly disagree with.

I don’t see the problem with Bolton. So he is an asshole, and? That is not a reason to reject him. In fairness I am somewhat of an strict constructionist when it comes to diplomatic appointments. The President should get to pick his diplomatic team because they represent him abroad. A nominee would have to be a criminal, insane, or support the overthrow of our government before I would refuse him a diplomatic post. At any rate, it seems to me that a person with contempt for the UN is the perfect person to reform it. It is like Joe Kennedy leading the SEC, it takes a thief...

As for the “International Community” who exactly do you mean? I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the opinions of dictators, thugs, and tyrants but I would like to hear more about this alleged “lackluster cooperation” of democratic countries. Which democracy is not cooperating with us? France? (I guess if you don’t count all the help they give us with intel support and their troops in Afghanistan and Bosnia & Kosovo...) Germany? (See France). Eastern Europe? Japan? Australia? UK? Israel? Thailand? Our NAFTA partner Canada? S. Korea? Italy? Massachusetts?????? (No, I did not forget Poland, it is included in Eastern Europe.)

Alf,

I am not alleging that world cooperation doesn't exist at all, I am saying that it doesn't exist to the level that it should. Hence, the use of the word lackluster and not non-existant. The United States does more than it's fair share, and we could better preserve our resources if focusing on diplomacy was a priority, and it's not. My only point is that yes, Democracy is on the move, but how long can that keep up if our allies across the globe aren't as committed to the end goal as we are, and they aren't for the most part. And BTW, being an asshole, or an absolutist ideologue, is contrary to being a good diplomat, IMO. Bolton will be too focused on positions and not common interests to accomplish anything substantial, which makes him unqualified for the post. Furthermore, one man is not capable of reforming the UN, and the argument that Bolton is that man, to me, is ridiculous and unfounded. I want evidence of anything he has done in the past that even comes close to being equal to such a task.

He’ll be thinking about positions and not common ground??? The horror! Our UN ambassador will be sitting in his office thinking about positions like, I dunno, doggie style, missionary, or maybe reverse cowgirl when he should be singing Kumbaya with Kofi and the boys? Oh, the humanity!

Gimme a break, Mathew. I still have seen no evidence that Bolton is not qualified. Show me some and I might change my mind. Everything you have written here has been about feelings not thoughts. You feel that Bolton is a bad person or that he might hurt some feelings by...um...thinking about positions...or something?

By the way, how do you know that are allies are not as committed to spreading democracy as we are, have you spoken to them? ALL OF THEM??? Your objection here is speculation. Where is the evidence?

Alf,

I have to disagree with you about China. There are simply too many issue on which we will have to work with China and put ideology aside, such as North Korea.

Moreover, I would disagree with your characterization of our Chinese policy as a failure. The fact is that China is a much freer, more prosperous and far less aggressive country than it was before Nixon's visit. No, it's not a democracy by any means and it's human rights record is pretty appalling by our standards. But it's not a rogue state any more--in fact, most of the countries in the region seem to find China a pretty responsible country.

I certainly do not advocate silence on Chinese human rights abuses. But it seems to me that making that the focus of our relationship is likely to be counterproductive, especially now that we have important common concerns, including terrorism and North Korea, as well as a need to find a peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue.

It isn't speculation that they haven't committed anywhere near their share of troops and financial resources. How else do you show commitment? The United States represents roughly 20% of the world's population and provides roughly 80% of the resources for most international affairs. In Iraq that number is more like 95%.

This isn't about Bolton's personal character, and it isn't about singing Kumbaya, or feelings... It is about being an effective negotiator and representative. Bolton goes into any argument with a pre-determined ideological position, which inhibits his ability to have an impact on the end result. Read anything on dispute resolution that has been published in the last fifty years.

Take Daniel Patrick Moynihan for instance. He offended many in the United Nations with harsh anti-communist rhetoric, but was effective because he was an intellectual who focused on common interests and not on ideological whims.

You are a great example of what I am talking about. You clearly don't know why you support Bolton or cannot articulate the reason, so you resort to distortions, naming off sexual positions, and meaningless banter.

Bush has swung for the fences by advocating the spread of Democracy, but he is relying on bad pitching by nominating a lightweight like John Bolton to be UN Ambassador. The man simply hasn't done anything to show that he is worthy of the post, or that he is capable at all of reforming the UN.

Bolton goes into any argument with a pre-determined ideological position, which inhibits his ability to have an impact on the end result.

Yet he's been quite effective in the past in international diplomacy because of his bluntness and honesty. A tough negotiator, but one whose word was solid and could be relied on. And isn't he supposed to have a pre-determined position? Namely, the President's? Ambassadors are not free agents.

Our least effective UN Ambassadors in the past have been "diplomatic" representatives such as you describe, Mathew. Our most effective have been outspoken hard-heads such as Bolton. His harshest critics have been North Korea ("human scum and bloodsucker") and Iran ("rude and undiplomatic"). And the Democrats, who openly sided with North Korea's tirades against Bolton in 2003. Go figure.

Mathew,

You misunderstand. I don’t necessarily support Bolton. I support the notion that a president, any president, should be able to choose his foreign policy team. As I stated in my first post, in my opinion the only legitimate grounds for opposing such a nomination are that he is a criminal, that he will take part in an insurrection against the United States, or that he is clinically insane. You have proven none of these.

My main problem with your opposition to Bolton is that you offer only speculation that something may happen or that some unnamed country might not cooperate in some unnamed way at some unnamed time in the future—there are no specifics. Its all speculation. I am asking you to name names, give me specifics, real evidence, so far you have offered no substance. All you offer are non sequiturs and irrelevant information that has nothing to do with Bolton or his ability to do the job. What the hell are “ideological whims?” Who gets to define them?

You seem to “know” that Bolton will be ineffective, offensive, or not acceptable in some way. What are you basing that on? Feelings? Intuitions? Someone on TV said it so it must be true? Help me out here.

MWS,

Where are you getting your information? China is getting more aggressive not less. If anything the region is much less stable because of their aggression. They are aggressively moving their navy into islands that are disputed between China, the Philippines, Viet Nam, and Indonesia. I doubt that these countries and others in the region find China to be as benign as you seem to believe.

There will never be a peaceful solution to Taiwan unless there is a democratic China. The only possibility would be for the free people of Taiwan to surrender and become part of the PRC. That is not going to happen. The only other possibility is for war. The PRC is preparing for that war. We need to make sure that they reconsider and hope that they will democratize before they attack.

At any rate my point is that it would be better for the US in the long run if American companies invested in Latin America rather than China if they are going to invest abroad. We need to clean up our own back yard first.

I can't agree with Alf enough in regards to China.

The whole region is simmering, and something, be it increased tension between China and Japan, or the Koreas, is going to blow, and during it all, I can't but imagine China won't try to swallow up Taiwan. [Maybe a sort of... we won't aid North Korea if you don't aid Taiwan arangement]

In regards to Bolton. I, also, agree the President has the right to choose his own foreign policy team, but I also think the founders put into place the "advise and consent" clause for a reason. If they didn't want foreign appointments subject to a Senate vote, they wouldn't be. Maybe they were afraid of a President appointing people who were not representative of the nation as a whole? I can't say.

Personally, I think Bolton is the wrong person at the wrong time. While I believe there is a time and a place for stubborness, considering the shambles our reputation is in abroad, I do think now would be the time to put in place a smooth talker over a hot head.

Tully,

Because a man has some success doesn't mean his approach is the right one. They are not free agents, agreed, but I would argue you are touching on what the hell is wrong with part of this administration's approach to diplomacy in the first place. There is a BIG difference in being hard nosed and adopting concrete positions that force you to go it alone because you have left no room to work with those whose help you might actually need. Reagan was hard nosed on many issues, Star Wars being chief among them, but not until he started listening to the soft-nosed moderates and actually negotiated with Gorbachev did he accomplish his goal, or at least that is the way I see it.

The President gets his man, fine, I buy that, vote him in, but somebody somewhere has to start discussing how this country is going to rebuild it's standing in the world that was the cornerstone of our foreign policy over the last twenty to thirty years. I would argue this is a bigger priority than UN reform, and I don't buy that Bolton is the right guy for either job. As far as history, I think it is pretty black and white to say that hard nosed Ambassadors have been our best, and although that is a debateable but valid argument, I don't neccesarily think it is relevant.

Alf,

Your logic dooesn't make much sense to me. Do I know for a fact that John Bolton will not be effective? No, of course not. It is called gathering available information and forming an opinion. By your standards I am not sure how you expect people to do that. However, John Bolton has been very clear about his approach to public policy, he isn't unheard of, and whether or not I personally agree with his opinions, or like him personally, isn't the issue. My opinions are formed by someone on television? Your only arguments for him is that he is an asshole who doesn't like the UN, and the President likes him.

The rest of you,

I come down in the middle on China. I don't think our policy toward them is as tough or as cautious as it should be... Similiar to our approach to Saudi Arabia. They haven't earned, IMO, the favored nation status that we so readily gave to them, although that is a largely symbolic gesture. However, I don't subscribe to the paranoid notion that they are evil and planning our destruction as a stepping stone to world domination. I don't think it is as black and white as some have stated. In some areas such as free markets they have improved, but in others like human rights I don't believe there has been much change. There is no doubt they have attempted to flex their military muscle lately in certain areas of the world.

Bolton goes into any argument with a pre-determined ideological position, which inhibits his ability to have an impact on the end result.

Wait... as opposed to Jeanie Kirkpatrick and Madeleine Albright who went into arguments with completely open minds and no pre-determined ideological positions...?

I think that *everyone* goes into arguments with pre-determined positions. So, if that's the argument against Bolton, then it could be used to effectively block just about anyone.

Now, if the argument is that his own personality and behavior is so reprehensible that he will be incapable of conducting diplomacy with other countries, then that's an issue that could be used against his nomination. But pretending that his bias is a disqualifier would effectively disqualify just about anyone.

Mathew,

I don’t think you read my post. Please do so before replying. My reasons for “Supporting” Bolton are constitutional. It has nothing to do with who is president or any of the other nonsense you posted above. I “support” him because there is no evidence that he is a criminal, insane, or planning to overthrow the US government. That is MY standard.

What is yours? I don’t think any previous nominee could meet your ever shifting standards. Hell, Bill Clinton has been accused of everything Bolton has (except for hating the UN).

Alf,

As for where I get my information from, I read Foreign Affairs, International Security, Current History, The National Interest--all well respected foreign affairs journals. I'm not trying to brag, but your implication that I'm just making up my facts is unfounded. You can certainly disagree with their conclusions I guess (and conservatives would probably accuse them of liberal bias), but most of the analysts that I read look at China as becoming less aggressive. (Obviously, conservatives disagree). China is increasingly becoming involved in regional economic and security arrangements--which means they are becoming more like the US and relying less on coercion. It is true that in the 90s, China was involved in a lot of disputes over islands--however, according to what I read, China is increasingly seeking diplomatic solutions to these issues. I'm not saying that they aren't using their military as background to these disputes--much as the US would. Obviously, they are a major military power and are building up their military, at least partly in response to the US presence in the region. The fact that they have military forces in the region doesn't mean they are aggressive any more than the fact that the US has forces their mean that we are aggressive.

I'm not saying that everyone loves China, but, from what I am reading, the countries increasingly see China as a "good neighbor." That's not to say that China's policy is entirely benign or that the US should not see China as a military and economic competitor, but it's incorrect, in my view, to see China as solely an aggressive force. Americans tend to see things through their own eyes, where we are the good guys and everyone that opposes us are the bad guys, but in reality, the situation is much more complex.

As far as there being no solution to Taiwan until there is a democratic China, assuming you are correct, what do you propose to do in the meantime? Do you want to fight a war? The job of statecraft is not to seek utopian solutions, but to find solutions that address situations as they are. I would like to see Taiwan as an independent democracy--but it's naive to think that that can happen now and adopting a policy of trying to democratize China in the immediate future is likely to only exacerbate the situation. Moreover, as bad as China may be now in terms of democratization, it has made enormous strides in recent years. Compare China now to the days of the Cultural Revolution. I think our policy has been a great success; China has moved from being a pariah to being a part of the international community. Obviously, however, if you define a successful foreign policy as getting everything we want when we want it (which presumably means keeping China down or forcing it to democratize), you are going to be disappointed.

Alf,

I don't think you get it. Why are you so focused on his confirmation? That isn't even my point.

You and I probably have similiar opinions on what is best for the United Nations, but you are stuck on Bolton. Is there nobody else that can do the job? I could give a rat's ass about the Constitutional question, nor is it my point that Senators should vote a certain way on the nomination; but rather, I am asking the question, whether he is confirmed or not, how is Bolton going to help this country or this President accomplish our goals? Is he capable of this simply because he is not a criminal, insane (that one is debateable), or planning to overthrow the government? Vote him in, fine, that doesn't mean that the discussion about what needs to be done at the UN shouldn't continue. Should there be no debate over Bush's approach to diplomacy? Furthermore, the standard I was speaking of is your insinuation that you can't oppose anything unless you can tell the future... Which is ridiculous.

That is how I fear Bolton will approach the job... Refuse any alternatve that doesn't fit inside of his or this administration's box and ignore all outside debate, which IMO, is foolish. Why do I fear this? Because he has a record of doing exactly that. The standard seems simple to me, I want the United States to approach international diplomacy in a way that I fear John Bolton isn't capable of. I thought Bush agreed when he nominated John Danforth to represent him at the UN, now I am not so sure. He has definetely taken a large step down.

Bobby,

I am not talking simply about Bolton's personal opinion, but the fact that it doesn't appear to me that he can think outside of it. Of course we all have an opinion and a bias. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, IMO, although hard-nosed and opinionated no doubt, is a good example. Although I think she had her strengths and weaknesses and was probably more ideological than what I want in that position, she was well respected as someone who was fair and considerate, two values I consider to be important when it comes to diplomacy... Also, two values that IMO John Bolton doesn't have. Madeline Albright, although she wasn't neccesarily a successful diplomat, earned support and admiration from people like Jesse Helms who was her ideological opposite. I simply don't see John Bolton as someone who can work with people that disagree with him, which should be a qualification for the job. Why do I think this? Because those he has worked with have shared similiar concerns.

Mathew raises a good point. One of the measures of a diplomat is the ability to not only work with, but at least pretend to respect, someone who disagrees with them.

Past actions of Bolton's do not show an ability to do this. He is very much a "kill the messenger" diplomat, and while there is a time and a place for that, now, and the UN, is neither.

One of the measures of a diplomat is the ability to not only work with, but at least pretend to respect, someone who disagrees with them.

You should see some of Boutros Boutros-Ghali's comments on Madeline Albright, whom he actively and publicly despised.

You should see some of Boutros Boutros-Ghali's comments on Madeline Albright, whom he actively and publicly despised.

Why? What's your point? That since some other diplomat was mean to ours, we should, in turn, send up a man with the tact of an elephant? Boutros is pretty much gone. Kofi Annan hasn't exactly been hugs and kisses himself, and I'm still not advocating sending in Bolton.

I hate arguements of comparision. Right or wrong, I don't care what others do. I care what *we* do.

My point is that the much-praised "dimplomatic" Albright was despised at the UN. She accomplished nothing.

Comparisons are inevitable. Bolton has shown success in actual diplomatic situations, and has a reputation of standing by his agreements. I doubt he's the best possible candidate, I know he's not the worst. Stripped of the rhetoric, most of the arguments against him are simply that the arguer doesn't like him, or his style.

And the related non-personal argument is that they don't think he can properly represent the United States. But an ambassador does not represent the nation. He represents the head of state. If Bush's choice turns out to be an idiot, it reflects on him, not the nation.

And the related non-personal argument is that they don't think he can properly represent the United States. But an ambassador does not represent the nation. He represents the head of state. If Bush's choice turns out to be an idiot, it reflects on him, not the nation.

I would agree with this, if the appointment was not Senate Confirmable, but since it is, a US Ambassador must be considered representative of the US [or at least of 51 US Senators].

If the founders did not want it that way, if they did not want that check on the executive for this very reason, they would not have written it so.

[shrug] Tomato, tomahto. You haven't heard me grinching about the Senate exercising their privilege. But that doesn't make an Ambassador a representative of the Senate.

That ambassadors represent not the nation, but the head of state, is international protocol that harks back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Ministers and envoys represent the nation, ambassadors represent the head of state. We didn't even have "ambassadors" from the United States until the last century. For complicated reasons, the rank was considered un-egalitarian, and we sent envoys and ministers to other countries instead.

Tully,

Now this is something of a double standard of American foreign policy, don't you think? I wouldn't have thought about it, save our discussion of the Kyoto Protocols. What's your take?

We expect foreign governments to not hold us to a treaty that the appointee of a President signs, because it hasn't been ratified by the Senate.

The flip side,

We expect foreign governments to recognize our ambassadors as representatives of our executive alone, despite being confirmed [if not advised] by the same Senate which wouldn't ratify the treaty they aren't supposed to hold that same Ambassador of that President, not that nation, to.

Aren't we asking to get the cake and eat it too, by picking and choosing what we like about the constitution and the principles of the founders?

And, again, I would agree that "considerate" falls under the realm of "personality and behavior" issues that I said could be relevant to his nomination. "Fair" is probably a different story-- our Ambassador is not supposed to be a mediator or a judge, he or she is to be an advocate on behalf of the nation's values and interests of which being "fair" might sometimes be one, but most certainly not always. He or she is a representative of the state and there to represent our cause, and we need someone who can be "unfair" if the occasion calls for it.

In any case, I've argued on my blog that if the Bolton nomination goes down, the President should nominate Karen Hughes (whom I think is a better choice even if Bolton *doesn't* go down). I also know it's not likely to happen. Unlike most people, I believe that the UN Ambasadorship is *not* an actual "promotion" for Bolton, but rather yet another high public profile, but small impact role for yet another neocon who is being exiled from the *real* corridors of power.

But you can only figure that our if you look below the surface to how the Bush Administration operates and where the real positions of power reside.

Ryan,

Not that I don't agree with your overall point there, but we *always* pick and choose what we like about the principles of the founders. After all, the founders were hardly in agreement on any of the details of anything and discerning their so-called "intent" on any issue necessarily requires picking and choosing which ones we want to use and which ones we want to exclude.

A double standard in diplomacy? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

The reason that ambassadors represent the head of state rather than the nation is that other nations know that the head of state is transitory, while the nation is more permanent. They need to know how to deal with the head guy today. It's up to the head of state to handle his own internal politics. They also know that the "nation's" holding to international agreements in the long term is driven by contemporary politics. So they still have to deal with the head guy today. Not with the Senate, or the House, or the people.

Frankly, as long as we're not sending Michael Moore or David Duke, I don't think our choice of UN Ambassador will make much practical difference. Because the UN Ambassador, like all ambassadors, is a designated sock puppet who is sent to schmooze with other sock puppets. Any ambassador operating independently outside of his/her assigned role should be IMMEDIATELY recalled and fired.

Frankly, as long as we're not sending Michael Moore or David Duke, I don't think our choice of UN Ambassador will make much practical difference. Because the UN Ambassador, like all ambassadors, is a designated sock puppet who is sent to schmooze with other sock puppets. Any ambassador operating independently outside of his/her assigned role should be IMMEDIATELY recalled and fired.

Which is EXACTLY my point on why I think Bolton is being "demoted" to the UN-- a place where he will be much farther away from the decision-making "inner circle" and the levers of American power than in his current abode. This isn't an Administration that will (or has) allow(ed) the UN to have much of a role in American foreign policy, and I think their thinking is something like, "why not send John there and get him out of the way?"

Liberals, on the other hand, deeply respect multinational institutions, *especially* the United Nations, and like to believe that it has universal importance across Presidential Administrations. They don't realize that, to this Administration, it is a place to send your neocon exiles that have fallen into palace disfavor (like Wolfowitz to the World Bank).

You have to judge a position based on how it is likely to be utilized by the decision-maker. For example, the flanker had FAR more importance in Jimmy Johnson's Miami offense than in Barry Switzer's wishbone at Oklahoma. Simply cheering because So-and-so is going to be the starting receiver is meaningless if one doesn't know the program's strategy and how he will be employed.

Similarly, Nixon's Cabinet was practically emascualted from Day One, in favor of his White House staff-- from Haldeman and Ehrlichman to Moynihan and, of course, Kissinger. But contemporary reporters in 1969 focused only on his Cabinet and did not understand what was really happening until several years later.

Bolton is going to the UN to be put out of the way. Liberals don't understand this because in *their* Administrations, the UN Ambassadorship is a position of great importance. Not so for Bush. The irony is that by denying him that pasture, liberals may yet find him in a position of influence...

Just out of curiousity, following your logic... I can assume Mr. Negroponte, then, has moved upward away from the UN, via Iraq, and to a position of real power? Or has the movement simply been a horizontal transfer?

That one's a hard one to call. Baghdad was definitely an upward move from the UN-- it was right into the Administration's top "field" assignment, where he would have had tremendous influence had he been there for any length of time.

But director of national intelligence is something of an enigma. Most experts seem to think that, at least at this point, it is a mostly symbolic position without any real control over any of the individual intelligence agencies who "report" to it. It could be a "promotion" in that he expects Negroponte to forge the strong control over the alphabet soup of intelligence groups that the position needs to be worth anything; or it could be a "demotion" in that he expects Negroponte to have as much control over the agencies he nominally presides over as Ridge had over the subordinate agencies of DHS.

Personally, since I think it was more like he needed to go "somewhere" so that Baghdad would be available for Zalmay Khalilzad, that it's more of the latter than the former.

Bobby,

Assuming I agree with your logic, and I'm not going to say whether I do or not... However, lets assume that an appointment for Mr. Bolton at the UN is a demotion. Then, following that logic, I think this whole battle has to be written off as a win for the Democrats.

Mr. Bolton will be confirmed, it's simple math. But at what cost to Republican image, at home and abroad? Further, by standing up and fighting, the Democrats have proven that they do have some fire in them, and will stand by their issues.

So, I guess we'll see how this plays out, and we'll remember a Senator that most people weren't even aware existed. Senator Voinovich will be watched...

Yeah, I think the Democrats have already won-- whether or not Bolton is confirmed. As Fred Barnes wrote in the The Weekly Standard a few weeks back, the Democrats' base includes a lot of wealthy donors whose opposition to the President is visceral-- they're willing to support the Democrats, but only if they reflexively stand up and fight against the President on everything he does.

For them, Bolton has become a "test of strength" that they did not even necessarily need to win. Like the Nasser's objective in the 1967 War (to simply reduce Israel's aura of "invincibility" that was an impediment to "Arab" nationalism), the Democrats just needed a battle so they could demonstrate their "warrior spirit." And that, in turn, is getting the results they *really* wanted: not a defeat of Bolton, but an energized base and a lot of support from the MoveOn.org crowd.

Bobby,

Does that really constitute a "win" for the Dem's though? All one need do fire up the Dem. base is whisper "Bush". But does firing up the base really help them more then it will hurt them in the general elections though?

It seems to me that the Michael Moore wing of the Dem party has done more to hurt them in the general elections then help by turning off independents who get offended by the vitrol.....and while reflexsive opposition to anything Bush puts forward might help rev up the fundraising efforts with the base.... It also plays right into the line the GOP is spinning about the Dem's..... that they are being obstructionist simply for the sake of being obstructionist. Seems to me that could turn around to bite them in the arse when general elections role around.