Centerfield

The other day I was talking to a friend, and he gasped when I said REPUBLICANS are going to pick up, not lose, one to two seats in the U.S. Senate. Why, he asked? Four reasons: Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, and the fact that the only people doing the talking in the Democratic party are those who the vast majority of this country would never vote to put in power. The above statement proves my point. What does it say about a movement when the President from the opposition party gets re-elected with approval ratings below 50% and countinues to gain power election after election. You'd think they would pick up the clue phone.

Posted by: Mathew at February 28, 2006 11:04 AM

Will there be cake?

Posted by: bk at February 28, 2006 11:59 AM

So, they want to overthrow the government and put in people who are not democratically elected?

Do they even know what they're saying?

What they want is just another form of dictatorship.

Posted by: JonBuck at February 28, 2006 12:29 PM

wow, sounds like a cool party. Was Hugo Chavez invited?

Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 01:34 PM

Oh yeah, and I didn't see Cindy Sheehan's name mentioned. What gives?

I have to admit I had this Pythonesque vision of Joan Rivers and daughter interviewing participants as they arrived. "So tell me what you're wearing."

Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 01:38 PM

Do they even know what they're saying?

Of course they do! Prior to UFPJ, the organized anti-war movement was little more than a puppet front for the Worker's World Party, a Marxist-Leninist org largely funded by North Korea, and the Maoist pro-Castro Revolutionary Communist Party. After 9/11 they operated mostly through front orgs such as International ANSWER and NION, but even that got a bit too obvious.

The liberal left wanted the skills and connections of the radical left, but not the baggage. Thus UFPJ, an umbrella organization to distance the anti-war movement from its hardcore communist/radical base.

UFPJ itself was created in the offices of People For the American Way specifically as a distancing buffer between the organized anti-war movement and their communist/radical funders and sponsors, providing a more respectable public face. But behind the curtains it's the same clowns, just in different clown suits. UFPJ had an apparent falling-out with ANSWER last year, but it sounds like the hardcore Maoists and Marxist-Leninists are still at the helm.

Which makes life very difficult for the sincere anti-war folks. Unless they organize outside the structure supported by PFAW and UFPJ and the Dem rad left, they're stuck carrying the baggage of the rabidly anti-American international rad/com left. The Dems should've "grass-rooted" their anti-war movement instead of contracting out to the rad/coms. Now they're stuck with them.

It's not all that hard to ride the tiger. The trouble is in the dismount.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 02:09 PM

Tully:

I was wondering who funded this group. Geezus.

Posted by: JonBuck at February 28, 2006 02:14 PM

UFPJ's financial staements for 2003-2004 are here. Looks like the bulk of their money comes from donations and grants.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 02:46 PM

2004 Income 812,339.98
Exp. 712,891.42

(Profit/Loss) 99,448.56

My God, they're a for profit anti-war movement.

A cool party AND some money left over for the next one!

Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 02:54 PM

Of course, being a "coalition," to REALLY track funding you'd have to dredge through the finances of ALL their affiliates and supporters and fellow travelers. But by sticking to the organizers and origins though you can see where the direction is coming from. And the organizers and originators are mostly the same international "peace movement" ANSWER/NION crowd, with some interlocking directorships and management.

As I said, the people this hurts the most are the sincere anti-war Americans that end up toting all that baggage, mostly without knowing it. The sincere AW folks are in my opinion 90+% of the movement in America, but they're not the ones leading the parades or setting the agendas.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 03:21 PM

"The sincere AW folks are in my opinion 90+% of the movement in America, but they're not the ones leading the parades or setting the agendas."

That's for sure. Nobody EVER listens to ME.

Posted by: tim at February 28, 2006 03:30 PM

"and the fact that the only people doing the talking in the Democratic party are those who the vast majority of this country would never vote to put in power."

Then what do you call this?

"The above statement proves my point."

It proves that there are Moorons aligned with the Democratic party. It does not prove that there no non-Moorons aligned with the Democratic party.

Posted by: Scott Smith at February 28, 2006 03:33 PM

What bothers me about this is the willingness of people on this blog to take this group seriously. C'mon guys. How seriously are you taking this? These are a bunch of nuts. How about a revolution in which people are invited to stay for as long as they want?

Every time some radical fringe movement pops up, people on this blog jump up and down, as if somehow, this implicates the Democrats or that all antiwar sentiment is really ginned up by the radical left.

This is wishful thinking that this is going to help the White House or the GOP because most people aren't even going to know about it. The fact is, this administration is tied down in a war that is increasingly unpopular. Having some nut job group bloviate isn't going to cause people to start supporting the war.

Posted by: Marc at February 28, 2006 03:39 PM

Marc, I promise that I won't take them seriously unless they promise cake, and a free pony in every pot.

And not just any cake. Chocolate cake. And a free hat and a revolution mousepad. And a pen. And a "smash the system t-shirt." Oooh, ooh, and free healthcare. And extra vacations for everyone. And music and dancing. If there's no music and dancing, I don't want to be part of the revolution.

And that's not all. I want Hugo Chavez to autograph my heinie, and I want Che Guevera's leg bone.

Posted by: bk at February 28, 2006 04:12 PM

These are the same nutjobs who keep organizing and leading those much-media-touted "peace marches," Marc. They ARE the public face of the AW movement, for better or worse. They hold the reins, they make the speeches, they set the agendas, they promote the Sheehan rallies and set up the photo-ops with Hugo Chavez and turn out the media for the Hate-Bush events. And for better or worse they are closely associated in the public eye with the Angry Left and the Dem party of today. They are associated with them because the Noisy Left of the party publicly embraces them and the party leaders never ever ever condemn them, and often parrot them.

As I said, the people this hurts the most are the sincere anti-war Americans that end up toting all that baggage, mostly without knowing it. The sincere AW folks are in my opinion 90+% of the movement in America, but they're not the ones leading the parades or setting the agendas.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Well, as I always say, your "friends" can hurt you so much worse than your enemies.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 04:36 PM

I'm not sure I buy this as being significant.
For starters, I never heard of this group, and now that I have, I'll forget about them.
There are all sorts of fringe groups, but the general public doesn't really see that much of them. As long as the local democratic candidates don't embrace the nuts, total impact will be miniscule.

As far as war protester: Does the average American pay attention to anything about the Iraq war but the cost and body count? The viewing public has long since reached the saturation limit.

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 28, 2006 04:57 PM

Does the average American pay attention to anything about the Iraq war but the cost and body count? The viewing public has long since reached the saturation limit.

Well said, Bob J Young. I think when when poltical junkies get too rapped up in some minor story, they need to turn on TV and look at what people are watching: Dicovery, History, A&E, TV Land, The biggest loser, ESPN, MTV, Am. Idol, Survivor and so on. Then at 6pm, they need to sit thru the cursory Network News and see what is actually the total sum of the day's news noise compacted into 12-15 solid minutes...maybe a gander at the newspaper headlines in the news stand when you're in the mini-mart and VOILA!!: You just saw about 90-110% of what most americans are acutely aware of. We who blog and read and follow the ins and outs of current events make up a frighteningly small percentage of the population. But then again, looking at some of the hysterical news that we see, maybe it would be more frightening if the majority of people had our level of information and involvement.

Most americans get the gist of the total news narrative and little more. this story is a quarter-cent OTB stock in the daily fury of one day at Wall St.

Posted by: John at February 28, 2006 05:30 PM

What bothers me about this is the willingness of people on this blog to take this group seriously. C'mon guys. How seriously are you taking this? These are a bunch of nuts.

Yup, that is the problem, and they are also the base of the Democratic Party. Just as the base of the Republican Party is nuts. That IS what is wrong with American politics.

Posted by: Mathew at February 28, 2006 05:55 PM

Never heard of Cindy Sheehan, Bob? These are her sponsors. Among other buddies who've spoken for them at their rallies are Charles Rangel [D-NY], Jesse Jackson, Lynn Woolsey [D-CA], Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney [D-GA], George Galloway, Ralph Nader, and so forth.

On the more amusing side of things, ANSWER and UFPJ are still feuding over the spat in DC last fall, and swear they're not going to cooperate with each other any more. That may be the best thing that's ever happened to UFPJ.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 05:56 PM

"As I said, the people this hurts the most are the sincere anti-war Americans that end up toting all that baggage, mostly without knowing it. The sincere AW folks are in my opinion 90+% of the movement in America, but they're not the ones leading the parades or setting the agendas. "

Exactly right. It's the radical ten percent that ruins it for the rest of them. The mainstream Democratic Party has a similar problem. Most sensible Dems, even the committed antiwar Dems, do not embrace the radicalist garbage of the Hard Left, meaning they don't all think like Michael Moore.

The problem is, that ten percent keeps talking, and we can't seem to get them to shut up, and the sad fact is, some of us don't want them to.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 28, 2006 05:56 PM

Huzzah, Mathew. You nailed it. The difference for the moment being that the GOP, being the majority, can keep their nutballs under wraps for the moment.

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 05:58 PM

Tully: Outside of Cindy's first 15 minutes of fame, I've not paid any attention to her.
Nor have I ever seen any of Moores' films and probably never will.

All those you listed have had their 15 minutes and are now relegated to the status of “celebrity” on Hollywood squares. IMHO most people no longer listen to what they have to say.

Posted by: Bob J Young at February 28, 2006 06:37 PM

Then what do you call this?

Great article and well said. THAT'S why I like centrists regardless of party affiliation. (But I assume that Howard Dean isn't listening to this guy) Posted by: c3 at February 28, 2006 06:58 PM

LOL, Bob. I can't argue with that assessment. "I'll take Ralph Nader to block..."

If it's on the DLC website, Chris, we can be pretty sure that Howard Dean isn't listening. But maybe, just maybe, Evan Bayh is.

After all, it's not the conservative crazies and the religious right who are beating us. It's that great river of voters in the middle that we're losing. That's where the voters are. Those are the ones Democrats have to woo to win.

Now, where have we heard that before? :-)

Posted by: Tully at February 28, 2006 07:43 PM

Tully, the attempt to reverse Roe v Wade isn't exactly out of sight.

Yeah, there were Dems there, but it's the conservative side of the nutballs. After all, how many UFPJers are Democrats? How many Republicans are anti-war?

Posted by: Jon Kay at February 28, 2006 07:43 PM

For some reason, the thought of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and all those other activist organizations suddenly being put in charge of our government calls to mind the French Revolution.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 1, 2006 08:23 AM

As I said, the people this hurts the most are the sincere anti-war Americans that end up toting all that baggage, mostly without knowing it. The sincere AW folks are in my opinion 90+% of the movement in America, but they're not the ones leading the parades or setting the agendas.

If you're inclined to question that, consider this from someone who is part of the greater left, albeit not a war opponent.

Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left.

Personally, while I feel I ought to fight to the death from the war opponents' right to spread their message, that does not mean I have to wish them well in convincing others of that opinion.

Posted by: Scott Smith at March 1, 2006 09:59 AM

Pat,

I was thinking the exact same thing. If not for the irreparable harm to the rest of us.... I would love to see some of these morons get EXACTLY what they are asking for....and then have to live with the results.

Posted by: cengel at March 1, 2006 10:28 AM

So Scott, who are you quoting?

Posted by: bk at March 1, 2006 10:43 AM

Peter Beinart in THE NEW REPUBLIC, after the 2004 election. Good article. I remember reading it back then.

Posted by: Tully at March 1, 2006 11:07 AM

Yay. The fringe left gets a highlight here at Centerfield.

If only Ann Coulter was given the same.

Posted by: carla at March 1, 2006 02:14 PM

I continue to be amazed at the amount of time spent on this blog discussing fringe movements that have absolutely no effect on American politics. It's sort of like going to a freak show like they used to have in circuses. And, Mathew, this is NOT the base of the Democratic Party. You seem to be adopting the same stereotypes about liberals that liberals do about conservatives. Most Democrats don't know and don't care about these loons. The fact that you have some fellow-traveler celebrities and Cindy Sheehan showing up with her 80 IQ is meaningless. I see this more as a way to bash Democrats than anything else.

Posted by: Marc at March 1, 2006 02:57 PM

Marc, if you have something that you view to be of more merit for discussion, go for it.

Give us something else to talk about.

I find it amazing that some of the people who lean left here are unwilling to address Tully's point on its merit. This is the second time you've professed amazement that we've bothered to talk about this. Message received. But noptice that we're talking about it because Tully brought it up, and his point is that anti-war democrats who are moderate and reasonable hurt their case by being associatied with such zealots.

You simply dismiss the fringe left as zealots who are not relevant, as does Carla. The question some of us here have is simple. Why? If many of the war protestors that average Americans run into on the street and see on TV are easily dismissable, how is this a good thing for people who think that a reasonable case against the war can be made?

I'm perfectly willing to dismiss these guys, as my multiple jokes here should make clear. But what confuses me is that the moderate reasonable anti-war component is only willing to dismiss them in blogs, but leave them in place on the streets.

In essence, you are denying that their presence on the streets and on TV matters. But obviously, it matters in the eyes of those who are more pro-war, pereception matters.

If the moderate reasonable anti-war democrats, older and gainfully employed, reside largely in cyber space and cede the streets and TV coverage to the zealots, how is this not a problem?

Posted by: bk at March 1, 2006 03:20 PM

Bush and his crew are the real radicals. They are the ones who have detained American citizens for indefinite periods of time without rights to trial or counsel or due process. They are the ones that have waged an unlawful war (pre-emption as conceived by Bush is unlawful. They are the ones that have conducted illegal wiretapping on American citizens. They are the ones that have allow the FBI to conduct raids on citizen's home, and then later obtain warrants. They are the ones that are unsettling the balance of power between the branches of government. There is good reason to believe that this government has directed or assisted in torture. They are law-breakers, and too put it bit more impolitely, criminals.

For those who say that each and every one of these Bush actions was justifed by threats of terror, you have the burden of proving that claim. For these actions change the status quo. The status quo is the laws of this nation and international laws that the U.S. has pledged to obey in its signed treaties.

The U.S. constitution has the final word on the permissable limits of Federal power. If you think that this document is out-of-step with the times amend it. But don't turn it into a meaningless scrap of paper.

Of all people, I would have hoped that the moderates would see that we are being led by madmen. I know you say I am the fool, the madman. But you wait, I remember when I saw on this very site rationalizing and supporting a war in Iraq. Now, you are the ones that are out of the mainstream, the middle.

Posted by: Luzer at March 1, 2006 03:58 PM

aren't drive by commenters annoying... luzer, you just proved tully may be right.

Posted by: Rachel at March 1, 2006 04:05 PM

Anytime Coulter gets fifty thousand folks out marching for anti-American idiocy, Carla, I will be happy to beat on that bit of fugnuttery as well. Just as I consistently have with the anti-gay-union laws, the anti-abortion zealots, etc. Now, showing Coulter's connections to the Communist Internationale with Cuban and North Korean funding might be a little more difficult....

Marc, this is certainly not the entire base of the Democratic Party, but it is certainly the portion of the base they're catering to in the media and focusing much of their effort on. I understand the desire to disclaim and minimize them, but the party continues to cater to them nonetheless. Just as the GOP continues to cater to the Religious Right.

This being an election year, we can expect that catering to get stronger rather than weaker in the months ahead, from both sides.

Posted by: Tully at March 1, 2006 04:20 PM

I think they're amusuing, Rachel. They provide such nice contrast, and you don't have to think or anything when your read their posts. Wich are almost always tangential to the subject, at best.

Posted by: Tully at March 1, 2006 04:22 PM

When I watched the RNC convention, I didn't see Ann Coulter sitting in a box with a former President of the United States, unlike Michael Moore at the DNC convention. We Republicans may not go out of the way to heap condemnation on her, but I rarely hear any Democrats go on record saying that Michael Moore is a loon and doesn't speak for them. And, as Tully noted, thousands don't start protest marches to support Ann Coulter's latest rant, unlike Mrs. Sheehan and her supporters, many of whom are indeed prominent leaders of the Democratic party.

Also, I know that I, for one, on this blog have gone out of my way to condemn Pat Robertson and several other leaders of the religious right when they've said or done stupid and outrageous things.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 1, 2006 04:34 PM

I don't have an objection to discussing these groups, but I object to the idea that this IS the Democratic Party. You seem to simply ignore the DLC or publications like the New Republic--as if moderate Democrats don't exist. Yes, to the extent that people identify these groups as being coextensive with the Democrats and with antiwar sentiment in general, both will be injured. But these people are going to get almost no attention. In fact, that's likely to be their complaint--that the media pays them no attention. Cindy Sheehan was somewhat different, but how much did you actually hear about the "Step Down" groups during the State of the Union?

As for antiwar sentiment in general, that's being driven by what is happening on the ground in Iraq--or at least what people see. You are probably right that these groups hurt the cause because they enable Bush to dismiss all antiwar sentiment. But people aren't going to start supporting the war simply because they see a bunch of radicals protesting.

I just think that groups like this are meaningless. How many people will come out on March 15--100,000? Big deal. I agree the Democrats are good at shooting themselves in the foot and some Democrats are good at making fools of themselves. But Democrats can't control everyone that decides to protest any more than Republicans can control pro-lifers that want to kill abortion doctors. And Bush has made it difficult to have a moderate antiwar movement by making the war (and everything he does)a test of patriotism (or national security). If you say, we should get out of Iraq,you are immediately labeled by the GOP as defeatists, quitters, or apologists for terrorism. Don't get me wrong--I think this group is a bunch of neurotic asshole losers. But they are a small group. It's not like it's 1968 and the Weather Underground is about to take over the Capitol.

Posted by: Marc at March 1, 2006 04:43 PM

I understand the desire to disclaim and minimize them, but the party continues to cater to them nonetheless. Just as the GOP continues to cater to the Religious Right.

So what are the difference between the parties again? I mean outside of the nut cases to whom they pander. I also understand why the GOP wants to disclaim and minimize the fact that they cater to the Religious Right. So what, what is the point of this post Tully? To say that the extremists on "the left" are more extreme then the extremists on the right? Is that it? Don’t you have anything more substantive to talk about the what amounts to a political food fight?

You people continually want to fan the flames of partisan tribalism while claiming to be centrist. You all must think I’m some kind of wacky lefty from the things I tend to comment on around here but the fact is that thing that it really pisses me off when I feel like I’m forced to defend the most indefeasible aspects of “the left” because of the constant drumbeat of misrepresentation that seems to pass for centrism.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at March 1, 2006 05:14 PM

What Marc said. You can believe that the Iraq war is a bad idea and still think the protesters are acting like fools; the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

When I watched the RNC convention, I didn't see Ann Coulter sitting in a box with a former President of the United States, unlike Michael Moore at the DNC convention.

No, the spot at the RNC convention was reserved for Pat Robertson. ;-)

We Republicans may not go out of the way to heap condemnation on her, but I rarely hear any Democrats go on record saying that Michael Moore is a loon and doesn't speak for them.

That's true, Pat, but then again, Moore isn't in the habit of wishing death on people he disagrees with (like Coulter is) or referring to entire nations as "ragheads" (again, like Coulter); that's probably why he gets to sit with Carter and AC is shunted off to the CPACers. Now, if you said Moore was the political equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, I'd agree with the analogy. The only person on the left that I can think of who matches Ann is Valerie Solanis, and Solanis was considered criminally insane.

Every political movement attracts its share of loons. Do we count the Olympic park bomber as representative of all anti-abortion folks? No. Will his actions prevent other people from identifying with the anti-abortion groups? Most likely not.
Did the AA's have a special responsibility to stop him? No more than any other law abiding citizens.

Now, Brian, what do you suggest the moderate left do about the protesters? As Spock said "I'm open to suggestions, Doctor."

Posted by: Blue Jean at March 1, 2006 05:24 PM

That's true, Jean. Moore reserves his vilest comments for use against America and its people, not foreign countries.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 1, 2006 05:29 PM

I think that this "story" is relevant because stories like these, rightly or wrongly, have Democrats stuck in the mud on national security issues. The dreaded "liberal MSM" does, I believe, provide support for the idea that Democrats care less about national security than Republicans.

The Democrats need to do a better job of convincing people that the debate is about means, not ends. For people who spend 5 minutes a day catching up on the news, groups like this make that job much harder.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at March 1, 2006 06:32 PM

The point of the post, Rick D, was that these folks make it easier for the GOP to stay in the majority by taking the heat off of them, and making them look sane by comparison. They are indeed representative of much of the Dem's power base, and they are indeed the leaders and organizers of the anti-war movement. By defending them, you prove the point. Thank you for that.

You people continually want to fan the flames of partisan tribalism while claiming to be centrist.

"Centrism" is supposed to mean ignoring the nutjobs of the wings who drag our politics away from the Big Middle? Playing moral equivalence games that tend to justify both sets of wingnuts through "balance?" Calling out raving anti-American wing nuts is "partisan tribalism" and uncentrist? Funny, I didn't hear you saying that when I was condemning Fred Phelps, or slamming the gay bashers, or defending Schiavo's right to die. I guess the labels only apply when it's your nuts on the fire. (I'm so "partisanly tribal" I spent three years fighting to keep a gay marriage ban off the ballot in my state, BTW. And I've helped over a dozen Dem moderates get elected in a red state.)

Sorry, Jean, I'm not biting on CPD diversionism. We're talking about the leaders and organizers of the anti-war movement, not the rank & file. CPD's a convenient way of dodging the subject. That both sides have their nut jobs is not an excuse for embracing the nuts of either side, it's an excuse for not doing something about the nuts closest to your side. The Dems have embraced the UFPJ/ANSWER factions, and are pandering to them. And that hurts the Dems.

As for antiwar sentiment in general, that's being driven by what is happening on the ground in Iraq--or at least what people see.

Had these groups organized AFTER the war began, I might buy that a bit, Marc. They didn't, so I don't. They hit the ground running long before the war. (The "poll swing" of war sentiment between now and then is much less than the base anti-war figure, so it doesn't apply to the majority of that antiwar sentiment.) In the case of ANSWER, they're a direct spinoff of the World Workers Party and the International Action Center, both of which have been around quite a while. UFPJ was organized specifically to obscure those rabidly anti-American origins and put a more acceptable public mask on their actions.

And if you wish, there's nothing at all stopping you from bashing the fugnutties of the right. I'll even offer a pointer to save you some searching.

Posted by: Tully at March 1, 2006 08:17 PM

Tully,

I don't defend the nut jobs, I defend against the idea that the Democratic party is some how more beholden to their nut jobs then the GOP is to theirs.

The problem is politicians need support and they all tend to take it where they can get it, and if that means a Republican taking money and support from a bunch of people who want to make being gay a hanging offense, then that is what they will do. If it means a Democrat taking money and support from Communists for Ted Kennedy's fat ass, they will do that (until they all get caught that is, and then they back peddle).

Now if you want to make the case that International Answer gives more money to Democrats then the Moral Majority gives to the GOP or that Move on.org owns more broadcast outlets then the Christian broadcast network or that Michael Moore has had more private meetings with any president then Pat Robertson has then make that case. But please spare me the “raving anti-American” twaddle unless your trying to say that being against the war and being a member of ultra-left wing radical groups are inherently one in the same. Hell I personally have never even heard of the group you linked to and neither has 90% of the American electorate.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at March 1, 2006 09:31 PM

As for antiwar sentiment in general, that's being driven by what is happening on the ground in Iraq--or at least what people see.

I think Tully's point is that it's NOT being driven by what's happening. You're making a good point here Marc, except for using the word "driven."

Here's the thing. Anti-war sentiment is definitely being fueled by events on the ground in Iraq. Some of them merit deep concern, that's for certain. The risk of devolution into civil war, or at least more widespread lawless chaos, has probably never been greater.

But then you look at the anti-war organizers, they're the ones driving the bus.

Jean, as quick an asnwer as I have:

IMO moderate democrats who opposed invading Iraq should have bitten their tongues and hoped for the best once the boots hit the ground. They should have been reticent to criticize at that point, voiced conditional support (minimal patriotic solidarity, as it were), and only described future conditions under which they'd stop supporting our elected leader's decision.

Suppose a democratic leader had said this:

"I oppose the invasion of Iraq. I don't believe Iraq to be the threat our President describes, and I view his decision to go to war as a big gamble, and quite possibly an unnecessary one. However, our commander in chief has made the decision his office grants him the authority to make, and I will support his decision and hope for the best. So long as I believe it to be possible for us to establish a democratic Iraq, I will support the effort and fight for that outcome. I will not micromange, nitpick, or interpret the opposition party's war actiuons in the least favorable light possible, simply for political gain. The stakes are too high for our nation.

Now should I come to believe it to be a lost cause, I will strongly advocate that we withdraw as expediently as possible. But because the stakes are so very high, the historical results so momentous, my standards for abandoning hope of success will be VERY high."

Someone who had said that then, and backed his or her words with honorable actions in the interim would now be in a credible spot to lead moderate anti-war Americans should he or she believe that all hope of success was gone.

Posted by: bk at March 1, 2006 09:38 PM

I don't defend the nut jobs, I defend against the idea that the Democratic party is some how more beholden to their nut jobs then the GOP is to theirs.

You're the one insisting on CPD, Rick. The idea you object to is not something I promoted in this thread at all. I went out of my way to step away from it. So please spare me the angstful condemnation for things I have not done. You're defending them by attacking the messenger and playing CPD. (That's Comparitive Political Demonology, if you missed the intro class.)

I'll ask again: "Centrism" is supposed to mean ignoring the nutjobs of the wings who drag our politics away from the Big Middle? Playing moral equivalence games that tend to justify both sets of wingnuts through "balance?" Calling out raving anti-American wing nuts is "partisan tribalism" and uncentrist?

If you love 'em, just say so. If you feel they're part of the left that SHOULD be kept under wraps, say so. If it embarrasses you that they're part of the left, do something about it. But BS CPD just enables the nutjobs of the wings. To equate them is to excuse them--and neither side's should be excused.

Nope, no one hears much about those particular groups--which is a major reason I'm listing them, showing who they are and how intimately intertwined with the Angry Left and the Dem party they are. Why shouldn't they be exposed?

Here, I'll bold up the obvious for you. THE "front group" of the anti-war movement, a group founded by partisan Democrats to allow them to utilize the skills and propaganda of the anti-American international radical/communist left while distancing themselves from same, has posted a call on their web site to overthrow the United States government by force. If you think that's not a relevant item for discussion in a centrist political forum, do please tell us why.

Posted by: Tully at March 2, 2006 09:08 AM

Well Tully, you did label your post : "The Face of the Anti-War Left"
That kind of lumps everyone left of center, who opposes the war, in with the extreme wing nuts. Are you really surprised that some people object?

I've always opposed the war, but I don't want to be lumped in with the crazies.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 2, 2006 10:59 AM

Hmm, that sounds like a labeling problem, and we probably would be well-served to be precise. I know that when I think of "leftists" I usually think of those to the left of mainstream democrats. My basic model divides the spectrum, such as it imperfectly is, into 5 simple categories, for thinking purposes. The independents/centrists are in the middle. They there are the liberal leaning democrats and conservative leaning republicans who are decent reasonable folk with legitimate differences of opinion. Then there are all the right and left wingnuts left over.

But I do feel that Tully's title does seem to match Tully's point, which is that because radicals are in organizing positions of power, they often appear as the face for all anti-war Americans. We seem to agree that this is not especially desirable, so what are we really disagreeing about? If the centrists can't tell each side's reasonable folk to look to the disorder in their respective houses, what CAN we do?

So Bob, if you don't want to be lumped in with crazies, why are you mad at Tully? Why aren't you mad at the way your strange bedfellows are making you look? Tully's point is that these nuts, who you acknowledge are indeed nuts, are making other anti-war folk look bad. Tolerate the crazies for the sake of the greater cause you support? OK. But teach 'em to heel.

Posted by: bk at March 2, 2006 12:38 PM

I'm not mad at Tully. I would however, like some distance between myself and the extremists.
After all, we call then "Muslim extremists", why not say, "The Face of the Extreme Anti-War Left".

It's not like I can control them or anyone else. Inherit in the definition of crazy is that they are uncontrollable. Has anyone had success in getting Pat Robertson to shut up? Don't judge half the population by what a couple of crazies say. They don't speak for everyone.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 2, 2006 12:59 PM

Sure, but isn't it your contention that these radicals are a small contingent, and not representative of either democrats or responsible anti-war protestors?

If that's so, why can't some from among this much greater mass of responsible democratic anti-war protestors take charge of organizing protests? And why can't this more representative group issue press releases that explicitly disavow the statements of their fellow travelers if these radicals are, oh let's say, inviting people to help them overthrow our elected government.

Posted by: bk at March 2, 2006 01:50 PM

Well gee! If that's all you wanted :-}

I Bob J Young (or state your name), would like to issue the following press release:

I am not in favor of armed revolt to overthrow the bush administration. It's a silly idea put forth by nut jobs that do not represent myself or the vast majority of the American anti-war population. The election is only 8 months away; a new and more independent congress is more than capable of checking W's power.

Have a nice day and thank you for your time.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 2, 2006 02:09 PM

"As for antiwar sentiment in general, that's being driven by what is happening on the ground in Iraq--or at least what people see.

Had these groups organized AFTER the war began, I might buy that a bit, Marc. They didn't, so I don't."

I guess my using the word "sentiment" was a mistake. What I thought I was saying is that public opinion turning against the war is being caused by what is happening, not by what the radical groups are doing. I agree that these groups organized before the war and they had an agenda. But, IMO, they have had little, if any, impact on general public opinion. Most people supported the war until it started to go bad. I know Answer and all these nut job groups would like to take credit, just like the antiwar groups wanted to take credit for ending Viet Nam, but I question how many people--other than bloggers and those living in Washington--even know much about these groups.

Brian, as for the radical groups "driving the bus"--I'm not sure what you mean here, but, surely, you can't mean that they are the ones causing public opinion to move against the war?

I agree that it would be better if "liberals" disavowed these groups. But how far are they supposed to go--should they publicly list every radical group opposing the war and then disavow them? I just think there is too much attention being paid to groups like this that are really parodies.

As for your statement about what a democratic leader should have said, for the most part, I think few, if any, mainstream democratic leaders actually spoke directly against the war at the time of the invasion. Most of them were, in fact, criticized by the antiwars for not speaking out.

Posted by: Marc at March 2, 2006 04:45 PM

I'll ask again: "Centrism" is supposed to mean ignoring the nutjobs of the wings who drag our politics away from the Big Middle?

I'll be brief because it’s obvious we disagree on this issue.

Answer: yes, if they are nut jobs then they are irrelevant and consistent flogging of the nut jobs (as entertaining as it might be) gives people the idea that they are far more powerful and influential then either they are or what they ought to be. I mean if you want to poke fun at them from time to time fine, but please let’s not ascribe to them more influence than they have

The problem with politics is that the discussion gets dominated almost exclusively by the shrillest on the right and left, and to give them voice is to give them relevance which they don't deserve. Also my issue is not so much pointing out that there are nut jobs on the anti-war side, not at all I would be the first to admit that, where I think your centrism is lacking is in how you tend to frame these posts where you point them out. You have spoken against right wing nut jobs, I concede but when you do, the frame seems to be that these nut jobs are outliers, marginal and totally without any real power in the Republican party, on the other had this group you linked to in your post, who I have never heard of and who 90% of the voters have never heard of, are “the face of the anti-war left”. This is what I’m calling bullshit on.

Michael Moore has never meet privately with any president or presidential candidate, Pat Robertson ahs and actually received delegates when he ran in 88. Yet Moore is somehow Embraced by the leadership of the Democratic party (despite the fact that he is a registered green), and Pat Robertson is a marginal nut case (who just happens to have a vested interest in one a large media group, a powerful political organization and a ministry that takes more money ever year then an MM moving will gross in it’s lifetime).

So please spare me the “I just call them as I see them” line, you clearly want to paint a picture of the Democrats as completely subservient to these uber-lefties while the more Sober Republicans keep their wacky-doodles on a short lease.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at March 3, 2006 07:39 AM

I see. I'm a lickspittle partisan tribalist uncentrist GOP lackie because I don't frame and slant in your preferred directions, and eschew comparitive political demonology, which you insist on. No one can be centrist unless they agree with you, frame things your way, and play moral equivalence games to trivialize wing nuttery.

Thank you for clarifying that, Rick.

Posted by: Tully at March 3, 2006 09:29 AM

Answer: yes, if they are nut jobs then they are irrelevant and consistent flogging of the nut jobs (as entertaining as it might be) gives people the idea that they are far more powerful and influential then either they are or what they ought to be.

Rick, the problem that your viewpoint leaves unaddressed is the actual influence that wing nuts may hold. IMO, it avails us nothing to simply eschew talking about such people in order to avoid inflating their importance. The problem is that some of these nuts DO have influence. And that's precisely what's being pointed out here, an instance where wing nuts truly due seem to be exercising more influence than they deserve, by acting as organizers for protests that may have some merit.

If it's not centirsts to voice concerns about wingnuts who have influence, and to try to temper that influnece by calling it to people's attention when the inmates at the asylum have too much power, then what is?

And since you seem to disagree, what do you belive is a sensible policy for combatting the influence of wingnuts when it appears to be outsized?

OR, to be more point-blank, what's your position on radical leftists organizing anti-war protests and thus acting in some sort of leadership position for democrats on the issue of the current war? Do you or do you not feel that the democrats would be well-served to instead have responsible, articulate, mainstream democrats organize such protests? Do you or do you not feel that the democratic party would be well served to explicitly disavow radicals who are advocating the violent overthrow of our government?

Posted by: bk at March 3, 2006 10:27 AM

Not sure if it's relevant, but Pat Robertson just got ousted by the National Religious Broadcaster's board of directors. It seems they too found his comments about assassinating Hugo Chavez or that Ariel Sharon was being punished by God as being extremist and unhelpful.

Posted by: Bobby at March 3, 2006 03:51 PM

Potted meat product removed.

Posted by: Scumsuction at March 4, 2006 09:42 AM