Why the Democrats' Left Wing Is Muted ----- NY Times frontpage

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/campaign/29dems.html

<snip>
The muted criticism of Mr. Kerry on the war, which he voted for, is the most striking example of an unusual display of pragmatism by the Democratic left. Democrats said they were also holding back criticism or delaying demands until after Election Day on issues ranging from gay marriage to trade policy to Mr. Kerry's relatively modest health care proposal and support for a balanced budget amendment.

Taken together, this suggests that Mr. Kerry - at a time when the White House is seeking to portray him as a liberal by pointing to his voting record - will enjoy unusual freedom to maneuver through the general election campaign.

"People are so desperate to get rid of Bush that they are going to cut the Democratic candidate a lot of slack," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, the liberal Manhattan Democrat and a strong opponent of the war.

<snip>
"He's listening to Shrum," said Mr. Nader, referring to Mr. Kerry's senior political adviser, Bob Shrum. "He's listening to all the cautious advisers. They are saying don't cater to these antiwar people, they have nowhere to go. They are going to vote for you. You know the old game."

....more

[wildmanj]

1. no where to go

could just stay home

[emulatorloo]

9. Consider the source - Nader

That is Nader's interpretation. . .

[BeFree]

23. Kerry is going to win.

Kerry is headed for the White House. Winning, my friends, is everything.

I am proud of the Democrats for the unity we are showing. Winning is everything!

[Pastiche423]

43. Winning what?

Besides having a person in the Oval Office w/a "D" beside his name?

That seems to me to be a pretty damn empty win.

[KG]

2. heh.

well, i think ... mmmphhh, mmmppphhh mmmph mmmph mmmmmmmmmmmppphhhhhh!!!!!

[jpgray]

38. Leftist criticism of Kerry is plentiful and widely distributed

There are at least two dozen articles or so posted on the subject here in a given week, from both progressive sources like Counterpunch and mainstream sources like the NYT and CNN, who love to pretend Bush and Kerry are 'exactly the same' on their plans for Iraq, because it is most likely to divide the base against Kerry.

The major opportunity for progressive and leftist opinion to influence the party's candidate was the primary, and for one reason or another it failed to do so.

[trumad]

3. Before you read this, check out Atrios for a good take on Nagourney.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

[farmbo]

6. And Daily Kos' "Nagourney's Anti- Kerry crusade"

http://www.dailykos.com/

[emulatorloo]

14. List of Nagouney Article titles from Daily Kos

<snip>

May 27, 2004
Democrats Wonder if Kerry Should Stay on Careful Path
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

May 2, 2004
KERRY STRUGGLING TO FIND A THEME, DEMOCRATS FEAR
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

April 8, 2004,
Battles in Iraq Bring Problems for Bush And Kerry as Well
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and CARL HULSE

April 1, 2004
Political Memo; Bad Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN

March 21, 2004
Political Memo; Some Democrats Say Kerry Must Get Back on the Trail
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and ADAM NAGOURNEY

March 13, 2004
Political Memo; Testing, Testing. Shrewd Politics or Kerry Foot-in-Mouth Syndrome?
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

<snip>

[AP]

28. Wilgoren is terrible too. She has been very nasty to Edwards.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Ralph Nader wasn't a big anti-war activist.

Ralph Nader wasn't a big anti-war activist.

Voting in the primaries for Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich can be interpreted as an anti-war vote, but I don't think a vote for Nader in the general election would be interpreted that way.

[Q]

5. In other words...

...advisors are playing the 'ABB' gambit. Do and say anything you want, Mr. Kerry...Dems will vote for you anyway because they HAVE TO to get rid of Bush*.

- Don't 'cater' to 'these anti-war' people? He makes them sound like lepers. How about the people who are rightfully pissed that Bush* (and Kerry) took this nation into an illegal, aggressive war? Are they simply suppose to shut up, vote the party line and forget about the Constitution and international law?

- I hate it when Dems encourage other Dems to forsake their principles in order to play it 'safe'.

[OKNancy]

8. You know what I hate....

losing and Bush.

I'm not forsaking principles either. John Kerry is head and shoulders above Bush and Nader.

[Q]

10. Whether Kerry is 'better' is not in question...

...it's that Dems are just as willing as GOPers to 'play it safe' in order to win. In this case...playing it safe amounts to ignoring criminality and wrongdoing so as not to invoke the wrath of those who control this country.

- Playing it safe shouldn't have to mean shutting up and ignoring the real concerns about illegal, immoral wars and the death of thousands of innocents.

[OKNancy]

19. Depends on what "playing safe" is

If playing it safe means winning, then that's the way to go.
I don't see Kerry shutting up or ignoring anything, btw. He's not screaming or ranting, but that is his nature.

[Renew Deal]

31. Ignoring criminality? Yes, lets throw Kerry in prison.

One thing I have figured out is that right wing extremists and left wing extremists have something in common. They're completely irrational.

[Q]

45. Don't call me irrational because you...

...didn't understand the premise of my thread. Or I suppose it could be my syntax or inability to get across my point. I wasn't talking about Kerry's 'criminality'....but Bush's*. The point being: playing it safe can also mean an unwillingness to discuss issues that Americans MUST hear in order to be informed (consent0 voters or ignoring Bush* wrongdoing in order to stay out of the crosshairs of the rabid right media.

- No one is asking Kerry to jump up and down and scream about the important issues. Gore gave a great speech the other day that laid out ALL the facts. He did it in a way that inspired many, many Democrats to regroup and fight the good fight. Gore knew he was going to be trashed by the PARTISAN media...but he spoke out anyway because...well...maybe he was tired of playing it safe and knew it was time to stop pretending that the emperor's new clothes are just dandy.

- It's interesting that you so easily throw out the label LEFT WING EXTREMISTS and intimate that someone is 'irrational' simply because you disagree...or in this case...misunderstand what is being posted.

[Renew Deal]

50. Yep, that was my mistake.

Sorry about that. I missed it at first. I reread it after it was too late. I coudn't believe that someone would say something like that. The funny thing is that no one actually did.

It had nothing to do with disagreeing. I mistook what you said. If you had said what I thought you were saying, it would be irrational.

[emulatorloo]

11. THOSE ARE NADER's WORDS. . .this is all about Divide and Conquer

sorry to yell, but that is a Nader Quote, not from a Dem. . .it is Nader's interpretation, not gospel.

This reporter is decidedly "republican" in his slant. . .the purpose of this story is to DIVIDE DEMS so BUSH WILL WIN.

[depakid]

17. Well, so far the evidence suggests that the words are correct....

So, you're saying that we should all just close our eyes, cover our ears and turn off our reasoning process just because the quote came from Nader?

How about separating the source from the message, here.

Also, it seems to me this story is pretty positive, even if the reporter may be a Republican- Barney Frank contending that he hasn't ever seen the party so united since Kennedy- them's strong words

[emulatorloo]

24. Because Nader is putting everything in the most NEGATIVE light

and he has his own agenda, whatever it may be. It pains me to see people take it at face value, and it seems that the point of this article about Dem Unity is to drive Dems apart by foregrounding the negativie.

[sallyseven]

27. Well I hate

People who want to make it possible for gwb to win the election. He will win and the willy nilly's out there can just accept that. Maybe you don't care but I do about the rest of my life. gwb is a maniac and he is ruining this great country. We will be bankrupt in four years and that jerk will appoint himself president for life. The purest out there better realize it and think about what they are doing.

[msmcghee]

32. Doing the smart thing to get elected . .

. . is not forsaking your principles.

Why can't some dems here understand that elections are not for absolute statements of ideology.

They are for highlighting those areas where your approach is just to the left (for Kerry) of your opponents' - thereby having a chance to attract the several million voters who are a bit doubtful of *'s competence, but may not be died-in-the-wool libs like so many here at DU.

It's the math. It's our system. Play the game or lose.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. It's interesting that now there seem to be Democrats being

referred to as "anti-war Democrats".

Did we ever have "pro-war" Democrats? Maybe we did--or maybe it refers to those in congress who allowed Bush to bring us to the horror of where we are now. I don't think there ever was a "pro-war" faction of the Democrats amongst the people.


It looks like what the war democrats wished for is coming true

Bush screwed it up, and they get to win the election and continue the colonization of Iraq.

[emulatorloo]

12. Three Facts

1 This reporter hates Kerry

2 You are reacting to a quote from Nader - not a Dem, and it is his interpretation, so don't blame Dems for what Nader says. I take what he says with a grain of salt.

3 The only pro war Dem I know is Lieberman, and he isn't running anymore.

[Malva Zebrina]

35. excuse me?

did I see the good senators voting to give Bush a blank check to do whatever he pleased re Iraq--and others?

Was I hallucinating or did Kerry NOT vote to do this? Jesus--have you forgotten already the unfolding of the events that led to a complete and total slaughter of thousands of innocent people and the grabbing of their resources, especially their oil.

Have you forgotten already or are you in denial.

Democrats voted to give Bush a blank check--ie he could have donw absolutely anything that he deemed necessary.
\
I can't believe you said that. I watched everything from beginning to end. I watched, and I protested.

Wake up and tell the truth--the Democrats as well as the Republicans sanctioned an insane, loose canon to invade and kill innocent people. and I do NOT buy it that they were given the wrong information, because there were some who were not so concerned about their political positions who stood up and saw it for what it was---an occupation and a colonization of a weak and defenseless people.

Tell the truth to yourself--and then we can move on with honesty and face it.

[emulatorloo]

49. You and I have to agree to disagree

I appreciate your passion, and I haven't forgotten nor am I in denial - It was a black day for me.

But I blame Bush for Bush's war.

I blame Bush for manipulating the solidarity the country felt after 9/11

I blame Bush for pretending to "rise to the occasion."

I blame Bush for using the unity Dems felt after 9/11.

I blame Bush for sending Powell, who many Dems respected, to promise that every diplomatic means would be used and that the inspections would continue. Powell gave them the Admins word, and it meant nothing. Despite what many on DU say, IWR was not a straight up down vote on invasion . . .Powell told the dems that GWB needed it to go back to the UN to get stronger resolutions and the inspectors back in.

If that had happened, there would have been no invasion. But BUSH and Bush alone did not let that happen.

[tinanator]

13. yeah there is

Aside from the explicit support from elected "representatives" there are quite a few ground level Warriors. They would scarcely come out and say it in so many words, but many or most are dedicated to Israel uber alles, and they see the grand plan as completely in their interest. I wouldnt call them Democrats either, but they would. Reason enough to support multi party concensus governance, proportional representation and to resist the inevitable Taxation Without Representation that the two party scam implements.

[emulatorloo]

15. The Purpose of this story is to DIVIDE DEMS so Bush WILL WIN

This article is doing the bidding of The White House and Karl Rove. It is all about Divide and Conquer.

[noiretextatique]

34. i seriously doubt this article

wll make democrats vote for bush...or nader.

[emulatorloo]

16. This reporter is Rotten - see this thread here from BurtWorm

Atrios' evidence that Zell Miller and Pat Caddell have Nagourney's ear!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1686034

[wyldwolf]

18. Muted? How about just remaining silent

...because they've finally realized if they whine too loudly Bush will win and their collective asses will be cooked. Every issue they hold dear will have ZERO chance of turning out in their favor.

[OKNancy]

20. I swear, it's like no one on DU

has ever been through a campaign or has a drop of experience in elective politics. It's not called the "art of politics" for no reason.

[wyldwolf]

22. Most haven't, isn't it obvious?

Many here never paid attention until 2000. Others took notice around the time of 9/11 and Iraq.

[AgadorSparticus]

42. no shit! you got that right! eom

[thebigidea]

21. geez, I knew it was Nagourney before I even clicked the link

He's getting glaringly obvious.

We're on to you, Nagourney! Better hold his feet to the flame.

[blm]

29. No kidding. This is EXACTLY Nagourney's method of operation.

He is as manipulative as they come in dividing the left and the Dem party.

Amazing that some Dems haven't picked up on this ploy from the mediawhores of BushInc.

[Cocoa]

25. given that Chomsky is going with Kerry

it's going to be pretty difficult for people like Nagourney to effectively exploit the split within the dems. But they can and will try.

I think Bush is much more susceptible to having his base split off.

[sendero]

26. I have but one thing to say...

... to the authors of this article.

So Effing What?

Just exactly what is your point? That only Republicans are allowed to be pragmatic? You wish. Now shut up.

[Melodybe]

30. Man fuck Ralph Nader! a Bush win = NAZI USA 2004! THE END!

I regret my vote for him more and more every fucking day. Divide and Conquer is his game, his people's frequent spaming of small democratic forums saying that there is no difference between Kerry and Bush makes me what to kick him sqaw in the nuts.

Nader, go find yourself a hole with Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to crawl into, you aren't helping, you fucking sell out!

[Solidarity]

46. Kerry Likes Nader

Why do you think Kerry was romancing Nader at their recent meeting? Didn't seem a bit mad at Nader. Didn't even ask him to not run for President!

[Solidarity]

48. Civil Discussion

Well to be honest I don't think Kerry was quite romancing Ralph Nader.

However, they apparently held a respectful and civil meeting without name calling. And I see nothing wrong with that.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Good

Let's win first, yes?

[gpandas]

36. ya gotta win to win n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Why isn't this on the editorial page?

It reads exactly like an opinion piece to me.... is there any 'news' being reported in this article? I missed it.

[the skeptic]

39. Because quite frankly, the left is irrevelant in modern politics

De-lurking for a moment...

Actually, Kerry has to do very little beyond issuing vague statements and platitudes. Why? Because of the fact the "left" is so hungry for a win nothing will be done to rock the boat. As long as he supports choice on the abortion issue he could take any position he wants and people will vote for him.

He could favor a bigger, more bloated military, more tax breaks for big business and a foreign policy that continues to recognize the American "right" to intervene anywhere, anytime under any excuse and not hear anything from liberals.

Liberals don't demand enough from their politicians. They tolerate mediocrity and spinelessness. Politicians who repeatedly drop the ball are NEVER punished (case in point- Senate Minority leader Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, etc). It's the lack of high standards and a chicken little, the "sky is falling" approach to scare people into voting Dem.

It seems like we go through this song & dance every 10 years or so. First Nixon was the man, who if reelected, would end the U.S. as we know it. Then Reagan. Now Bush. This "oh we have to support ***** because Nixon/Reagan/Bush is so much worse" line is the Democrats' greatest campaign slogan & strategy. Sometimes it the only strategy.

With liberals who seem so grateful for crumbs, why would any politician fear them?? Kerry could say F-U to the left after the election, govern as a Joe Lieberman clone, and liberals would just wring their hands and say "well, at least he's not a Repuke!"

P.S. Full disclosure- I say the above knowing I plan on voting for Kerry in the fall.

[Lorien]

40. From last night's "Now" with Bill Moyers

A European perspective (Wooldridge):

BRANCACCIO: If you're going to make any sense of this election year, you have to try to understand the soul of the Conservative movement that brought George Bush to power, and the Republican majority to both houses of Congress. To help us with that, we've asked two reporters to join me tonight. Michel Martin is a correspondent for ABC news, and a regular contributor to NIGHTLINE. Adrian Wooldridge is Washington correspondent for THE ECONOMIST, and the co-author of a new book. It's called THE RIGHT NATION, CONSERVATIVE POWER IN AMERICA. Welcome to NOW.
MARTIN: Thank you.
WOOLDRIDGE: Good evening.
BRANCACCIO: Adrian, knowing full well that there are 31 definitions for the word "right" in the dictionary, how, right is America right now?
WOOLDRIDGE: In this book, we try and argue two things. The first is that America contains a right nation, which is a vigorous, well-organized, well-distanced, conservative movement, unlike anything that exists in the rest of the world. But we also try and argue in this book that the center of political gravity in the United States is very much to the right of the center of political gravity in Europe. So, in one sense, the whole of America is a right nation, in the sense that they're more conservative on all sorts of measures than any single European country.
(snip)

BRANCACCIO: I was getting the impression, reading the book, Adrian, that it doesn't matter who wins in November. The notion is that the Conservative movement in America has already won, is the take away point that I was getting.
WOOLDRIDGE: I think there's a lot of truth in that. I think if you look at America in 1960 and now, this is a country that has moved very, very far to the right. Whoever wins the election in 2004, this will still be a right wing country, compared with Europe, but also compared with the America even of Richard Nixon.
It's not that it's irrelevant who wins. But the center of gravity is very much further to the right. I think a lot of Europeans think that this country has been hijacked by this right wing fleet of lunatics, and that their motto basically is waiting for the nightmare to end.
But I think if Kerry wins, the nightmare for Europeans won't end. There will be a brief honeymoon period. But on Iraq, on Israel, on Kyoto, on the projection of power abroad, on the virtues of the use of power versus the use of negotiations, America will still be an outlyer. And the Europeans will still be very discontented of America's attitude.
MARTIN: You know, I agree with you that the key difference between George Bush and John Kerry is not what, but how. I mean, this is a man who voted for the Iraq resolution, who has proclaimed that he is for America as the strongest military force in the world. That he wants to project American power. That's clearly necessary to win the election. But it also, I believe, is a core belief…
WOOLDRIDGE: Absolutely.
(snip)


BRANCACCIO: And from the European perspective, we really do, as a country, seem sort of off the charts conservative. There are European conservatives who think we're too conservative.
WOOLDRIDGE: Absolutely. I remember during the primary campaign in Iowa, going to look at Dean's supporters. And I was talking to one who happened to be Swedish.
What a Swedish person was doing working for Dean, I don't know. But he told me that Dean was the one person that he could work for. But only with a certain heavy heart.
Because Dean was really, in Swedish terms, a far right winger. And he said that Dean's attitude to health care, saying that you needed you know, basically some... is something that needed to be solved by the private sector was extraordinary, by his standards. But at least he was better than George W. Bush, and some of the other candidates. And…
BRANCACCIO: But you were back in London talking to some British conservatives…
WOOLDRIDGE: Absolutely.
BRANCACCIO: And what did you find?
WOOLDRIDGE: I talked to a lot of British conservatives. And they were very, very hostile to George W. Bush. They considered him to be far too right wing and far too…
BRANCACCIO: Tories in London…
WOOLDRIDGE: Tories, this is the closest ally that Britain has in Europe, this is the party that's most closely aligned to the American Republican party. Remember the days of Ron and Margaret, and all that sort of stuff. And these British Tories now think that George W. Bush, he's just off the charts.
Just too right wing. And they're much happier with Kerry. They're Kerry conservatives, almost.
BRANCACCIO: And luckily for all concerned, we dumped that tea into Boston harbor. And we don't have to really care…

More: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript322_full.html

[dumpster_baby]

41. Nice of the corporate media to help define what issues concern the Left

Gay rights, yeah that is a real big issue ((sarcasm)).

Of course, gay rights is one of the bogus wedge issues that helps keep hidden the REAL issue that the Left should be concerned about--the progessive tax system. They paint the Left as ever concerned with issues like gay rights (really translates to whether 2% of the public can get spousal benefits) and use that to keep out the real issue of restoring the progressive tax system. Clever of them. And of course the Democratic Party is MORE than happy to oblige.

[Q]

44. Gay and women's rights...

...are indeed used as a wedge issue by RWingers and their fundamentalist followers. But does that mean we should lay low or throw away these issues simply to appease the RWingers? That's why they WEDGE these issues in the first place....thinking it will divide the party and force the Dems (with the most money and influence) to drop them altogether.

- Choice, gay rights, civil rights and women's rights all have one thing in common: equal justice/rights under the law. Please note that there's no such thing as Rich White Male's Rights because they don't need them. Their rights are assumed. They're the ones with the most gold and they make the rules.

- While it's important to FIX the tax system and the second amendment (for instance)...what good would it do to have lower taxes and a gun if the government and their corporate partners consider you a second class citizen? It's a troubling sign that Americans are letting the Constitution / Bill of Rights slip through their fingers while the Bush* government is able to distract them with FEAR and rumors of wars. RETAIN YOUR RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE.

[ThomWV]

47. I Agree

At this point in the game Kerry can say, or not say, anything he likes and I will still vote for him. I would not vote for Bush no matter what he might say or do, and there is no third party candidate for whom I would even consider throwing away my vote. Its really that simple. So as far as I'm concerned Kerry has all the wiggle room he feels he needs, he won't loose my vote.