| | | |
By The Neville Awards
Posted June 9, 2007
Coming on the heels of our article we at the Neville Awards are compelled,
in an effort to be fair and balanced, to shed some light on something that may be happening on the
center-left. A revolt perhaps? Don't get your hopes up.
Today's Democrat Party is definitely not your father's Democrat Party. You remember, the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy,
the party that won the Second World War, the party that actually stood for a strong defense and the little guy prior to the hijacking of that
party by the Leftist McGovernites in 1972. This hijacking ushered in the era of kneejerk pacifism, political correctness, feminism, multicuturalism, campus speech codes,
tolerance and diversity brainwashing, sensitivity training, hostile work environments and communist propaganda masquarading as academia.
But something may be stirring. Some thoughtful Democrats may be getting sick of the George Soros/MoveOn.org/Daily Kos/Michael Moore/CodePink
rhetoric that dominates the "discussion" that spews from these sources.
Three writers, David Broder from the Washington Post, Joe Klein from Time Magazine, and Paul Kujawsky, a member of the
California Democratic Party Central Committee (a Soviet Comintern Central Committee?) have written articles critical of Harry Reid, the left wing blogs and the
Democratic Party's approach to fighting the War on Terror.
Coming from good little liberals these three articles are practically an act of rebellion. Seeing what happened to Joe Lieberman in the last election, when he dared to actually stand for a strong defense
and national security, these three intrepid souls risk the gulag and ex-communication from their party for daring to think and
write "dangerous thoughts".
We've excerpted the three articles here:
The Democrats' Gonzales
By David S. Broder for the Washington Post
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.
If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.
On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."
He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.
Beware the Bloggers' Bile
By Joe Klein for Time Magazine
Wednesday, Jun. 06, 2007
A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.
And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense-common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.
This is not the first time this kind of free-range lunacy has been visited upon me. Indeed, it happens, oh, once a week to each of us who post on Swampland (Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney and Ana Marie Cox are the others). A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you?
But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed-especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful-and politically successful-tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.
And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show-where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates-has become the voice of the Republican establishment. The same could happen to the Democrats.
Dems fail in battle against Islamism
By Paul Kujawsky, Guest Columnist
THE recent California Democratic Party Convention in San Diego was a pleasure for my fellow party activists, the vast majority of whom favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Seven of our eight declared presidential candidates appeared. All of them promised to bring the troops home (or "end the occupation") as early as Inauguration Day.
But no candidate offered a vision for winning the war against Islamism. They correctly judged that there wasn't much of a market for such goods at this convention.
So it seems that in 2008 voters will choose between a Republican Party which is serious about the war against Islamism but isn't very good at it, and a Democratic Party which has little or nothing to say about it beyond "Bush lied."
The stakes are high. It may be possible to win the war against Islamism even if we abandon Iraq, but it would be more difficult. What is not possible is to withdraw from the struggle.
The Islamists have declared war against the U.S., the other liberal democracies, even Muslim governments that don't toe their line. Appeasement is impossible; concessions simply whet their appetites.
Frankly, it's a mystery why the most imperialistic, malevolent political force in the world arouses so little passion among my fellow Democrats. Hostility toward Islamism should come as naturally to us as hostility towards Nazism. If we adopted this war for civilization and freedom as our own, we would surely do better than Bush has done. Instead, the only merchandise we offer voters is "out of Iraq." It's very disappointing.
Of the three only Kujawsky had enough class to take a swipe at his own party without
feeling the need to criticize the Republicans. Dinosaur media writers Klein and Broder felt the need to
1) blame the Republicans for the state of the discourse coming out of the left wing blogs (we just can't help it...stop me before I spew again!!!)
and 2) that somehow, Attorney General Gonzales is the face of the Republicans...sorry Broder, Gonzales has nothing on Harry Reid when it comes to embarrassing
Even though Klein and Broder showed typical Leftist Establishment arrogance we will take any criticism of the left coming from one of their own no matter how tepid.
Just once, JUST ONCE, we at the Neville Awards would like to here a prominent Democrat openly denounce and discredit the George Soros/MoveOn.org/Daily Kos/Michael Moore/CodePink media sewer as avidly as they blast
conservative talk radio, or "hate" radio as they term it. Joe Leiberman, are you out there?