The left has taken over the Democratic Party

The Hill News ^ | 12-17-2003 | Dick Morris

[TheGeezer]

but they certianly did run him out of town for trivial misdeads only a few years later

An interesting interpretation of those years.

Make no mistake: I liked Nixon, and I worked on his re-election campaign while in college in 1972. I even attended the Hamilton County (Ohio) Republican victory celebration that night, and hooted wildly as the states fell to President Nixon. But the tragedy of his paranoia and the stupidity of his staff at Watergate were not trivial issues. His was the election since McGovern was a boob (and still is). Nixon should have exposed the idiots who threatened and did indeed ruin his presidency.

This, too, is an example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....tragically...

[bobjam]

Clinton was a centrist in comparison to Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern and Humphrey. In another words, Clinton was a centrist within the democratic party. That still puts him left of the mainstream.

[hosepipe]

[ Morris keeps making the point that Clinton was a centrist. And I've heard it from others, too. NOBODY in their right mind can make that claim! ]

Morris actually right, the center so far left, the country is flying circles.. makes one dizzy just watchin... just a few flaps of a right wing should straighten us right out.. unless we pile into the ground first. Because the eagles eyes are also crossed.. and we are loseing altitude..

[nothingnew]

So what? I didn't see it yesterday.

Thanks for the post RisK

FMCDH

[Michael.SF.]

I concur fully.

One of the things that makes the Dems look so stupid is that the Clintons are playing the party like a Strativarious (sp?), and the party refuses to admit it publicly. It is, I think, obvious that Hillary is running for the Presidency, the question is not if, but when.

When Bush wins in '04, Hillary will be in perfect position to win in '08, due to the cylical election preferences of the nation (Rep-Dem-Rep). That cycle was only broken by Bush I, in recent times. That is why the GOP '04 VP is so important. Hillary will beat Cheney, she may not be able to beat Rice. This is why I want Rice to be VP in '04.

[pabianice]

"The left has taken over the Democratic Party"

"Sun discovered to be Hot"

"Career Welfare discovered to discourage Work Ethic"

add your own...

[Leavemealone]

So I'm not the only one who finds that statement beyond comprehension.

Have you noticed since Gore endorsement, Hillary's transformation from radical, elitist liberal to 'moderate democrat' or 'centrist' has become fact within the established media? What is even more amazing is NOBODY (except here) is challenging this obvious lie.

You can't tell me the media is not priming the stupid masses for her presidential run.

[Uncle Hal]

Your absolutely right. The country does appear headed for a civil war. I have been following politics for 50 years and I have never seen the country so polarized as it is today. The Senate Democrats refusing to allow the Senate to vote on Bush's court nominees via filibuster is unprecedented. Things next year are really going to get ugly.

[pabianice]

Soldiers in Iraq so hate Hillary that they gave a special code name to the Blackhawk helicopter Her Majesty commandeered to ride her around the area: "Broomstick One."

Every man and woman who ever served in the US armed forces will forever remember her key participation in the Democrats' attempt to throw-out all absentee ballots from Florida servicepeople during the 2000 election.

[Michael.SF.]

Clinton was a centrist in comparison to Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern and Humphrey

IMHO, I would modify that to read:

"Clinton, allowed himself to be perceived by the voters as a centrist in comparison to ....."

Clinton was two things, if nothing else: an ultra liberal and a survivor. Since he has no principles, he had no problem hiding his true leftist ideology in favor of survival (ie. governing as a centrist).

[gorush]

From a strict constructionist conservative's point of view, the Republican Party has been taken over by the left as well.

[areafiftyone]

ex-squeeze me? ;-)

[Destructor]

"The left has taken over the Democratic Party"

Earth to Dick Morris-- where have you been? That happened in back the 70s!

[Joe Republc]

Another possibility sometime in my lifetime:

- The radical left takes over the Democrats obviously and completely. But the US populace, disengaging from the Democratic / mainstream press hegemony, rejects the party.
- The Republicans dominate to an outstanding degree for several elections.
- A wedge, already in place, between social conservatives and libertarians, continues to grow within the Republican ranks.
- Some dramatic social issue - homosexuality, abortion, acknowledgement of God - or national security vs. privacy issue - a national ID chip perhaps, brings the Republican wedge way up to front and center. Disenfranchised liberals from the left join the libertarians.
- Either the social conservatives or the libertarians, whoever is weaker in the Republican ranks, split to form a new party.
- The new party replaces the Democrats. If it's the libertarians, they might keep the Democrat name and operation but drive the agenda.

My two cents,

-- Joe

[San Jacinto]

Things next year are really going to get ugly.

I agree, but I think Bush is very good at sort of pushing issues and placating at the same time. He will try to keep things focused on national security and away from domestic disputes in anticipation of November '04. Assume Bush wins in '04 and the GOP picks up a few Senate seats-- things will REALLY hit the fan in '05 and '06. I expect there to be some Supreme Court nominations and I expect it will be the fight of a lifetime. The Dems would try anything possible (literally)to roadblock Bush or even bring him down. Partisan Dem supporters are going to go ballistic, and our side will respond in kind. It could be quite a spectacle.

[chiller]

later

[cinFLA]

Clark was a trial ballon, nothing more. If he rises to the occassion and takes off in popularity a Clark-Clinton ticket was/is a possibility. But the Clinton's would accept that only if they know Clark will lose.

You contradict yourself.

[Michael.SF.]

you contradict yourself.

How so? Clark was sent in for several purposes:

To possibly defeat Dean and then the Clinton's would have a candidate that the Clinton's could control

To test him in a safe environment to see if he had the potential to be a VP possibility under Hillary in '08 or remotely in '04.

Worse case (from Clinton POV):

Clark wins nomination, then wins the Presidency w/o Hillary as VP.

Clark's entry into the race must be viewed from the "What is in it for the Clinton's?" perspective. I think I see what you mean. When I said "that Clark would lose", I was referring to losing to Bush, not losing in the primaries. Hillary benefits from losing as the Dem VP candidate, just as Morris indicates above.

[playball0]

Clark serves many important roles. He keeps the Clinton hatchet team together and employed rather than diluting their true allegence. Clark also suck some money away from other candidates, weakening them.

Finally, Clark keeps the Clintons in the game so they are relevant as well as learning the finer point of getting around the campaign finance law for 2008.

[Petronski]

Yeah, it's true. Except it happened at the 1984 San Francisco convention.