Bruce Bartlett, The Cato Institute, Andrew Sullivan, George Packer, William F. Buckley, Sandra Day O’Connor, Republican voters in Indiana and all the rest of you newly-minted dissenters from Bush’s faith-based reality…those of us who have been anti-Bush from day 1 (defined as the day after the stolen 2000 election) have a few pointers for you that should make your transition more realistic.
1. Bush doesn’t know you disagree with him. Nothing about you makes you of interest to George W. Bush once you no longer agree with and support him…
2. Bush doesn’t care whether you disagree with him….You know that Katrina tape in which Bush never asked a question? It doesn’t matter how much you know or how passionately you feel or, most importantly, what degree of disintegration you see around you, he’s not going to ask you a question. You and your ideas are dead to him…
3. Bush does what he feels like doing and he deeply resents being told, even politely, that he ought to do anything else. This is called a “sense of entitlement”. Bush is a man who has never been anywhere and never done anything, and yet he has been flattered and cajoled into being president of the United States through his connections, all of whom thought they could use him for their own purposes…
4. President Bush is your creation…Bush does what he wants because you have let him…
5. Tyranny is your creation. What we have today is the natural and inevitable outcome of ideas and policies you have promoted for the last generation…
The US could have become a moderating force in what seems now to be an inevitable battle among the three monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but you have made that impossible by flattering and empowering our own violent and intolerant Christian right.
You have created an imperium, heedless of the most basic wisdom of the Founding Fathers–that at the very least, no man is competent enough or far-seeing enough to rule imperially…
Now you are fleeing him, but it’s only because he’s got the earmarks of a loser. Your problem is that you don’t know why he’s losing. You think he’s made mistakes. But no. He’s losing because the ideas that you taught him and demonstrated for him are bad ideas, self-destructive ideas, and even suicidal ideas… [emphasis added.]
“This is an important program,” said Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term this year. “I don’t find anybody in Congress who thinks we ought not to be listening to the phone conversations and reading the e-mails of people that we think are involved in and we have reason to believe are involved in terrorist groups. But it has to be done in America in my opinion pursuant to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It has to be done with a court order.”
Lieberman, who has been criticized by liberals for supporting Bush’s war policy, faulted a censure move against the president that was proposed last week by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
“My own opinion, and it seems to be shared by most Democratic senators, is that it would be an unproductive use of our time,” Lieberman said. “Again, it’s looking backward. It would be divisive. The best thing we could do about this program is to bring it under the law and I’d prefer to spend my time and the Senate’s time figuring out how we can adopt a law that allows the administration to continue this program but force them to go to court to get a warrant before they do.”
I love these guys who claim to be our moral arbiters, don’t you? Yes, the president broke the law and defiled the constitution, but we shouldn’t hold him accountable because it would be divisive and “looking backward.”
It’s funny how he wasn’t concerened about wasting time or looking backward when he railed for half an hour on the Senate floor about President Clinton dragging down the moral values of the country for lying about his sex life, thus bringing the shrieking media harpies to full hysteria for weeks with the idea that the Democrats “were deserting Clinton.” Indeed, even after president Clinton was acquitted, Holy Joe thought censure was needed heal the divisions in our nation at the time.
I do believe the Constitution allows for one recourse that would provide a means for us as the people’s representatives to register our and their disapproval, and would, I believe, help us to bring appropriate closure to this terrible chapter in our nation’s history. It is well within the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives to adopt a resolution of censure expressing our contempt for the President’s misconduct, both that which is charged in the articles and that which is not. Such a censure would not amount to a punishment, nor would it be intended to do so. What it would do, particularly if it united Senators across party lines and positions on removal, is fulfill our responsibility to our children and our posterity to speak to the common values the President has violated, and make clear what our expectations are for future holders of that highest office.
And what it could do, I believe, is to help us to begin healing the wounds the President’s misconduct and the impeachment process’s partisanship have done to the American body politic, and to the soul of the nation. I have observed that roughly two-thirds of the public consistently expresses its opposition to the President’s removal. But I do not think we can leave this proceeding, especially those of us who have voted against the Articles, without also noting that roughly one-third of the American people have consistently expressed their belief that this President is unfit to lead this nation. That is a startlingly large percentage of our people who have totally lost confidence in our nation’s leader.
Hey Joe, you putz. Have you looked at the polls lately? And do you think it might be worth your notice that most of your fellow Democrats believe that George W. Bush has been unfit to lead this country since he stole the election, with you on the damned ticket for gods sake, in 2000? Maybe you don’t mind being punked by Karl Rove, but the rest of us kind of resent it. How about healing those wounds?
Lying and breaking the law and spying on Americans without a warrant, well, it’s wrong, but we needn’t punish anyone for it. It’s not like there’s anything important (like extra-marital sex) involved or anything. We should just make it legal and carry on. Oh hell, let’s just crown the half-wit and get it over with.
Joe Liebermann’s little eight year old grandkid asked him at the dinner table the other night if he thought the president broke the law, like the kids at school said he did.
“Is he gonna get in trouble?” he asked.
“No, son,” Liebermann replied, “we’re just going to change the law so what he did isn’t illegal anymore. We don’t want his friends to get upset.”
“Neat,” the kid replied, “I took four candy bars from 7-11 after school and the man said he was gonna call the police. Can you change the law for me so I won’t get into trouble either?”
Lieberman looked indulgently at the naive little pup and said, “I’m sorry son. You’re the grandson of a Democrat. You shall have to pay the price for your misdeeds. Breaking the law and having a private personal life is only OKIYAR. It’s time you learned that.”
Many bloggers have suggested that the recently unemployed Ben Domenech should seriously consider signing up for service in the military (but not, presumably, as a blogger for the Army Times). Far be it for me to disagree, but I would like to suggest an equally worthy alternative.
Ben can grab himself one of those groovy new digital videocams, catch the next plane to Iraq, and hitch-hike around, carefully filming all the good news in the country. You know what I’m talking about, Ben: All the schools opening, the pipelines flowing, the new businesses being generated (terrorism insurance not included; that’s been covered), the overstaffed hospitals, the fearless Iraqi policemen, and the many public squares all over Iraq’s villages and towns renamed in honor of George W. Bush.
Most importantly, Ben can document on video the thousands of truly poignant stories of Sunni and Shiites putting aside their ancient differences to embrace each other as fellow Muslims. now working together to forge the future destiny of their beloved homeland.
This is the perfect chance for Ben, the legendary gentleman that Jeff and his pals at RedState perceive, to redeem himself. Since no one’s been able to find these sorts of stories and live to tell them, he’ll be reporting completely unique news.
No one could possibly accuse him of plagiarizing. Faking the videos, maybe. But not plagiarzing.
I just want to second tristero’s endorsement below of Lara Logan’s rapier-like take down of Howie Kurtz’s lame reiteration of GOP talking points. Crooks and Liars has the video, here.
As I wrote earlier in the week:
Memo to the news media: The mere fact that reporters must risk their lives every time they attempt to report the “good news” means that the news, by definition, cannot be all that good. It means that all those new schools and soccer games and litters of adorable puppies exist in the shadow of horrible violence.
And speaking of lameass reiteration of GOP talking points, could someone wise up our sleepy, naive New York Times Babydoll, Elizabeth Bumiller, about how the Republicans work please? Perhaps someone from the “conservative beat” could take her out for coffee. Or maybe she could open her little eyes and look around her:
MR. HARWOOD: … When, when you have, as Charlie said, journalists over there who cannot move around the country to report because they know that, that they’re in danger of being killed at any moment, that tells you about the state of security in the country. It’s not good.
MR. RUSSERT: The White House?
MS. BUMILLER: The other thing that’s interesting, what you didn’t show was the president’s response to her. I was there that day, and he was very, very careful not to jump on her bandwagon. In fact – I mean, obviously, he didn’t have to, she did it for him. But the point is he said, “Look, wait a minute. You know, I understand your frustration, but we have a free press in this country, we can’t tell them what to do.” He pulled back somewhat from her comment.
And I think you’re right, Charlie, that they aren’t – they know they can’t sell this, and when they’ve tried in the past, it has backfired on them.
MR. RUSSERT: But the president also said don’t be afraid to go to blogs and find out some more information.
MS. BUMILLER: Yes. I mean, I mean, I’m, I’m—these are gradations here, I mean, in White House response.
MR. RUSSERT: But is the White House convinced that in order to secure the base of the Republican Party for the president, it doesn’t hurt to go after the media a little bit?
MS. BUMILLER: Not – of course not. They do it all the time. And, and they complain all the time about, about, about what we do. But, but I, I have noticed this past week Scott McClellan saying, the White House press secretary, you know, “We’re not blaming the media for the war in Iraq.” He said that a couple times this week, and so, so it, it’s – they’re – again, they’re being a little more careful here than usual.
That military wife, who just happens to be married to a public affairs officer, made her comments all on her own. Why, the president didn’t publicly endorse them or anything! And Scott McClellan never says one thing while Rove’s RNC minions say another. They are much too straighforward and honest to do something like that.
The bodies of 30 beheaded men were found on a main highway near Baquba this evening, providing more evidence that the death squads in Iraq are becoming out of control.
You don’t think that I haven’t been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let’s see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can’t take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they’re going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.
MR. BRODER: Well, if they’re going to be responsible, they need some policy. And the great void on the Democratic side is nobody can tell you today what their policy is about Iraq, about entitlements, or about any of the other challenges facing the country. Whether they need that politically, somebody else is smart enough to decide, but if they’re going to be a responsible party, they need to talk about policy.
MR. RUSSERT: Do they need to do it?
MR. COOK: See, I would argue that minority parties don’t have to be responsible. That’s the one good thing going for them, and when they try to be responsible, they’re just going to dig themselves into a hole. I mean, you’re on – your job is to throw rocks. Once you start offering alternatives, then suddenly you’re playing defense as well. I think Democrats would be crazy, from a political standpoint, to offer up proposals.
MR. RUSSERT: That movie, “Cool Hand Luke,” sometimes nothing’s a real cool hand.
MR. COOK: Exactly.
The Democrats’ problem is not policy, it’s politics.
The Republicans spent many millions and many years building up their second rate think tank-based policy infrastructure which we now know functioned mainly as a front for their political machine. Their policy apparatus, to the extent it exists, has been proven to be intellectually bankrupt, not that they will ever admit it. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a surfeit of first rate analysts, thinkers and academics who will provide numerous choices and pragmatic solutions for problems Americans face, not that they will ever get credit. Broder can relax.
I hope the Democrats will listen to Cook, not Broder. If we’ve learned nothing else these last few years, it’s that the modern Republican party has no interest in practical, bipartisan solutions to the problems Americans face. Their gift, and the reason they are in the majority is because they dominate modern election campaigning with superior messaging, analysis and coalition building. In this era, responsible policies are meaningless unless Democrats can gain and keep a majority — and they aren’t going to get there trying to impress David Broder with their 10 point plans. They need to learn to do politics as well as they do policy.
I believe that Democrats and liberals in 2006 stand to have their greatest opportunity since 1992 (which was lost). You will have the substantial support of many lapsed Republicans and doubters of Bush conservatism like myself. But I also have the sense that many Democrats and liberals have an instinct for the capillaries, not for the jugular. If that leads to failure in 2006, there will be a major price to pay, not just for the United States but in terms of the credibility of your party and movement.
It is our duty as the grassroots of the Democratic party to continue to pressure our leaders to go for the jugular, not for the capillaries, and show them that we will support them when they do it.
Reminder: If you are in a town or city where your senator has an office, consider dropping by and telling him or her that you support the Feingold resolution.
It has been a while since I have weighed in on the particulars of the illegal NSA spying scandal, mostly because Glenn Greenwald has this story covered so thoroughly and so well (and I’m sure you are all reading him every day.) But today we are reminded just how pernicious this scandal is: the Bush Justice department has asserted their right to ignore any law that congress makes, and which a former president signed, under a theory of executive power so sweeping that it essentially declares that this nation is a constitutional, elected monarchy (the elected part being debatable since the president could theoretically assert his unfettered powers to cancel elections.)
There are numerous noteworthy items, but the most significant, by far, is that the DoJ made clear to Congress that even if Congress passes some sort of newly amended FISA of the type which Sen. DeWine introduced, and even if the President “agrees” to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress — again — that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President’s powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.
I was digging around in my archives the other day and came across this post from three years ago as the Iraq war began:
Julia points out this article in the Washington Post that clearly reveals the Bush administration’s only governing principles are loyalty to the President and strong arm tactics. Period.
As the United States wages war this week following a pair of ultimatums to the United Nations and Iraq, the airwaves and editorial pages of the world have been full of accusations that President Bush and his administration are guilty of coercive and harrying behavior. Even in typically friendly countries, Bush and the United States have been given such labels this week as “arrogant bully” (Britain), “bully boys” (Australia), “big bully” (Russia), “bully Bush” (Kenya), “arrogant” (Turkey) and “capricious” (Canada). Diplomats have accused the administration of “hardball” tactics, “jungle justice” and acting “like thugs.”
At home, where support for the war on Iraq is strong and growing, such complaints of strong-arm tactics by the Bush administration nonetheless have a certain resonance — even among Bush supporters. Though the issues are vastly different, Republican lawmakers and conservative interest groups report similar pressure on allies at home to conform to Bush’s policy wishes.
Although all administrations use political muscle on the opposition, GOP lawmakers and lobbyists say the tactics the Bush administration uses on friends and allies have been uniquely fierce and vindictive. Just as the administration used unbending tactics before the U.N. Security Council with normally allied countries such as Mexico, Germany and France, the Bush White House has calculated that it can overcome domestic adversaries if it tolerates no dissent from its friends.
In recent weeks, the White House has been pushing GOP governors to oust the leadership of the National Governors Association to make the bipartisan group endorse Bush’s views. Interest groups report pressure from the administration — sometimes on groups’ donors — to conform to Bush’s policy views and even to fire dissenters.
Often, companies and their K Street lobbyists endorse ideas they privately oppose or question, according to several longtime Republican lobbyists. The fear is that Bush will either freeze them out of key meetings or hold a grudge that might deprive them of help in other areas, the lobbyists said. When the Electronic Industries Alliance declined to back Bush’s dividend tax cut, the group was frozen out when the White House called its “friends” in the industry to discuss the tax cut, according to White House and business sources.
[…]
Conservative interest groups get similar pressure. When the free-market Club for Growth sent a public letter to the White House to protest White House intervention in GOP primaries for “liberal-leaning Republicans,” the group’s president, Stephen Moore, picked up the phone at a friend’s one evening to receive a screaming tirade from Rove, who had tracked him down. On another occasion when Moore objected to a Bush policy, Rove called Richard Gilder, the Club for Growth’s chairman and a major contributor, to protest.
“I think this monomaniacal call for loyalty is unhealthy,” Moore said. “It’s dangerous to declare anybody who crosses you an enemy for life. It’s shortsighted.” Leaders of three other conservative groups report that their objections to Bush policies have been followed by snubs and, in at least one case, phone calls suggesting the replacement of a critical scholar. “They want sycophants rather than allies,” said the head of one think tank.
Corporations are coming under increasing pressure not just to back Bush, but to hire his allies to represent them in meetings with Republicans. As part of the “K Street Project,” top GOP officials, lawmakers and lobbyists track the political affiliation and contributions of people seeking lobbying jobs.
In a private meeting last week, chief executives from several leading technology firms told Rep. Calvin M. Dooley (Calif.) and other moderate Democrats that they were under heavy pressure to back the Bush tax plan, even though many of them had reservations about it. “There is a perception among some business interests there could be retribution if you don’t play ball on almost every issue that comes up,” Dooley said.
Read the whole thing. (And the editor’s note at the beginning.) It is now out in the open. No excuses. Any real libertarian or conservative who continues to back these Mafiosi is complicit. These people are undemocratic and intolerant of dissent. They openly use threats to intimidate their allies and strike fear into their enemies. This is not business as usual. We are seeing more elements every day of a new and unique American form of totalitarianism.
There have been signs of this coming for the last 10 years. The propaganda machine, the intense partisanship, the trumped up impeachment … an unelected court deciding a presidential election and now an illegitimate and illegal war being pursued under a doctrine of preventive war in pursuit of American hegemony. And, we are operating under de facto one-party rule within which no dissent is tolerated.
That is the administration that created this illegal spying program — an administration that had no compunction about strong-arming its own allies, issuing threats and insisting on blind fealty to the white house. It is mind-boggling that anyone would believe that an administration that behaves this way should be trusted to spy on Americans without a warrant. The fourth amendment was written with a future Karl Rove explicitly in mind.
Glenn quotes Madison in Federalist #47 in his post on this this morning. I’ll turn to #51:
… the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The assumption here is that each branch of government would jealously guard its perogatives. In a one party government that answers to Karl Rove, that is not likely to happen. The discipline is finally breaking down, as the president becomes dramatically unpopular, the war drags on and 2008 ambitions assert themselves. But if we are to redeem our system, the Democrats must take power and they must hold Republicans accountable for what they’ve done. It cannot be otherwise, or the entire system is in jeopardy:
Asked if spying on the American people was as impeachable an offense as lying and having sex with an intern, Fein replied:
“I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous that Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that – would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.” — Bruce Fein, Constitutional Scholar and former Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration (Diane Rehm Show, 12/19/05)
The president continues to say that as a wartime president he can do anything he wants, openly and without any sense of shame. He has loaded that precedent and unless somebody puts a stop to it, it will lie there waiting for the next time a despotic president and his party want to use it.
The congress explicitly dealt with warrantless spying on Americans when it wrote the FISA law. It did this in response to abuses that were exposed in the aftermath of Watergate. But many of the people who were in the Nixon administration never accepted these limitations on executive power and simply waited until they took power again to reinstitute the practices. (Then, they needed to usurp the constitution because of the communist threat. Now it is terrorism. It’s always something.)
Peter Beinert, in an otherwise uncharacteristically politically savvy essay in last week’s TNR (on which I’ll comment later) wrote:
Was Bush’s surveillance program illegal? Absolutely. (As George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley notes, “It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear.”) Did Bush lie about it? You betcha. (“When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so,” Bush declared on April 20, 2004, while doing exactly the opposite.) But other presidents have lied, broken the law, and trampled civil liberties, too, especially during wartime. That doesn’t mean Congress shouldn’t investigate Bush’s surveillance program. It should probe mercilessly. But censuring Bush–right after the Republican Congress tried to impeach Bill Clinton–could make such efforts a normal part of partisan conflict, which they have not been throughout U.S. history. That’s a depressing prospect, no matter what your politics.
On the other hand, there is something highly unsatisfying about saying that, because the Republican Congress tried to impeach Bill Clinton for lying in a civil suit about sex, Democrats can’t censure George W. Bush for lying–and breaking the law–on an issue of national security. It’s a little like telling someone who has just been punched in the face that he can’t hit back because that would perpetuate the cycle of violence. Or, put another way, if Republicans really still think they were right to impeach Clinton–if they’d do it again–then there’s no reason for Democrats to abandon censure in the name of civility. After all, if you don’t punch back, and the other side keeps hitting you, your efforts to stop the cycle of violence have failed.
So Democrats should only eschew censure if, by so doing, they can make censure and impeachment what they historically have been: constitutional weapons wielded in only the rarest, gravest of circumstances. And that depends on the GOP. Prominent Republicans don’t talk much about Clinton’s impeachment today; it doesn’t quite square with their more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger fretting about Bush hatred. But I don’t know of a single major Republican politician or conservative pundit who has admitted the obvious: that impeaching Clinton was a farce and a disgrace, the likes of which we should pray never to see again.
They will never admit that. And these are the gravest of circumstances. There is nothing to be gained by Democrats abandoning anything in the name of civility Republicans will simply impeach the next Democratic president for double parking without so much as a second thought if they have the chance. They play the hardest of hardball and they do not see such minor setbacks as losing a few seats as any kind of repudiation. In fact, they see nothing as repudiation, not even Nixon’s disgrace. They waited patiently for 30 years for the opportunity to reinstitute the imperial presidency and were operating under it even before 9/11. (See: energy task force.)
The only thing that might make them repudiate Bill Clinton’s impeachment would be George W. Bush’s impeachment and I doubt that we will see either. But what we should see, and I dearly hope we will see, is a Democratic congress that puts the bright light of investigations on what this administration and its GOP allies have done — and if we should get a Democratic president in 2008, a justice department that seeks out and punishes those who broke these laws. I don’t think we should shut up for one minute about demanding accountability for what these people have done.
Back in 1974, I was in favor of pardoning Richard Nixon. I thought that it was wise to “bind up the country’s wounds.” I was wrong. The Republicans barely missed a beat and just went right on with the program. Whether George W. Bush can be charged with a crime, I don’t know. But I have no doubt that it would be good for the country, not bad, if the Republicans were held to account for their undemocratic actions once and for all. They’re impeaching, stealing eleactions and starting unnecessary wars now. What is it going to take before people realize that we are dealing with an outlaw political party?
Joining what some are calling the nation’s largest mobilization of immigrants ever, hundreds of thousands of people boisterously marched in downtown Los Angeles Saturday to protest federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and build a security wall on the U.S. southern border. Spirited crowds representing labor, religious groups, civil-rights advocates and ordinary immigrants stretched over 26 blocks of downtown Los Angeles from Adams Blvd. along Spring Street and Broadway to City Hall, tooting kazoos, waving American flags and chanting “Si se puede!” (Yes we can!). The crowd, estimated by police at more than 500.000, represented one of the largest protest marches in Los Angeles history, surpassing Vietnam War demonstrations and the 70,000 who rallied downtown against Proposition 187, a 1994 state initiative that denied public benefits to undocumented migrants.
[…]
n recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of people have staged demonstrations in more than a dozen cities. The Roman Catholic Church and other religious communities have launched immigrant rights campaigns, with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony taking a leading role in speaking out against the House bill and calling on his priests to defy its provisions that would make felons of anyone who aided undocumented immigrants. In addition, several cities, including Los Angeles, have passed resolutions against the House legislation and some, such as Maywood, have declared itself a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants.
This issue is huge. It’s splitting the GOP right up the middle. So what are Democrats going to do about it?
These huge protests all over the country show that Tom Tancredo and the Minutemen are not going to be the only game in town. Politicians had better start thinking about how they are going to deal with this.
The first thing on the agenda might be to give Pete Wilson a call. And then take a look at demographic trends.
As two recent reports document, the Hispanic population of the United States continues to increase rapidly, especially in areas that we now think of as “solid red.” The Pew Hispanic Center report describes and analyzes the extraordinary growth of the Hispanic population in six southern states, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, down to the county level. The Census report shows that Texas has now become a majority-minority state (joining New Mexico, California and Hawaii), primarily due to its burgeoning Hispanic population.
The political impact of this demographic trend should generally favor the Democrats. But the extent to which this is true will be limited if Democratic margins among Hispanics continue to be shaved, as they were in the 2004 election.
However, according to a useful new report by the indefatigable folks at Democracy Corps, the Democratic margin among Hispanics seems likely to expand in the future, not contract. If so, the pro-Democratic impact of Hispanic population growth should be very substantial.
The Democracy Corps report is based on a June survey of Hispanic voters, whose basic results I previously summarized. There is much rich detail in this report, but here are some of the most important observations:
Democrats witnessed the loss of a small though significant portion of their Hispanic support to George Bush in 2000 and 2004, but by no means were these dislodged voters an advance party for a greater flight of Hispanics from the Democratic Party. Hispanic voters remain instinctively very Democratic, but more important than that, they hold values, views of society, the economy and the role of government, as well as issue priorities and hopes for America, that put them deep inside the Democratic world. The Democrats will stem the erosion of the Hispanic vote, not by chasing the defectors or waving the partisan banner, but by rediscovering their own values and beliefs. The route to a national Democratic majority goes right through the Hispanic community, where Democrats will find the themes that best define the modern Democratic Party. . . .
[Hispanic] voters were disappointed and dislodged; they did not defect. In this survey just completed, Hispanics had swung back to the Democrats with a vengeance, giving them a 32-point margin in a generic race for Congress (61 to 29 percent). The Republican vote today is 10 points below what Bush achieved just six months earlier. These voters are deeply dissatisfied with the Bush economy and Iraq war; they are socially tolerant and internationalist; they align with a Democratic Party that respects Hispanics and diversity, that uses government to help families, reduce poverty and create opportunity, and that will bring major change in education and health care. This is even truer for the growing younger population under 30, including Gen Y voters, who support the Democrats by a remarkable 46 points (70 to 24 percent). All together, this paints a portrait of a group that respects Bill Clinton, indeed giving him higher marks than the Catholic Church, and that embraces his vision of the Democratic Party. . . .
[…]
That values issues were part of the erosion in 2004 and 2000 is not the same as saying that addressing those issues directly is the best way to rebuild the Democrats’ majority. Majorities of Hispanics believe we should be tolerant of homosexuality, would keep abortion legal, and support stem cell research, even with church opposition. This is especially true among the large younger and more middle-class segments of the community. . . .
[Hispanics’] views on values, family, the economy, the poor, working people and the middle class, community and government, and how best to expand opportunity and realize the American dream put these voters in the center of a Democratic world-if the Democrats would remember what it means to be a Democrat in these times. (emphases added)
Do I detect a theme here? Just as Democrats-see the post below-will do best among difficult, contestable voter groups by making clear what they stand for, they will maximize their potential gains among Democratic-leaning Hispanics by doing the very same thing. Sounds like a winner to me.
In case anybody’s wondering which left wing bloggers accused Lil’ Benji of incest with his mother, be advised that it was none other than our Supreme Leader, heterosexual Republican and all around man’s man, General J.C Christian, Patriot. Let there be no doubt that like our Dear President, when the General speaks, he means it.
