home
Anti-war Groups Target Democratic Convention for P (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by selise on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:12:07 PM EST
BTD - have you seen this?
Anti-war Groups Target Democratic
Source: University of Florida

Newswise -- The Democratic Party stands to lose the 2008 presidential election unless it takes a stronger stand against the Iraq war, a University of Florida researcher says.

The loose coalition of groups opposed to American involvement in the Iraq war, which helped defeat Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections, is considerably less sympathetic to the Democrats and plans massive protests at the party's national convention next summer in Denver, said Michael T. Heaney, a political science professor.

"We see a very clear shift in the anti-war movement against the Democratic Party just in the last couple of months," said Heaney, who has written an article on anti-war activists that appears in the July edition of American Politics Research journal. "And the basic reason for that is the anti-war forces are very disappointed that the Democrats have not kept their promise to bring the troops home, which was their mandate after the 2006 election."



No (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:14:13 PM EST
Thank you.

I'll blog it later.

Trying to fugure out if Pelosi is going to put FISa up tonight.

[ Parent ]

Get my email? (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:20:03 PM EST
I think it's late tonight.

[ Parent ]
After midnight I am hearing (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:22:57 PM EST


[ Parent ]
yup (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:26:56 PM EST


[ Parent ]
Debate NOW (none / 0) (#13)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:32:20 PM EST
Reyes is indicating a complete capitulation.

[ Parent ]
saying "I told you so" (none / 0) (#16)
by Sumner on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:55:47 PM EST
just isn't going to seem very satisfying, in the months to come

[ Parent ]
Chicago! (none / 0) (#21)
by Scarabus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 07:58:04 PM EST
I'm old enough to have seen what happened in 1968 (at least on live television). Anti-war protesters in Chicago probably made the difference between the election of progressive Hubert Humphrey and "If the president does it, then it's legal" Nixon. Humphrey almost overcame the damage they caused, but, alas, not quite.

To force an agenda, without self-reflection or adjusting strategy to accommodate changing conditions, is naively counter-productive. To cower in fear of attack is worse than counter-productive. The rational, constructive approach lies somewhere between.

Easy to say. The hard part is negotiating the ground between uncompromisingly going down in flames of self-righteousness on the one hand, and elevating one's snoot in uncompromising ideological triumph on the other. Either extreme is both morally easy (for the unreflective extremist, right or left), and socially irresponsible (for anyone).

Democracy is about negotiating our differences, seeking win-win accommodation in the interest of the commonweal. At a more sophisticated level, it means developing sufficient trust to grant advantage to others in confidence that in future  others will allow us the advantage. That's moral, social, political maturity.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft