Reply #7: Thanks for the great post, Mad Floridian

[karynnj]

There's a huge amount to absorb here.

On Unity 08:
I agree with you. I really don't trust this and wonder why a Clinton person like Lanny Davis is involved. What I wonder about is whether it's not a less Democratic (Party) version of the DLC with a neo-con foreign policy plank. This would fit Lieberman and McCain.

I've come to think that one reason the media was so strange in 2004 was not just media consolidation. With Foreign policy, including Iraq and the war on terror, being the biggest issues, I think that there is a fracture in what once was the Liberal/Democratic party over neo-con ideas. This may explain the negative coverage throughout 2004 of Democrats like Dean and Kerry who were NOT neo-cons. The confusion was that this coverage came from media that normally had a liberal bias - the NYT, the WP, TNR, Newsweek etc. Consider how they drooled over Bush's 2nd inaugral speech or how they transistion so quickly to defining spreading democracy as the goal in Iraq - ignoring that that reason was specifically eliminated from the IWR - bacause it was NOT supported as a reason. There also was a NYT op-ed in fall 2004, that spoke of the switch of the Republican, not the Democrat having the more idealist foreign policy view.

It also might explain the lack of support Kerry got from people like Donna Brazille and Joe Lieberman. It also explains why the "party leaders" so quickly tried to strip Kerry of any claim to leadership. They would have been even more successful, if Kerry was less resiliant, staying involved. (I wonder if it also explains the 2002 mischaracterization of Al Gore as "angry" and "out of contol".)

How would a country used to 2 parties deal with these 3 parties and what would they be? How could this play out?

Here is my CONJECTURE (based on few facts)

- Democratic party - For domestic issues, consider any party platform for the last several decades or take either Dean's (or Kerry's) list of what Democrats are. For foreign policy, take Kerry's Ulster speech. Edwards, with poverty issues, is clearly here on the economic issues and he seems to have rejected the neo-con ideas. Gore is here.

- United - Neo-con agenda in foreign policy, conseravtive Democratic/moderate Republican economic values and libertarian social values Who would be here? Lieberman, Kerrey, McCain, if he can't win the Republican primary

- Republican - very RW - as the sane people might have left. Bush, Cheney, Sessions, Gregg, Santorum and all the others we don't like.

Notice I didn't put the Clintons in. It's because I have NO idea where they are on foreign policy. (I think it's most likely they would stay Democrat.)

If a United party were created, the question will be, given US political history, would it ultimately replace an existing party. (I know there have always been small parties on the sides.) If it were in the open, the Democratic party would at least be represented by people genuinely in line with them.