Democrats Are A House Divided
At least when it comes to Iraq anyway.
A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.
The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies—on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.
I find it rather telling that the media constantly casts this divide among Democrats as nothing more than simple frustration at being unable to defeat the Bush administration policy-wise in any sort of meaningful way. And while that probably has something to do with it, it’s worth noting that a big reason why the Democrats can’t defeat the Bush administration is that there is a strong contingent of centrist Democrats (or, at least, Democrats representing centrist constituents) who don’t want to defeat the Bush administration on certain issues.
They don’t want a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They don’t want an end to some of the anti-terror measures the President has initiated. Among these Democrats are Joe Lieberman, and many other lesser-known figures in the Senate and (to a greater extent) in the House.
Of course, if the media portrayed the Democrats’ divided party in that light Americans might get the idea that opposition to the war in Iraq and the Bush administration isn’t quite as solidified as they’ve been led to believe.
