The reason I asked for a PRO-American statement from either of these groups, is that I've looked for some, and have come up wanting, every time I've looked.
Karen, the reason I declined to offer is that I don't agree with that criteria. Any group can hold a quite different vision for the country than the present direction, use that vision as a basis for a critique of the present direction, and not see anything to celebrate in it. And not be anti-American. Just disagree with the present direction.
As for whether to take the ideas of the Dems seriously or not, in my view that's more a function of one's own political beliefs than of anything the Dems are doing or not doing. Right now, however, their legislative strategy seems to be an almost entirely defensive one. Which, given their power position, is about the best they can do. Reid seems to be doing a fairly decent job holding them together, better than Frist on the Rep side. They are united on opposition to ss phaseout and look to be united on extreme judicial appointments and thus the filibuster.
Both represent oppositional opportunities to show their political beliefs: social security as social insurance and the most successful social program in the last century; and support for a judiciary that's not a product of some of the more objectionable right wing views (the "mainstream" views argument.)
As for the differences between MoveOn and Answer, I'm not particularly interested. Nadine has been bothered by Answer ever since it appeared. I don't see them as the same kind of threat as Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Randall Terry, Tom DeLay, and that "ilk". |
