OUR FROGS

What do Democrats really want? (Howard Mortman, 8/04/03, MSNBC)

[N]O WONDER the Democrats are all over the map. So are their voters. Schizophrenia, angst, and fickleness define Democratic attitudes these days.

Take the new Franklin Pierce College poll. When 500 likely Democratic voters in the New Hampshire primary were asked if they personally supported military conflict in Iraq, a big number - 58 percent - opposed it, while just 30 percent favored it. But get this. When the poll asked, "Would you vote for a Democratic primary candidate who supported military conflict in Iraq," half said yes, they would still consider the candidate. Just 30 percent said no.

Meantime, anti-war candidate Howard Dean got support from only half of those who said they won't back a candidate who supported the war. Which means many anti-war votes are up for grabs. Or perhaps the war doesn't matter? [...]

In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, almost half - 48% - of Democrats nationwide said they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes President Bush's economic agenda but agrees with the president on many national security issues. The rest - 41% - said they'd be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes most of Bush's economic agenda AND national security agenda. So a plurality can live with the pro-Bush position on the war.

Also in the poll, Democrats were evenly split at 46% over whether they disapproved or approved of the job President Bush is doing dealing with the war on terrorism. And half of Democrats say the U.S. should have taken military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. No, these Democrats aren't hawks, but neither are they doves. They're more like frogs, hard to pin down.

The Party's problem seems pretty simple: they don't have any ideas. They've become the reactionary party, dedicated to nothing more than defending the New Deal/Great Society, Roe v. Wade, and Vietnam-era anti-war drivel. That can keep the die-hards on board, but what about folks who think the Welfare State is failing, abortion is at least problematic, and Islamicism is a greater threat than the North Vietnamese? How can a party that's stuck in the 70s speak to the needs of 21st Century voters? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2003 7:40 PM