November 3, 2005


Biden on Democrats:
Too many elitists? No kidding (New Hampshire Union-Leader, 11/03/05)

SEN. JOE BIDEN, D-Del., made some interesting comments during his Manchester stop Tuesday night. He said too many Democrats were elitist and even unpatriotic, and he blamed them for helping Republicans paint the entire party as out of touch with America.

Biden noted that some Democrats had even questioned why he wore an American flag pin on his lapel.

Raising the obvious question of why he'd stay in an anti-American party.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 3, 2005 10:29 AM

He remains a Democrat in Delaware in order to continue to draw a paycheck...

Posted by: Bartman at November 3, 2005 10:43 AM

If he is beginning to get a clue...

Posted by: Mikey at November 3, 2005 10:47 AM

No, the party is beginning to realize that many of these lunatics are not, in fact, Democrats. The far left has traditionally been outside the party - preferring to be Populists, Socialists, Greens, Communists, whatever. But after years of defeat, the SDS types decided to hijack the party which they accomplished in '72 and have remained attached ever since like parasites - accomplishing nothing except for destroying the Democratic majority. Time to let these people know they're not welcome.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 3, 2005 10:56 AM

But the hard left 'has bought the party' - who is going to throw them out? Howard Dean? Joe Lieberman? Chris Matthews? Rick Perlstein?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 3, 2005 11:09 AM

Agree with Chris Durnell. I left the Democrats in spirit in '72. Just didn't figure it out for a while.

Posted by: jdkelly at November 3, 2005 11:15 AM

"Raising the obvious question of why he'd stay in an anti-American party."

Because he is an idiot.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 3, 2005 11:39 AM

I think he just likes being on cable TV. He gets more gigs with Matthews et al. if he is a bloviating Democrat.

Remember the hair plugs.

Posted by: ratbert at November 3, 2005 11:53 AM

did the hard left really take over the party, or has the party been revealed for what it was all along ? alternatively, it might be that as the republican party adopted the more reasonable (and popular) parts of the democrats' poilicies, the dems felt compelled to become more extreme to differentiate themselves.

Posted by: duffys toe at November 3, 2005 12:04 PM

are the half-dozen Iraq veterans who are running for Congress as Democrats (there are no such Republicans) anti-American?

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at November 3, 2005 12:15 PM

Rick: I agree that being a Democrat is not unAmerican, but do you think that being an Iraq veteran guarantees that one is not unAmerican. Tim McVeigh was a veteran, as is George W. Bush.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 3, 2005 12:28 PM

Mr. Perlstein:
You can be a veteran and still be anti-American, can't you? Or do we just automatically give anyone who has served in the military a free pass on anything they do or say after they get out?

Posted by: Bryan at November 3, 2005 12:29 PM


If they don't denounce the leftists who carry signs like "We Support Our Troops When They Kill Their Officers", then they are in a very fragile place.

When trolls have been asked to reject that statement on this website, they have refused, claiming that it is not anti-American. What do the Democrats say?

More importantly, why should Democrats even have to answer that question? Why is the party in such thrall to the hard left?

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 3, 2005 12:33 PM

The Democrats don't need help getting painted as unpatriotic, although I agree, it's the fringe that thinks that berating the US is equal to patriotism. Considering that it's Biden, I'd say he's at a 1 on "seeing the light." I'm not quite sure he's really got the jist of the deal.

Posted by: Zibs the Bowler at November 3, 2005 12:37 PM

In Rick Perlstein's world, Finland is multiracial and military servicemen are anti-Bush.

Posted by: actually lived there at November 3, 2005 12:49 PM



Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 12:53 PM

We've now seen from Mr. Perlsein on multiple occasions a preview of the Democratic plan to use the Max Cleland defense--"You can't criticize me, I'm a veteran!" Hmmm. Didn't work in 2002. Didn't work in 2004. But I'm sure it'll work just great in 2006!

I'm not sure who the Democrats have advising them on the American electorate these days, but I hope they're not paying them very much...

Posted by: b at November 3, 2005 1:11 PM

No such Republicans... except this guy.

Of course, most Republican veterans running for congress have far more experience than the above, or Hackett, or any of the other Dems Rick cites, and thus are veterans of the first Iraq War, like this guy.

Posted by: Timothy at November 3, 2005 1:24 PM

Of course it is not that being a Democrat makes one an anti-American, but rather that being an anti-American makes one a Democrat.

The Democrats have made themselves into the party of losers and misfits by an unfortunate process that needs to be corrected. What has happened was that the center of gravity of the nation has shifted just as social and economic progress has shifted individuals out of disadvantage to advantage.

To hang on to power, and because it is the most interested who demand the most attention, the Democrats fell into the thrall of outsiders, of pro-communists, race-haters, folk-enemies, culture-traitors, atheists, baby-murderers and perverts.

This strategy never could have worked, as all these haters really have no common interests, other than to wail in the darkness against the light from which they are estranged. There will never be a "minority-majority."

Having gone dorn this path, they cannot now free themslves from those who object to American flag pins any more than the Republicans could jettison the pro-life, pro-gun, or pro-defense elements of their side.

This would never happen, not for the Republicans, not for the Democrats. We would need to see the Democrat leadership denounce those whose pictures have hung in the Victory Museum in Ho Chi Mihn City, and this they cannot do.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 3, 2005 1:53 PM


Being anti-American makes you an anti-American, much of the far Right is just as anti-American as the far Left these days.

Posted by: oj at November 3, 2005 1:58 PM


Correct. Some of the nativists are anti- everything, and the Pats (Robertson and sometimes Buchanan) are often over the edge.

I would even include the folks who want to restrict political speech (ahem, McCain, ahem), which unfortunately includes about 182 House members, who voted against an Internet free speech bill last night (with 38 Republicans voting 'No', among them Ray LaHood, Curt Weldon, Zack Wamp, Boehlert, Mike Castle, Jean Schmidt, Bradley (NH), Chris Shays, and Tom Osborne.

If the bottom line is that the New York Times and the Democratic party don't want blogs like this to exist (as PowerLine said in response to the vote), then they are anti-American and need to be termed such.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 3, 2005 2:35 PM

Maverick McCain is a vet - but he and Soros gave us the incumbent protection act - CFR.

Congress shall make no law - a 5 yo should be able to understand that.

But Congress is a bunch of 3 y.o.
and which states/districts are they running as dems in?

Posted by: Sandy P at November 3, 2005 3:14 PM

Seems the maverick also gives US this:

The GOP-controlled Senate added an amendment to the $440-billion military spending bill that would extend to spies, terrorists, and Islamic jihadists the same rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution.In other words, our military interrogators can no longer question suspected suicide bombers and murderers of women and children without the ACLU looking over their shoulder -- ready to haul some poor enlisted man into court just because he yelled at a terrorist or hurt a terrorist’s feelings.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 3, 2005 4:09 PM

I would love to see McCain's reaction to this question:

"Senator, it seems that much of your recent legislative career has been driven by the need to ameliorate deep feelings particular to difficult or awkward life experiences you have had. Why should the primary voters in the Republican party be expected to ameliorate their feelings towards you?"

Posted by: ratbert at November 3, 2005 11:47 PM