Guardian: American voters have two choices: Bush or Bush-lite

American voters have two choices: Bush or Bush-lite

(snip)

What's going on in America as the 2004 election begins is unnervingly the opposite. It's one of the more extraordinary spectacles a political scientist, or journalist, let alone a professional politician, could encounter. George Bush is running his campaign from the same fringe position as the one he has adopted for his presidency.

This is a hard-right administration offering virtually no concessions to the soothing niceties that might make it more electorally attractive to voters who are not Republicans. Its tax policy is grotesquely loaded against the masses and in favour of the rich. Its bias on the environment unfailingly comes out on the side of the big commercial interests. It is daily tearing up tracts of policy and practice that protected the basic rights of people snared in the justice system. It is the hardest right administration since Herbert Hoover's from a very different era. And, which is the point, delights in being so. There is no apology or cover-up.

But even that isn't the most striking thing about the set-up as it now stands. For this we have to turn to the Democrats. Unlike Bush, many Democrats are sticking to the conventional wisdom. They grope for some kind of centre ground. But so far has the territory shifted, thanks to the Republicans' shameless stakeout on the hard right, that their quest continues to drain their party of most of its meaning and any of its capacity to inspire.

(snip)

For one thing, many Democrats seem to have forgotten that they did win the election last time. For four years it has been idle to challenge the Florida vote and the bizarre workings of the electoral college, but now is the time to recall that in 2000 half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore's progressive version of the future than Bush's more conservative one. Bush was still posing as a bit centrist then, and Gore was scarcely a raving liberal. Gore mostly stuck to the Clinton third way doctrine that had taken the Democrats away from the narrowest version of their past. But there was a left-right choice, and more Americans voted left than right.



more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1021524,00.html

He obviously believes the initial GOP talking points that Dean is a far lefty who fights for Dem issues. Guess he's not familiar with Dean's 11 year record of governing as a centrist who aligned most often with the GOP and against the progressive Democrats in Vermont.

Typical shoddy reporting...he has no sense of the candidates, whatsoever.

>>>>>
They think Howard Dean, the most lefty of the candidates, and former governor of the state of Vermont, could never get elected. Transfixed by the attractions of triangulated centrism, they're prepared to have its geometry laid out exclusively by their opponents. >>>

He's an adept reporter/writer ...

... anyone have a bio on Young????

- this administration ... "daily tearing up tracts of policy and practice that protected the basic rights of people snared in the justice system"

- "more Americans voted left than right"

- "many Democrats are sticking to the conventional wisdom"

he seems to have as good as handle on us as anyone fair and balanced

But yes, I would agree that he has not looked into all the candidates. Somebody tell Hugo Young about Kucnich please. Young's analysis would do be vastly improved by taking a good butchers at Kucnich, and I'm speaking as somebody who does not like Kucnich's policies on trade one bit and is more interested in Howard Dean & Bob Graham.

couldn't possibly have been derived from honest research.

And in Britain "The Left" is socialists and the center is non-socialist social democrats. I don't think British leftists understand that unlike their left-wing parties the Democratic party was never a socialist party.

But I would agree that Hugo Young may need to check the history book himself though. Trouble is, we in Britain have had a lot of rightward drift over the last 25 years to the point where "new" labour and the tories are following the same hard right agdenda and are virtually extinguishable from each other.

The difference is though, "new" labour has become little more than a Tony Blair fan club with virtually no dissent allowed. The Democrats though, have the chance to change that which they do not like in the primaries. From what I have seen there seems like a pretty wide range of candidates to chose from as well so there should be something to tickle everyones fancy, even Hugo Young's in the primary field. I wish this was not the case but I think that it is doubtful that Britain could produce a Howard Dean style challenger at the present time. :scared:

Maybe his successor will have better luck with President Dean.

Blair has a HUGE majority of about 180 seats, most of which are filled by mindless sycophants who would vote for the execution of the first born if Blair said so. Add to that Blair's party reforms which have allowed the Blairites to kick out anyone twho might become a threat under the catch all bringing the party into disrepute clause (usually used on anyone who speaks out against Blair's hard right drift) and there is very little that can be done to kick this arrogant, lying little bastard out of office. Thanks to Blair Britain is now pretty much a democracy in name only. :scared:

On the other hand, you lot in the US are comparitively lucky that you can change things in the Democratic party far more easily in the primaries. What's more from what I can see DUer's are only to happy to use the primaries to try and get the sort of party that you want. There seems to be plenty of options for you in the Democratic primary too!