Washington File

It seems like the "problem" with the Superdelegate democratic rule, is being caused by the previous rule of denoting an arbitrary amount of delegates to win the nomination. Both rules need to be scrapped if one is to restore democracy in the Democratic Party.

While I too question the use of "moderate" and "extreme" in this article, I must also raise a point with cosmo, who wrote, "Have you got a problem with the American people finally getting off the sofa and taking an interest in the affairs of their nation?"

I fail to see how lobbyists and special interest groups can be seen as representing "the American people" when they are generally one issue entities that have nothing but self-interest at heart.

I would say that the only true way the American people can be counted is through their votes. Anything before or after that is nothing but spin, and close inspection usually turns up some pretty slimy things, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

I think this highlights a fallacy which prevailed in the last general election - a (D) after your name does not necessarily mean that you won't vote as if you had an (R) after your name. There was a big push to vote Republicans out and Democrats in, but not a lot of discussion of how the Democrats being voted in really differed from the Republicans being voted out. Perhaps it indicates that the US is ready for a viable 3rd party?

Anti-war sentiment IS the mainstream position in the U.S. George Bush's approval rating is south of 30%. It's about time members of Congress behaved accordingly. Thus I would quarrel with your use of "moderate" and "extreme".

What is this "moderate" versus "extreme" B.S.?

Is it "extreme" to vote the way the overwhelming majority of your constituents want on matters or peace and war? Well over 60% of the American people want an immediate timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and Congress isn't paying attention!

This article reflects infuriating inside-the-beltway mentality that somehow those annoying "little people" are muscling in and insisting on their way instead of politicians listening only to those of us well-bred insiders who really know what's important.

And not making waves when Bush lies us into war and insists on immunity for law-breaking telecoms, that's what all good "moderates" want.

We can all sip our Chablis and agree how awful it is that those barbarians at Moveon.org are interfering again. Won't somebody put them in their place?

Just who do they think they are? Somebody hold my pate while I write an angry blog about how those terrible "extremes" are taking over!

"But it does raise questions about whether the extremes on both sides of the congressional aisle are getting control of the hen house."

Henry,

What 'extremes' are you referring to? Have you got a problem with the American people finally getting off the sofa and taking an interest in the affairs of their nation? Al Wynn was out of step with the principles of the Democratic Party. He was a shill for the Bush administration, and an embarassment to his constituency. The Founding Fathers provided us with a remedy for a situation like this-- vote his ass out of Congress.

We should be celebrating our enhanced ability to participate in our democracy via the Internet; it's the best thing to happen since the drafting of the Constitution. If the establishment politicians and entrenched economic interests are running scared, then Hallelujah !

Cosmo, Geraldo and Michael Galloway,

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument over the word "extremes', or whether "extremes" means bad or "moderates" means good.

The point of the column is to highlight the concern, or lack of knowledge, or indeed the fear that most elected officials, particularily those at the federal level have with the changing scene. Two trees fell in the forest and the noise was heard.

The questions I posed are the ones I hear everyday in Washington. The art of Electioneering is changing virtually every hour and very, very few people, including me, know where this is headed.

Even without knowing the net effect of these changes, I'm not troubled.... But a helluva lot of other people are.

Personally a couple of "hallelujahs" are okay by me.

h

What is so "extreme" about expecting your representative to vote the way 70+% of the people want him to vote?

I am missing something here.

henry champ should really be more careful about throwing around the words "moderate" (with its connotation of "good") and "extreme" (with its connotation of "bad"). like it or not the war is a moral issue, and so to vote safely in the cushy centre does not make you "moderate": it makes you responsible for the lives and sufferings of millions of human beings. to characterize as "extreme" those who want the people making such momentous decisions to actually vote on principle is precisely what's wrong with north american politics today.

Your last comment warms my heart. Wynn was one of a small number of House Democrats who can be relied upon to always cross the floor and vote with the Republicans on core Democratic issues.

The groups that supported his much more progressive challenger, Donna Edwards did so because Wynn is severely out of step with the voters of his district, who do not support the war, or the bankrupcy bill or the Republican position on domestic wiretapping and on and on.

This certainly wasn't about a single vote and there are many other so-called moderate Democrats who are quite safe simply because they're known to represent much more conservative districts and no one expects them to have Ted Kennedy's voting record.

So if the incumbents are scared, perhaps we'll see less Bush favoured bills pass the Democratic majority house with 199 Republicans and 20 Democrats voting for them.

Voters elected the Democrats to resist George Bush, not endorse everything he asks for.

Yesterday, the House showed the first strong signs of that in a long time when they voted to hold Bolten and Miers in Contempt, and also refused to pass Bush's favoured FISA bill as passed by the senate.

If this primary helped contribute to that result, then it was already a victory.

Would it be possible to have legislation limiting campaign funds for this paticular situation and a limitation on the number of lobbyists?

The incumbency rate in US politics is incredibly high; I can't remember the numbers, but it is something like 95%. If this situation shakes up the incumbents a bit that would be a Good Thing. Special interest funding is a whole separate can of worms - which does need to be examined!