« Iran Bogeyman with a Latin Twist | Main | Impeachment: Why Now? »

March 15, 2006


The Dems don't necessarily all need the same Iraq policy; rather, each candidate needs A policy that is different from the Pres.

For most congressional candidates, it is probably sufficient to have an Iraq policy that offers something different for the future and more careful oversight and particularly more careful consideration before going to war again. It just has to be a policy that has some coherence, that is acceptable to the district and that the candidate believes in and can articulate. Given the dioversity among districts, the policy doesn't have to be uniform, although i's personally like to see those in favor of withdrawal by the end of 2006 and renunciation of bases be a clear majority.

For Senate candidates more would be required, but again I think coherence, sincerity, ability to articulate andf a promise of more serious oversight are more important than the specific policy.

Hah. The bastards aren't getting MY vote this fall. Not with their cowardice on the censure motion against the inarguably illegal and unConstitutional domestic spying by BushCo. The Dems can't even stand behind a no-brainer item like censuring a President for violating the law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights and they want my vote?

Not a chance. I'm a lifelong Dem who has exited the party of Craven Cowards. I'm a veteran and I cannot stand cowardice. It makes me furious like you wouldn't believe. You just add gasoline to the anger fire when you fail to fulfill your oath to uphold the Constitution. Jesus! That oath is a pussy oath. MY oath called for me to protect and defend the Constitution, with my life if necessary, against ALL enemies. Theirs merely calls for them to uphold it without a hint of danger to life or limb in it and they can't even handle that.

I will never vote for a Democrat ever again.

Mimi, I agree. I would also add that all Dems can be 100% united on the horrible and costly mistakes that the Bush administration made, a war of opportunity, not necessity; cherry picking pre-war intelligence, no plan (Assassin's Gate), underestimating the cost in lives and dollars. Bush/Rove/Cheney has so destabilized the entire Middle East that it's impossible to have a detailed policy, the whole region is "in play." Also, Bush/Rove/Cheney has systematically ignored the Powell Doctrine. IMO no Democratic campaign speech, literature, or ad is complete without mentioning the Powell Doctrine on the appropriate deployment of our Armed Forces. Citing the Powell Doctrine imo also helps to dispell the notion that Democrats are weak or uninformed wrt national security.

I doubt most voters had much idea what alternate plans GOP-ers had for Vietnam in November 1966. They still voted for them in huge numbers, on the same basis DemfromCT suggests here: to try and change a disastrous losing situation. I see no reason to believe this year won't go as badly for the GOP as '66 did for the Dems.

However...a combination of the milquetoast Dem response to Feingold's resolution, and watching the Hackett segment last night on The Daily Show, makes me fear Dems will in some way fail to take full advantage of the huge opening Bush and Co. are providing. There seems to have been a willful decision made by the leadership of our party, to try and not be too much of anything this year -- to stay as close to a cipher in as many areas as possible, in the hope that this, combined with Bush failure, will be a ticket to electoral salvation. Ed Helms' "I'm waiting for my oppponent to knock himself out" struck way too close to home for our current situation. I think it's a vapid political strategy, woefully lacking in strategic foresight.

People need to comprehend there can be a downside to such a strategy -- that failing to engage with the great issues of your time can lead to failure, even when the other side appears to be destroying itself. The Whigs doomed themselves to extinction by not wanting to fully grapple with the issue of slavery (a position I'm sure our current consultants would have encouraged them to take, much as they're saying stay away from Feingold this morning). Suppose an Al Smith laissez-faire type Democrat had been elected in 1932 (a safer, blander course I'm sure many in the party preferred)? We'd never have had the New Deal (which Smith vociferously opposed), nor, I presume, the Roosevelt majority.

It seems to me the planets are lining up for a huge Democratic breakthrough, one that ought to be ushered in by an assertive Democratic campaign...but our guys still act like they have to fool voters into electing them. Not that I buy the media CW about Dems having "no ideas" -- there are plenty of proposals out there. There's just too damn much fear on our side, which I think voters can sense -- as in, "If you don't have confidence in what you're selling, why should I?". If we don't break through this timidness, we'll blow the opportunity of a generation.

A final observation: I'm sure Sherrod Brown is a fine man, who may well win, and make an excellent Senator. But anyone who looks at Paul Hackett and doesn't see an unusually appealing candidate doesn't understand politics the way I do.

This just keeps gettuing worse

Iraqi Police Find 87 Bodies in 24 Hours

Cheney, Bush and Neocons opened the "pandora's box" of Iraq, when there was no real need to. All the horrible things have come out of that. So what's their constant refrain? "Nyah, nyah, what would you democrats do to put everything back in the box?" What bizarre logic. Blame democrats for everything, even their own actions. Yeesh. Talk about accountability...

Did you see what they nutjobs may be up to next

Experts: Al Qaeda Setting Sights on Israel

This policy is crazy

Bombing at Iraq Recruiting Center Kills 40

Rioters Clash With Police in France Protests

they have problems tooo

Rove to Testify to Grand Jury in CIA Leak Case

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad