Has the Democratic Party 'lost their way'? (War and needless death)

[Q]

- It's bad enough that the Dem party has done little or nothing over the years to try to end the failed 'war on drugs'. Now they seem to be participating or enabling Bush's* phony 'war on terrorism'.

- It doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to determine that Bush* never intended to fight a war against terrorism. It should be clear to everyone by now that he has attacked or plans to attack countries that have NOTHING to do with terrorist attacks on our soil.

- So why then are many Democrats still supporting what the Bushies describe as an endless war? Why do these Democrats feel terrorism can be defeated with guns and bombs?

- Is it that all politicians love fighting wars than can never be won?

[4morewars]

1. A: Yes <nt>

[el_gato]

2. "war" is just a delivery device

dumping our tax dollars into the pockets of the elite
and the dem party leadership is part of that elite

[Cocoa]

3. since when?

when was the dems' Golden Age? The Clinton years?

[Kanary]

13. Definitely NOT Clinton

That was the "Lost Way" age.

The "Golden Age"..... Roosevelt, Kennedy

Kanary

[BigDaddyLove]

4. With regard to the War question......

I think that most politicians put their finger in the air, and base their positions on which way the popular wind is blowing.

There haven't been too many politicians of late who have been willing to go against the grain and stand by their convictions if those convictions contradict the popular group think.

Politics (getting elected anyway) has become a popularity contest, and if you want to get (re)elected you better stick with the program or you don't stand a chance.

Also, if you happen to represent a state or district that is big in the military industrial complex business, you better not vote against a war if you want any future in office.

[sweetcee]

5. Lost their way?

I didn't choose the Abbie Hoffman avatar for nothing!

1968 was another banner year for the democrats and what's been good since? Are you thinking of FDR maybe?

Bush is way too close to the Saudis for him to ever have been serious about a war on terrorism.

Now, we're going to deal with the right for gays to marry? Give me a break.

As to your last question, I think all politicians love is their salaries, their perks, and their power.

[mark414]

6. not ALL

When WI Sen. Russ Feingold was elected to office, he pledged to never accept a pay raise during his term. All the extra money he gets, he sends right back to the treasury.

just one more reason for me to vote for this guy in november.

[lovedems]

7. I am not so quick to start dissing the democratic party just yet.

I am going to take into account that the republicans have controlled the WH and congress for (going on) 2 years. They controlled the congress under Clinton's second term. The only way we regained control of the senate was when Jeffords crossed over. With the republicans having this much control, they are the ones who are framing the debates. They have had the country convinced that their policies are what America needs (going by polls, and the pubs gaining control of house and senate in 2002). The democrats have been fighting against the republicans and I will admit they have been fighting in a weak manner but first they are fighting against lies which, like it or not take time to prove and then they have to convince the people they have been lied to which is proving more difficult than I would think. I will give up on the democratic party at the moment they take back control and then fail to act in a manner that is productive or fail to stand on democratic principle.

I apologize if this hard to follow. I am trying to make a point without being 3 pages long.

[sangh0]

8. You get an 'F'

for thinking that reasoned arguments can trump bulleted slogans

[lovedems]

12. Damn those reasoned arguments! There isn't any place for them in a

rethuglican controlled nation!

[Q]

14. It's kind of you to show up on my threads...

...like clockwork. But if I remember correctly you used the same non-argument last time you graced a Q thread: "bulleted slogans".

- Originality is not one of your strong points.

- I would never give an 'F' to a sincere opinion. Perhaps you're projecting?

- The fact is the Democratic party has 'allowed' Bush* to have his way on almost every issue...from corporate corruption to the patriot acts to the sham called the war on terrorism.

- They're practically giving him the 2004 election by NOT challenging the credibility of his 'war' and using 9-11 and 'national security' to cover a trail of corruption and war profiteering that would have made Nixon blush.

[sangh0]

20. Thank you

--I use the same non-arguments because you use the same non-arguments

--Originality is not my goal.

--Perhaps your sarcasm detector needs adjustment

--I know that because someone on the Internet told me so.

--Again, it must be true because someone on the Internet told me so

[Cocoa]

32. and "gratuitous" quote marks

:-)

[Q]

16. What about trying to change the party instead of simply giving up?

- Have you ever considered that as an option?

- Isn't the problem that they're 'failing to act or stand on principle right NOW? Why would you need to wait for them to 'take back control' to understand that which is happening right now?

- Just how do you think George* was able to attain SO MUCH power? The answer is: the American media and the Democratic Party.

[sangh0]

21. What about it?

--Have you considered it as an option? How's it going? Change the party yet?

--No, it's not.

--Yes, it's ABB's fault

[buckeye1]

9. whining always...

fixes everything. There is nothing like a self righteous snit. Don't ask,answer.

[Q]

15. Whining? I prefer to call it questioning the direction of the party...

- But call it anything you wish. Bush* could have never had his preemptive war(s) without the direct help of a good many Democrats. Even worse...they've enabled him every step of the way when they didn't demand investigations into everything from election fraud to 9-11.

- You'd think that Democrats would 'get it' after being relegated to hammered and marginalized to the point of irrelevance in DC.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Apples & Oranges...How Can You Judge?

Everything involving this war has happened on a complete Repugnican watch...House, Senate & Executive with a very friendly judicial standing by. In their view this was the prevailing will of the American people (listen to a wingnut put the House control ahead of all else when attempting to legitimize this nation being "Conservative") and a virtual blank check to wage war...which they did.

The Democrats were stuck in the moment and the wrong places. First it was the * honeymoon...any attack on this regime was sour grapes for the 2000 election, then 9/11, then going after the "terrists"...by this time the manchild's propaganda machine has rolled up huge approval ratings and the Democrats were stuck in a corner.

Daschele tried to fight back and got totally destroyed. The 2002 elections put even more huevos in the Repugnicans...and force Democrats to chose words very carefully.

My focus, as I'm sure many here, is first to get at least one branch of our government back. Then we can determine how a Democrat will handle a certain situation.

I'm not lockstep with any of the candidates on all issues, but no matter what Democrat, I'm assured in my mind that this person will do more for my best interests and that of the entire nation than the current or any Repugnican regime. That's all that matters to this voter.

[Ardee]

38. A repulican watch doesnt excuse democratic votes

Dems ,fearful of a backlash, refused to attempt to halt the war fever Bush was creating after 9/11. When is a good time for the truth? When is the correct opportunity to grow a spine and stand up for a principle?

Daschle fought back? By urging his troops to capitulate and sign bill after bill? He fought back by smiling in the Rose Garden as Bush smirked at their capitulation and cowardice? The Dems got beaten in the mid terms precisely because they spoke and acted like the opposition..see Mary Landrieu's courageous and unsupported by the DLC victory because she spoke from the heart!

Explain to me how those who voted for the war, for the Patriot Act, for every damn Bush agenda are my friends and allies...........

[KharmaTrain]

42. No Defense On The War...

I'm just trying to rationalize...not express my feelings. I remain uncommitted to a candidate in the primaries, specifically over the issues of either their roles in permitting this war or their inability to mount a campaign that could seriously take on this massive money/propaganda machine.

Daschele swung Jeffords (pushed? That'd been going on for years)...and that kept this regime in check for the first two years as far as pushing the PNC agenda. Yes, when the heat got tough, Daschele caved...and big...I think this is where you hop on. I was referring prior to 9/11 and the 2002 elections. He let himself get labeled and marginalized by the Rove machine...that's what cost us the Senate and opened the flood gates.

Right now I'm not gonna cast blame or retry the past. All these travesties have to be repealed and the first step in doing so is to remove this regime that should never have gotten in in the first place. Picking apart candidates for taking what we both can agree was the "safe" move looks a lot more like caving in now than it did at the time.

I'm no DLC supporter but right now all hands have to be on deck and we can sort out the differences later. They have an appeal to a segment we need at this time. It'd be great to shakeout the Democratic party, but let's hold judgement on that until we see what happens in November.

[sangh0]

11. It must be so!! I read it on the Internet

.

[Q]

17. Bush* will blame everything on 9-11...

...and war. And he'll get away with it if Democrats don't stand up and expose him for the lying, deceitful scumbag that he is.

- What good is an opposition if it doesn't oppose?

[sangh0]

19. I love slogans

-I love Internet predictions even more. But the real question is, what do you oppose, Q?

-Posting on the Internet is not opposition.

-"Standing up", if that is what you do, doesn't seem to be very effective. After all, it didn't stop the invasion, did it?

-Your argument is one of hopelessness. It says "Without the Democratic Party, there is no hope"

[Q]

23. No...my argument is one of CHANGE...

...hopefully for the BETTER.

- My position is that we should OPPOSE this 'war' and everything that goes with it...including the use of bombs to fight terrorism. You can't win any kind of war by killing tens of thousands of innocent 'bystanders'. Democrats already know this by the lessons of Vietnam.

- The Democrats could have stopped the invasion and occupation of Iraq...but many of them wanted it and thus voted for it...along with the patriot acts.

- Now that they know the whole truth...that the invasion of Iraq and patriot acts were based on a foundation of lies...they should immediately withdraw any and all support for this insane 'war'.

[sangh0]

26. --So...what have you changed?

--We're still in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act is still in effect. Is that better?

--So has your opposition changed anything? If nothing has changed, how is you argument "one of CHANGE"?

--IOW, only the Democrats can changes things. You can't. That's some argument

--Don't hold your breath. The powerless and the hopeless are going to have to wait a long time

[Q]

35. Indeed...what have YOU changed...

...with your blind support of the Party?

- It's strange that you've never even given your opinion on the TOPIC of this thread. On second thought...guess it's not THAT strange.

[sangh0]

50. I have changed myself....

-I don't rely on others to do my work for me.

-I don't assume I can do nothing without the help of Democratic politicians

-If you don't think I've expressed my opinion on whether the Dem Party has "lost it's way", then why did you respond to my post which describes the Democratic Party at it's founding?

[BillZBubb]

22. I agree with your assessment on Bush*s strategy.

But I don't agree that the Democrats won't stand up to him. They have to be careful how they handle it. They can't go at him head on until they've dented his credibility some more. Remember 60% still think Bush* is honest and straighforward. It's hard to believe that that many people are so naive, but it's true.

So, the Democrats strategy so far is about right. Chip away at the Chimp on issues like AWOL, jobs, and Halliburton. Let the Plame case break. Work in Harken after the Martha Stewart trial.

Once a majority of people see that Bush* is a compulsive liar, they'll be ready to accept the truth on the bigger issues.

I'm actually optimistic that the Democrats are finally willing to fight--and fight tough.

[Q]

25. Recent history and minority status...

...suggests Democrats have been too careful.

- You'll never convince a 'majority' that Bush* is a liar because our nation is split in half. GOPers will vote for him no matter what he does...believing his lies about 9-11 and Iraq causing all this nation's ills.

- Perhaps you could show us how the Democrats are finally willing to get 'tough'? There's only a few Democrats speaking out...and they're being hammered by the conservatives in the party.

[sangh0]

27. Recent history and minority status...

--suggests that Q has been too careful. What has Q accomplished?

--Republicans are voting for Democrats in the primary. So are Independents. Please stop pushing your hopelessness on others.

--What do you mean "show *us*"? Who else do you think you're speaking for?

[leesa]

18. It's about getting cash and stealing resources

I don't think they've changed their way at all. That's what these bogus wars are always about. Most of the Congress critters are cashing in on this adventure in one way or another and I believe most think the stealing of resources is justified. Why else would you use the most ineffective method possible to wage war against terrorism (blowing up potential "terrorists" family and friends). Same as the war on drugs and the war against communism...purely bogus.

[MadHound]

24. No, they haven't lost their way, they've simply sold their soul

To the highest corporate bidder

Once again we on this issue, as on many others, we see Democrats selling out their constituents and the country in general, all in order to collect their share of corporate lucre. Supporting war, shredding the Constitution, hey all is fair game for these New Dems(and a lot of old ones too). Just so long as it monetarily benefits them and their corporate masters, then hey, its all good.

While this has been an undercurrent in our political climate for decades now, Clinton and his DLC/New Dem handlers brought it all out in the open. Media conglomeration, NAFTA, soft money, welfare "reform", it was all part of the corporate dance that Clinton did. And he pulled it off so well, and made it so sweet that we elected him to not just one but two terms.

And now that we have Bushco in office, well the corporate dance continues. IWR, NCLB, Patriot Act, well if this is what the corporate masters want, the this is what the Dem corporate whores will deliver. Consequences be damned, they've got theirs, screw the rest of us.

And forget about "reforming the party from within". That tired old line has been tried time and again, and the proponents of it have been ignored, stifled, or shut out of the party. No real dissent is tolerated any more, just faux dissent, the kind that is delivered with a wink and a nudge. What is needed instead is a poke in the eye and a slap upside the head, but that won't happen. The powers that be on both sides of the aisle are too comfy cozy with corporate masters, why would they rock the boat?

What is going to have to come to pass is for the people of this country to finally say enough is enough. And at this point in our history we are at a fork in the road. We can either take the relatively painless way out, and start voting for parties like the Greens who take no corporate cash. We can also start working our ass off for publicly financed election campaigns. If not, if we keep doing the same ol' same ol' in the hopes of a different outcome(one definition of insanity), then we are going to continue our spin down into corporate totalitarianism until the point where people simply can't live with it anymore and we have a major revolution/civil war on our hands. These are the choices before us.

So no, the Dems haven't lost their way. They deliberately followed the siren song of corporate cash and left the rest of us behind. And guess what. They're not coming back.

[sangh0]

28. Did you know that Alexander Hamilton, founder of the Democratic Party

was often accused, and with some justification, of "selling out"?

If that what the Democratic Party is doing these days, then it hasn't "lost it's way"; it's rediscovered it's "way"

[MadHound]

29. LOL, Nice one

Unfortunately either way "losing it" or "rediscovering it" we the people are paying the price for their schitzophrenia.

[sangh0]

31. Not schizophrenic

In fact, it's quite consistent behavior, and we ignore history at the risk of performing a farce.

Blaming Democratic politicians (or any other politician) for being influenced by money is like blaming men for staring at a woman's boobs - It makes you feel good and rightous, but they keep staring anyway.

[Q]

36. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

"...Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America's armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812. James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling" in which Democratic-Republicans served with little opposition.


The election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 was highly contested and led to a four-way split among Democratic-Republicans. A result of the split was the emergence of Andrew Jackson as a national leader. The war hero, generally considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, organized his supporters to a degree unprecedented in American history. The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson's victories in 1828 and 1832. The Party held its first National Convention in 1832 and nominated President Jackson for his second term. In 1844, the National Convention simplified the Party's name to the Democratic Party.


In 1848, the National Convention established the Democratic National Committee, now the longest running political organization in the world. The Convention charged the DNC with the responsibility of promoting "the Democratic cause" between the conventions and preparing for the next convention...."

[sangha]

39. Did you ever hear of DINO's

That was the party that Jefferson started. The opposing "party" (I put it in quotes because at the time, the party system wasn't well-developed and I don't think the opposition was an official party though I could be wrong about this) were known as The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton. They were for a strong Federal govt.

The party that Jefferson started eventually became the Republican Party, which shouldn't be much of a surprise once you realize that TJ was for small govt, no govt regulation, an imperialistic foreign policy, and a hypocrtical attitude towards racial issues, which also explains why TJ is a superstar to the conservative movement.

Ah, there's nothing like a cut and paste historian who does not understand the words or the history.

[Q]

47. Well...I consider Jefferson's own words...

...before I would yours. You seem to be avoiding the facts about Jefferson being the first 'Democratic' president and his writings that reflect what used to be the essence of the party before the 'new' Democrats.

- May I suggest that you visit the 'Avalon project' at Yale? Look at Jefferson's own writings instead of the gibberish you use to define him. He believed in public schooling, majority rule, free press and the separation of powers.

- And why is it that you still haven't addressed the topic of this thread? Does the topic of war bother you?

- Before I came to DU several years ago...I frequented another 'political board' where posters who post to a thread for the singular purpose of disruption and distracting from the main topic. They threw around insults and insinuations...but never had the guts to debate on the merits.

- If I may be so bold...you and your 'partner' on this thread represent everything that's wrong with the Democratic party. The 'my party right or wrong' mindset and the 'go along to get along' attitude has made the party ineffective and irrelevant.

- But no problem...I've grown used these types of deflections from conservatives...on the left and right.

[sangh0]

51. Then why don't you?

--You say you consider TJ's words but you haven't posted any of them


You seem to be avoiding the facts about Jefferson being the first 'Democratic' president

--You seem to be avoiding the fact that the ideology of TJ's Democratic Party was obviously the same as todays RNC. Maybe that's why you haven't posted anything TJ actually said

his writings that reflect what used to be the essence of the party before the 'new' Democrats.

--TJ's writings have NEVER reflected the essence of what you think the Democratic Party once stood for, unless you think small govt, no regulations, genocide and imperialistic miltarism are the core values of the Democratic Party from "before the 'new' Democrats"

- May I suggest that you visit the 'Avalon project' at Yale? Look at Jefferson's own writings instead of the gibberish you use to define him. He believed in public schooling, majority rule, free press and the separation of powers.

--Been there, done that. You left a lot out, like how we need a violent revolution every 20 years or so or how we needed to destroy all of the Indian tribes. I don't remember ever seeing THAT in the DNC's party platform.

- And why is it that you still haven't addressed the topic of this thread? Does the topic of war bother you?

--Gee, I thought my pointing out that the Dem party, since the days of A Hamilton, has been influenced by monied interests was responsive to your question.

- Before I came to DU several years ago...I frequented another 'political board' where posters who post to a thread for the singular purpose of disruption and distracting from the main topic. They threw around insults and insinuations...but never had the guts to debate on the merits.

It is against the rules to post that, but I won't alert it in order to show how willing you are to engage in personal attacks. I also want DUers to see how you accuse me of not addressing the issue when I've already posted that the Democratic Party has always been influenced by monied interests, and the idea that they have lost their way is a reflection of your ignorance of American history.

- If I may be so bold...you and your 'partner' on this thread represent everything that's wrong with the Democratic party. The 'my party right or wrong' mindset and the 'go along to get along' attitude has made the party ineffective and irrelevant.

MY "partner"? Do you really think you are important enough that people need to conspire against you?

- But no problem...I've grown used these types of deflections from conservatives...on the left and right

No problem, but you also seem to get upset enough to engage in personal attacks.

[wadestock]

30. My sense is that the Democrats are tip toeing around this.....

They did make a fatal error for not turning this into a debate that was 1000 times more intense than the first decision to go to war in the Gulf.

Many have said....we gave him the "authority to use force" and he promised that he would do anything short of commiting troops.

Perhaps they were conned to a great extent...perhaps there was an element of 911...but even so....sorry, doesn't cut it with me either.

Problem is....don't underestimate how stupid this country has become. There are many people that have a "kick ass" attitude that don't know their cranium from a circular depression in the earth's crust.

This is why I've wrote here that Bush effectively played the "WAR CARD".
The war card is as insidious as any political move we've ever seen in American history...and why the analogy to Nazi Germany comes in.

You play on the patriotic urges of people...you feed them lies about a threat...etc. etc.....which is why they continue to play up the threat.

Yes...911 was an attrocity...but in large part because it was very much a rare freak strike.

Fighting terror by taking over countries is exciting the proverbial bees nest. Terrorists can conceivably do large scale damage with small numbers....and with small technologies/resources....so taking over countries is not the answer.

What we've created is a NEW ISRAEL...that's about it.
One was enough...now we have 2.

[Q]

46. The magic word: debate...

...or more to the point: public debate. That's what was missing BEFORE Bush* used our military to complete a neocon agenda of empire.

[Jacobin]

33. In a word: Yes

Both dem front runners support the invasion and occupation of Iraq to steal its oil and both say that "america is safer with Saddam captured", which is an idiotic lie that Dean was excoriated for repudiating.

[Q]

34. I'm very concerned...

...that the Dem party doesn't have more to say about the THOUSANDS of innocent men, women and CHILDREN the US blew up in the effort to 'depose' Saddam.

- Was the invasion and occupation of Iraq worth the spilling of so much innocent blood?

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

37. Man, you just nailed it.

The very question I was pondering when I happened by. Kerry just said we're at war and I cringed. I thought that was just Bush's world view. It's not mine. I hate this idea of warring every effing thing that is deemed bad.

[Q]

45. "We're at war" and "National Security"...

...are familiar phrases used by politicians who want to continue using our military for nation building and political agendas. The US under Bush* has completely abandoned any semblence of diplomacy for the sake of rebuilding Reagan's military-industrial complex.

- Perhaps Americans lack the empathy it takes to understand how Iraqis must feel at having their families 'accidentally' slaughtered by righteous superpower bombs?

[wadestock]

49. Man I'm glad you got the Reagan analogy.....

These Reaganites truly believe that they brought down the iron curtain with massive military buildups....and that they are succeeding in ridding the world of EVIL with their military might.

This psycho-religious killing attitude works Limbaugh, Hannity et al up to a real sweat.

One of the questions they have been brash about in recent dialogues has been to ask the dems "how exactly do you plan on KILLING the terrorists".

It's quite sick....

[RememberWellstone]

40. No.

Still here and waiting for America to wake up. Why did they vote for Bush? How ignorant has this nation become? Democrats have'nt lost their way, they have allowed the Repugs to define it. America has to know how ridiculous it was to vote "select" Bush..they have to.

[Q]

44. A majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush*...

...and he was able to attain office ONLY by lies and deceit.

- You make good points...but isn't allowing the opposition to define us the same thing as 'losing our way'? They're framing the debate and we're allowing them to do it with out (relative) silence.

- The Party is simply ignoring or marginalizing those Democrats who have spoken out against 'preemptive' war. Byrd, Kennedy, Gore and others suffer attacks from conservative Democrats as well as Republicans and the Bush* government.

- It shows the dumbed-down state of our nation when those against the Iraq 'war' are considered unpatriotic and worse. There is no public debate on this issue because the loyal opposition doesn't want one.

[Andromeda]

41. If we'd had a Democrat for president...

when 9/11 happened the war on terror would have been dealt with differently and we would have never been embroiled in endless war.

Iraq wouldn't have been invaded and we wouldn't have lost 500+ men and women. Families wouldn't have been torn apart because of oil and greed and we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

Of course Iraq was a ruse to gain oil and other valuable resources and we are not really safer with Saddam out of the way. I don't know what will happen when a Democrat replaces Bush this November but I know it will be the beginning of some positive change. I will have more faith in a successful resolution to the war with a Democratic president.

The domestic agenda will get more attention under Democratic watch and a Democratic president will be more conciliatory in dealing with other countries and will work to build good relations with former allies.

Issues like health care for all Americans have been virtually ignored by Republicans and Social Security is threatened under Bush. Republicans can't be trusted when it comes to providing for the weakest members of our society and there is a greater divide between the haves and the have-nots thanks to Bush. All Republicans care about is lowering taxes for the rich and to hell with everybody else. They want government smaller, they say, except when it comes to birth control and abortion. Then they want to tell women what to do with their bodies and advocate abstinence instead of birth control. They frown on the use of condoms and sterile needles to stop the spread of aids. They scorn the poor and look down upon the weak.

Haven't know a Democratic president yet that didn't put the welfare of the American people first and wars were fought only when absolutely necessary and never pre-emptively.

[Q]

43. Republican talking points...

...are that Bush* 'finally did what no Democratic president had the guts to do'. That is...his 'war against terrorism' is better than 'doing nothing'. This is the type of mindset we're working against...similar to that of the Vietnam war and the fight against commies.

- I agree that a Dem president wouldn't have (necessarily) invaded Iraq. But that's besides the point since a Democrat isn't sitting in the oval office. The issue is that we shouldn't compromise our principles simply because we're in the 'minority' in DC.

[earthman dave]

48. What makes you say that a Democrat president wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

Don't flame me, it's a genuine question.