Rosenberg: "The war was a good idea"

[madfloridian]

Good write-up of the candidacy of Rosenberg for DNC Chair...I was surprised at this interview he did on FOX in September. I did not realize he felt this way about Iraq..I should have, though.

http://mars.typepad.com/no_retreat_no_surrender/2004/11/the_case_agains.html

SNIP..."the way in which Rosenberg defended and continues to defend the president’s decision bothers me.

For instance, he gave the RNC ammo on John Gibson’s show on Fox News, Sept. 9th of this year. Rosenberg said “I think the debate that is not happening is whether or not the war was a good idea. The war was a good idea. I think the American people were behind the President.” In that same interview with John Gibson Rosenberg said “The President was resolute and strong in his decision to go to war. He may also have been wrong in the way they executed it.” Rosenberg's problem is that he says the President MAY have been wrong in the way he executed that while our candidate was very clear that the President WAS wrong. This kind of statement illustrates how Rosenberg cannot lead a strong, aggressive opposition party, which is essential in today's DNC chair....."END SNIP

I was surprised. I am not really for Dean's getting this chair, would rather see him stay with DFA...but this surprised me.

[yardwork]

1. "The war was a good idea" - what an ass.

I can't believe that Democrats are letting this issue slip between their fingers. The war was a terrible idea based on lies! Even a lot of Republicans get that now.

We need to hammer away at how the Republicans did this terrible thing to our country.

Instead, we get Democrats in the House and Senate wimping along about how "the war was a good idea."

[heidler1]

7. They voted for it and just like Bush can't admit it was stupid and they

voted for it anyway. Kerry had that same thing hanging around his neck. However the time is coming when Dr. Dean will be vindicated. Personally from the very first I was against it. About 70% of the congress and the voters can't say that. When will they face up to being gullible? Who knows?

[Telly Savalas]

19. With regards to Iraq...

Dean was vindicated a long time ago, it's just that not too many people seem to have noticed yet.

[LetsGoMurphys]

25. Does ANYONE HERE?

Feel like we are no longer represented AT ALL?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWatcher]

54. Very Subtle.

It's too bad your leader is a MURDERER and a WAR CRIMINAL.

It's too bad we went to WAR against a defensless country that was not a threat to us, based on lies that have been PROVEN beyond ANY reasonable doubt.

It's too bad our vote will never be legitmate again because there are no paper tails, no audits, and the tabulation of our votes is in the hands of four PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.

It's too bad that our economy is being destroyed because of the policies of this lying killer we have in the White House.

It's too bad you are too blind to see the truth in all of the above

Go back to your Faux News Alternate Universe.

You aren't fooling anyone.

[Wapsie B]

2. If this guy or anyone like him gets the DNC chair,

we'll know if the fix is in or not. To come out and say such a thing is exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party right now. We need someone who will not give one inch to the gop. We need a chairperson who'll stand up and say this shit stops here. No more coddling repugs.

[Leilani]

3. Nuts!

Just nuts!

Anyone who had a CLUE knew the war was based on lies.

[American Tragedy]

4. WTF?!

That's it. We cannot be represented by somebody who thinks that this brutal, obvious charade was a "good idea".

I can only compromise so far.

Incidentally, what a wildly fatuous thing to say. The war was a good idea. Like, going to Ramsey's Cafe tonight was a good idea. I thought one entered a war as a defensive measure, a last resort.

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Oh no. This will not do AT ALL.

This is totally not to be tolerated.
The war was a good idea. I think the American people were behind the President."

Oh no. Not another politician that accomodates the Repub party line instead of what the majority of people in the country, let alone a majority in his own party, believe. There is no way ANYONE who hasn't been living under a rock watching only Faux would actually believe this to be true. And there is no reason why he would be saying it -- claiming that the American people are behind making war on Iraq -- unless this was some politically motivated move.

Looks to me like he's tryng to line up his favors with the Repubs. Only this is NOT an acceptable favor: supporting the "strong and resolute" Bush with his "good idea."

[tsuki]

21. What bothers me is "I think." If he is going to unite the party

shouldn't he know how the Democrats feel?

Most of the Democrats, and now quite a few of the Republicans, I know think the war was wrong.

[Nothing Without Hope]

37. Exactly. I wonder if he still has the same views as he did?

I didn't look just now, but my recollection is that the interview was in September. A lot more news has come out of Iraq in the meantime. If asked NOW, what would he say? Or did he say the same thing in a very recent interview that I overlooked?

Even in September, though, a clear majority of his party -- and as you point out, even many Repubs -- opposed the war.

I'd like to see a current interview with his ENTIRE response, not just a couple of isolated sentences. On the face of it, what was excerpted from the earlier interview is so out of line, I have to wonder what else he said or whether he changed his mind as more news came out later.

If he still "supports the war" and thinks * is "strong and resolute," dump him. He will lead the Dems further yet down the road to accomodation and permanent irrelevance.

Self-edited to add: The Iraq war is immoral, unconstitutional, immensely damaging to the people of this country and Iraq in every conceivable way, based and maintained on lies and greed and fascistic political calculation. If this guy actually said as recently as Sepember that he supports the war and thinks it a good idea, then he is totally out of the circle of possibility in terms of an appropriate leader for the Democrats. I would want to confirm that he did actually say that, but if he did, he's impossible.

[PassingFair]

60. Sombody should e-mail him the impromptu push poll I put up

a couple of days ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1479183

Last time I checked it, 91% of us were totally against this bloody farce. Do you think the party knows how out of sync they are with their grassroots? Do they give a flying f***?

[wtmusic]

6. Yuk

the old, "it was all in the execution" BS

c ya

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. eliminate eliminate eliminate eliminate eliminate eliminate eliminate elim

Actually I was already backing Dean anyway, but that type of talk is very disturbing. This year even. Bah!

[madfloridian]

10. I believe Rosenberg will get it as a compromise though.

Word is. I have very very mixed feelings.

[DaveinMD]

11. the important thing is

he's a reformer in terms of Party building. That is what is needed.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. I disagree

Party Chair has some power as to who gets supported etc... I think Rosenburg will reform the party to favor folks like him who are clueless about the war.

He's a bad idea.

[DaveinMD]

9. who cares

the DNC Chair is not a policy position. Its a party building position. Rosenberg, Dean, Fowler, Frost. Either way it goes, its not an ideological choice.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. So is Dean, but I understand your point. n/t

[DaveinMD]

13. Dean would be a good choice

as would Rosenberg. Not as sure about Frost. My concern is would DFA not grow as fast if Dean is party chair.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. DFA will be just fine thank you

DFA is growing just fine and it is not being run by Dean now.

[Guaranteed]

14. Welp, throw HIM out. nt

[cosmicdot]

15. groomed at the Aspen Institute

I wonder how one gets selected to the Henry Crown Fellowship Program ...

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp?bid=459



personally, I associate him with the Al From wing of the "3rd Way/DLC" Party

amazing how some seem to self-promote themselves into the upper echelon of the Washington Democratic Establishment ... didn't Al From declare he was the DLC CEO? :shrug:

Aspen's Trustees include such notables as Nixon operative and one time Poppy Bush Library Foundation Trustee Frederic Malek; Prince Bandar Bin Sultan; Cato Institute's David H. Koch (major funder* of Aspen; the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 U.S. presidential election; David Koch currently serves on the board of directors of the Cato Institute);

Henry Kissinger is on Aspen's Council of Honorary Trustees

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/index.asp?i=53&bid=1221

Of those seeking the chair, I'll go with Dean ... of those not, I'd go with Jim Hightower ...

*
http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=716

[InvisibleBallots]

16. yep, follow the money - the DLC are Republican moles

paid for by the same people that fund the Republican party. You have been warned.

[DaveinMD]

18. Clinton was a Republican

Al Gore was a Republican too

[Cheswick2.0]

31. What nonsense

No Dave, Clinton and Gore were part of the DLC when is started but it has changed. Clinton may still be in, but Gore is long gone. Don't even attempt to tie Gore to the gang of fools running that organization now.

[DaveinMD]

35. my point is

there are a lot of good people in the DLC and some bad people. Lots of folks join every org in the party. It doesn't mean they are bought and paid for. That is all.

[InvisibleBallots]

34. Clinton was paid for by Jackson Stephens of Little Rock

who is also paying for a number of Republicans. Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had, obviously a million times better than Bush.

Gore? He was the major spokemen for NAFTA.

Yes, the same people behind the GOP and behind the DLC.

[DaveinMD]

38. so

one issue undoes all the good things they did. What will be the litmus test for the next Dem President.

[InvisibleBallots]

39. no, not "one" issue

Clinton balanced the budget, and raised taxes on the wealthy to do it. He kicked off a bunch of welfare recipients, signed the DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, carried around a big Bible to church every Sunday, and continued Bush Sr.'s work of selling off our economy to global corporations and China, and screwed the unions. He helped Republicans win the House of Representatives for the first time in generations.

Clinton is an incredibly smart man, an excellent diplomat, and the best conservative, Republican-Lite President we ever had - far, far better than most of our Republican Presidents.

Jackson Stephens got his money's worth.

[DaveinMD]

43. balancing the budget

is not a Republican thing. Johnson was the last one to do so before him. Raising taxes on the rich is not republican. Hope Scholarships are not republican. Americorps is not Republican. Lifetime learning tax deduction is not republican. The children's health care program was not republican. Standing up to Congress to save Medicare, the department of education and medicaid is not republican. Making it illegal for health care companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions is not republican. Increasing funding for education is not republican. The assault weapons ban was not republican. Vetoing the so-called partial birth abortion bill is not republican. Nominating Ginsburg and Breyer to the supreme court was not republican.

[cosmicdot]

20. politics is the art of persuasion

and the DLC helps to sell the republican agenda in sheep's clothing by being a subset of the Republican party ... they're likely akin to the 60s Nelson Rockefeller Republicans (the then 'liberal' Republican wing of the Republican Party)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

45. Actually, with its laissez-faire views on behaviorial issues and

its corporate-friendly economic policies and some of its funders, it's more libertarian than Republican.

[Bouncy Ball]

17. WHAT?????????

What an ASSHOLE.

He needs to tell that to the Iraqi families who have lost family members (innocent ones, at that) to this war.

[autorank]

22. Well, Rosenberg is totally unacceptable, period. No way!

He's out. We have a "war party," the Republicans. We're called the opposition for a reason, theoretically. I think it's time to make the theory a real reality.

Can you imagine a Clark candidacy with Rosenberg at DNC.

It is abundantly clear that (a) the war was a bad idea and (b) it has punished our own soldiers and military in ways that are becoming more obvious every day. Rosenberg, totally unacceptable.

Here's an idea: when Clark or a real anti-war candidate gets the nomination, they can immediately fire Rosenberg.

[Captain Kronos]

23. Failure To See Reality = Disqualification

The invasion and occupation of Iraq represents the greatest geopolitical/military BLUNDER the United States has made in the last 40 years... with far more serious ramifications for the U.S. and the world than the Vietnam debacle ever had.

Anyone who can't recognize that fact should NOT be in position of leadership in the Democratic Party.

[autorank]

24. The line: "Rosenberg has problems with reality testing."

[Revolucionario83]

26. Oh great...

Another Repuke-Lite just exactly what the Democrats need!!!!

[T Town Jake]

27. You say he's running for the DNC? Sounds more like...

...a candidate to head the RNC to me.

I support Howard Dean for that position, personally. I think he could make quite a difference and shake things up.

[NoPasaran]

28. I realize that DNC Chair is not a policy position

But is it too much to ask that our Democratic leaders actually DISAGREE with the repubs on important issues?

[Q]

33. How can he actually believe that this HELPS the Democratic party?

There has to be something going on behind the scenes for so many Democrats to be supporting what is obviously an illegal, immoral 'war'. And it's time that Democrats stop pretending the Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror.

[paulk]

36. this is NOT a "good write up"

it's a biased and partisan write up that cherry picks a couple of quotes from Mr. Rosenberg, without providing context, and uses those quotes to make a case against Mr. Rosenberg as DNC chair. Provide me the context and I would be willing to consider the case. Provide me a reason why these quotes should affect Mr. Rosenberg's ability to fill a non-ideological position.


I don't know whether I will support Mr. Rosenberg as DNC chair, but obvious hit pieces like this don't help the process. He's a viable candidate and deserves a more fair hearing than this article provides.


In the meantime, in the interest of equal time - here's an equally biased article in favor of Mr. Rosenberg


--------------------------------------------------




from sterling Newberry

Simon Rosenberg should NOT be the DNC Chair. The Blogsphere should NOT support him.

Here is why:

1. Vision

Simon is well known as an individual of vision. We want a short sighted party, one that is always scrambling from one ad hoc battle to the next, with no idea of the future, and no ability to speak to the aspirations of Americans.

2. National Majority

Simon is well known as someone who wants the Democratic Party to nationalize the issues and seek a majority and governing coalition. We all know that the Democratic Party is much better off fighting every election over backyard issues, and having no principles that will get in the way.

3. Charisma

Having a DNC Chair who is sauve and engaging would ruin the party's long cultivated image of being boring and flat. People would begin to confuse us with Republicans, who are often telegenic. Don't undercut our brand! Boring is Beautiful!

4. Youth

The Democratic Party wants to be the party of old things, musty things, dry things, not the party of the future, and of an America that is part of the 21st century. Afterall in 1932, one speaker at the Democratic Convention stood up and said that there would never be any progress from Thomas Jefferson, and never should be. If it was good enough to win the election of 1808, it should be good enough to win the election of 2008.

5. Internet savvy

We don't want a DNC chair associated with new media, and the future of communications. In fact, we should go back to carving our message on clay tablets, because otherwise we will scare off people who still think the printing press is a controverial idea.

Where would we be in the blogsphere if we couldn't complain about the DNC? Think how many thousands of bloggers would be out of cheap sources of jokes. And being listened to. God, we'd all have a heart attack if that happened.

6. Integrity

The Democratic Party's long tradition is to create openings for the Republicans to question our integrity. Appointing an individual as soundly and squarly honest as Simon would be a major blow to this long standing policy.

7. Centrism

Simon is well known for believing that the future of the Democratic Party is as the standard bearer for the broad majority of Americans. Instead, we should appoint someone who is either a Zell out, so that we won't be attacked by Miller any more, or who has experience blowing leads in an election, to establish continuity with our recent past. Merely doing the greatest good for the greatest number by winning elections is so 20th century.

8. Message

Simon is well known as someone who believes that the Democratic party should have a harmonized message to take to voters, a clear and concise phrasing of why people are Democrats. The current cacophony was good enough to lose control of the governorships of the largest states, the Presidency, the Congress, the Supreme Court and the national agenda. Why mess with failure? It can't get any worse than this.

9. Broadmindedness

Simon is well known for being able to talk across the spectrum of the Democratic Party, and for opening doors. We want a cold, aloof, and closed party apparatus, lest the Republicans steal all our good ideas.

In fact, the only thing that can be said in his favor is that the New Democratic Network doesn't have one of those trendy browser icons. Don't need those either. After all, Martin van Buren didn't need them.

[w4rma]

41. That Newberry guy sounds like a sycophant. (nt)

[paulk]

47. he's a blogger at DailyKos

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Stirling%20Newberry

he's not a sycophant, he's just someone with an opinion - or opinions - some quite diverse.

[w4rma]

48. Bloggers can be sycophants, too. Bloggers are people. (nt)

[madfloridian]

51. Some more so than others.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

42. Let's dialogue on this issue.....first you listen to this mp3.

I am beginning to be of the mind that this war WILL be the defining issue of our party's future. I believe that those who continued to support it and vote for it, will have to be accountable. I think our party knew it was about empire, and they supported it for that reason. They need to level with us.

I am linking to this diary because there is a complete mp3 of Rosenberg's Unfiltered interview on AAR on November 12.

http://whyareweback.blogspot.com/2004/11/simon-rosenberg-will-destroy.html

I don't especially agree with the diarist, but I do think that when I got through listening to the interview...which starts about an hour and 15 minutes in....my head was reeling with how out of touch he was with the Iraq issue and the American people. He is running for chair of the DEMOCRATIC party, yet he constantly speaks of the other party and what they believe. It is unreal to me.

At about 1:30 in he talks about the Republicans standing for the majority of the people, and how we must change.

He describes the Democrats as being totally unified...stronger than ever...even though our leadership in DC is weakened. I am sorry but that is just being clueless.

Then he goes into total criticism of Kerry's stances on the war, which even Howard Dean did not do during the primaries nor does he now. Kerry is the nominee, and I am concerned at how critical Rosenberg was. Dean is more cautious in criticizing Kerry than he is.

He never addresses the reason for the war clearly at all, just says he would have voted for it....something about a bad guy. Agrees it is a mess now, though.

Again, let me make it clear than in the case of DNC chair, I am pulling, NOT for Dean...but for fair and for the people. I want Dean to remain with DFA, but that is not my choice.

When you finish the audio, let's talk.

[madfloridian]

53. I was hoping someone else would listen to this interview.

:shrug:

Parts of it were good. The ones I referenced above were not to my liking.

If our party keeps saying the war was right, they are equally to blame for the deaths occurring.

[leesa]

40. I wonder how much HE'S being paid by the WH to promote their

disastrous decision to launch an unprovoked invasion.

[HootieMcBoob]

44. I didn't know that either

Well that trims my list of acceptable candidates down to one and he hasn't officially announced that he wants the job yet...

[madfloridian]

46. Bush " has shown that he has the capacity to work both overseas and here"

This is just not true. None of our Democrats should say it on TV. No, Bush has NOT shown that capability. Not at all.

I know Dean and Rosenberg like each other, and Rosenberg for a while gave kudos to Dean. But this is wrong.

From November 12 this year:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138396,00.html

SNIP.."GIBSON: OK, Simon, your turn.

The President, in a way, you sort of heard the Kerry mantra: he's making some attempts to reach out to the Canadians and Tony Blair's coming and he's going to make nice with him and so forth. But is he going to have the luxury of being able to kind of, compartmentalize all this trouble overseas and deal with domestic issues?

SIMON ROSENBERG, PRESIDENT, NEW DEMOCRAT NETWORK: I think he can do both. And I think he's — what's going to be important for him is really what he chooses to focus on. What the country needs now is a return to growth, greater fiscal integrity in our government; we need Iraq to be doing better than it is certainly today.

And I think what America's really crying out for is more affordable quality health care for more Americans. And that's the agenda that I think Democrats would be interested in working with the President on. And I think, certainly he has shown that he has the capacity to work both overseas and here at home.

GIBSON: OK. There you go.
Dylan, look at Simon, reaching out, giving the President credit. He has the capacity, he can do things. He's saying he's willing to work with the Republican side. So?...."

My opinion: There is a difference between a willingness to work with Bush and pandering.....Bush is totally unfeeling about domestic and foreign affairs..he is not capable of working with either. It is just wrong to give him that credit.

[Obviousman]

49. I've been liking what I hear about Rosenberg

But this is troubling. I really think that he is a visionary in terms of party management.

[madfloridian]

50. He would be good at management.

I am just very concerned that Roemer and Rosenberg both are strongly in favor of this war, knowing what we know now. I realize chair is not a position of policy really, but for our minority leaders to support such a right wing guy as Roemer worries me.

[Q]

52. I and many other Democrats will simply not accept...

...any so-called Democratic leader that condones the slaughter in Iraq. Have we fallen so far that we're even considering leaders that knowingly lie to the American people about a war that didn't need to happen and that will be responsible for the end of all social programs of the 'safety net'?

Jesus...will the real Democratic party please stand up and put an end to this shame?

[welshTerrier2]

58. judgment and respect ...

the Democratic Party needs some healing ... it needs it badly and it needs it now ...

some have argued that Mr. Rosenberg's "the war in Iraq is good" statement is irrelevant because the DNC Chair is not a policy position ... i strongly disagree but for the sake of argument, let's accept that point ... so, we look past ideology as a requirment for the job ... OK so far ??

but then we look at the message this hawkish statement sends to those who already feel alienated from the Party's platform and many of the issues Kerry ran on ... is it unreasonable to expect the new Chair to reflect a deep understanding of the divide in the Party and be very cautious of statements likely to deepen the rift ??? what is the message to those who feel disenfranchised? is the message and the timing of Mr. Rosenberg's statement reflective of the judgment he plans to demonstrate as Chair and the respect and sensitivity he plans to show for those who don't agree with him?

even if you look past the ideology embodied in Mr. Rosenberg's statement, and I don't, Mr. Rosenberg exercised poor judgment and poor timing in saying what he said ... if these are the strategic skills he brings to the table, ideology aside, i hope we choose someone else ...

[IndianaGreen]

61. Let the warmongers join the Republican Party

Anyone that supports Bush's criminal invasion of Iraq is a war crimes enabler, just like those Germans that lived in villages near the concentration camps while totally oblivious to the horrors being committed there.

[madfloridian]

55. Just wondering why he said this so recently?

The war has proven to be not necessary, so I really want to know why our Democrats keep defending it so much.

[KoKo]

56. Most of them supported it...unfortunately. They just don't like eating

crow...or their loyalties are "elsewhere," as you know...

[John_H]

57. LOL! Good one! Now THIS is the DU we all love. All the whining

and wimpering was getting pathetic. Kicking the shit out of eachother over internal politics is much more interesting.

And, yes, I'm completely serious.

[Lorien]

59. Well, that's sure as hell NOT what the DNC needs

I don't think "the establishment" would ever allow Dean to win the Presidency (especially since they seem OK with rigged elections). Rosenberg sounds like he's just offer more of the same DLC garbage that got us where we are today.

[dolstein]

62. And how was this different from Kerry and Edwards?

NT