Five quick thoughts on current events

[Grooner Five]

1. It will be a good thing if Iraq stabilizes under a representative government instead of the oppressive theocracy favored by insurgents. We are in danger on this forum of celebrating setbacks for America and the burgeoning democracy in Iraq. This attitude is not realistic, does not have widespread appeal, and is ultimately dangerous to both Democratic electability and America at large.

2. Barbara Boxer will never be President of the United States. She can not encourage crossover voters the way that Bill Clinton did. She should remain within the coalition of partisan Democratic attackers of the GOP agenda, where she can do more good. Presidential candidates always shift toward the center, and she can't pull it off.

3. Republicans found a way to enlarge their party tent, and it is working for them. Democrats must not shrink their party tent, as some here are arguing for. If Democrats evict pro-lifers, libertarians and moderates on gun control, we're done as a national party of power and significance.

4. Howard Dean should become DNC Chair. He can ultimately appeal to the center as well as the left, and governed Vermont as a moderate. He also pioneered new and needed fund raising efforts within the party. He can shake up the establishment, revitalize the base, and foment a new way of thinking in the party.

5. Teddy Kennedy's red meat speeches to the base may inspire our deeply partisan leftists, but they turn off a large part of the country. Inane suggestions like the announcement of a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq do not help this party or America - a country removes troops only when the job is done, and never offers a signal to the enemy that they need only wait until a certain point in time to re-initiate their attacks.

[stray cat]

1. Agree on all five.

It is in everyones best interests if Iraq can become stable. The Iraqi people deserve credit to whatever degree they can pull that off. Civil war or permanant occupation is not good for anyone.

Boxer said she was not interested in running for president.

I am an independent who has been totally turned off by the radical republican neocons and fundamentalists. The democrats right now look like the only responsible party. However, if the democrats want those like myself to leave, I will vote for moderate republicans or waste my vote on an independent candidate.

[Grooner Five]

4. Cheers. I'm in the same boat.

The right wing and fundamentalist takeover of GOP leadership has alienated me from that party, but my excursion toward the left has not made me feel entirely comfortable, either.

For instance, I love America, feel we've done far more good than bad in the world, and become very angry at the cynicism and accusations sometimes cast at this country around here. America isn't all bad, and the Europeans aren't entirely noble of intention.

If the Democrats can find a way to balance the party and make room for a wider spectrum of thought and ideology, the GOP will lose elections for many years to come. The fundamentalism in that party must not be balanced by an exclusive leftist fundamentalism in this one.

This sounds a bit hokey, but: If we build it, they will come.

[RandomKoolzip]

25. A couple of points:

America isn't all bad, and the Europeans aren't entirely noble of intention.

Why do conservatives use this logic axis when debating whether our current administration is fucking up? This has nothing to do with Europe. It's not as if the only alternative to American politics is European politics.

We love America too: we love it enough to know when it's fucking up, just like a son who loves his father will intervene when that father is drinking too much. A loving son wouldn't continue letting that father drink himself to death.

Much of what you say is true, but you have to realize that through use of the foundation system, funded by ideologue billionaires, the right has taken over the media and re-defined terms such as "center, " "objectivity," etc. so that things that were once considered centrist and sensible, like civil rights, are now seen as "liberal" or even "wacko leftist." It's been such a slow process that many people didnt even notice the rug being pulled out from under them. Thus, without a congruent foundation system of our own, our message will continue to be distorted and molded in the image the right wants it to be.

Can you explain to me how the republican party allows for a "wide spectrum of thought and ideology?" Last I heard, there were very few pro-choice republicans, yet I run into lots of anti-choice Democrats. And that's just one issue.

[douglasjkruse]

2. here here

i agree on all too..

[Zensea]

3. My five

1. What if the majority in the country are members of an oppressive theocracy -- that's representative democracy.

2. That's possible.

3. No need to evict anyone, the question is who is in control and who sets policy, that is the question is what the majority is.

4. Agree.

5. Inane suggestions like the announcement of a timetable? Well, at some point a timetable will be announced. Otherwise we'll be there forever. Is it just inane because Kennedy is calling for it?

[Grooner Five]

6. Fair questions.

An oppressive theocracy can not, by definition, be a representative democracy. Oppressive theocracies are built on violence, and ultimately entail the will of the few over the will of the many. For many years in Iraq, a minority population brutally oppressed a majority population - you may remember such a set up in South Africa, as well.

I'm not against a timetable because Teddy Kennedy is for one. I'm against any official policy of troop withdrawal before the country is secure enough to merit such an action. Why make a signal to the insurgency that all they need do is wait until a certain point to attack again, while quietly building their network of underground terror?

[Clarkie1]

9. I was really disappointed in those comments by Kennedy as well and I like

Ted Kennedy. But what he said was pandering, not responsible leadership.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. "and it is working for them".

It hasn't work for them in the last four elections, and probably not in the preceding few, either.

"...we're done as a national party of power and significance". Yes, you are, and have been for a long time (see above). But the Democrats conversely have been prospering pro rata. American election verdicts would be something else, wouldn't they? Or have you too been asleep since 2000?

"He can ultimately appeal to the center as well as the left, and governed Vermont as a moderate". Appeals to the left, seemingly, yet "governed as a 'moderate'". That'd take some doing, in the light of what you, it seems, would consider moderate.

"he can ultimately appeal to the center as well as the left". You evidently consider a health plan for all a left-wing policy. But then you don't want gun control. Why would that be? All they need is for the elections to be honest.

[Grooner Five]

10. I'm not sure how you can say that

The GOP has been making progress in every election since 1994. I'm not of a belief that all of these elections (or any of them) were "stolen." I think clinging to that belief amounts to little more than hugging a security blanket and not noticing the realities of the situation.

America, like it or not, has some very conservative tendencies. If that large percentage of the electorate isn't somehow appealed to, we will never regain the momentum to make needed change - such as a national health care policy that covers the uninsured. I can guarantee you that those sort of things will never happen under GOP leadership, but we can inch toward them with more inclusive Democratic policy.

I never said I didn't want gun control, by the way. I think there should be sensible gun laws that don't overly infringe on the right of a private citizen to arm and protect themselves.

[moggie12]

7. I agree on all five, thanks for posting that

On #2, Boxer is my new hero, but yeah, she couldn't win the Presidency. But heck, talking about it doesn't hurt. I'll do anything I can to support her because I think she lit a fire under the Dems with her opposition to Rice. Go, Barb!!

On #4, I used to be dead-set against Dean for DNC for Party chair but I've completely changed my mind: Like you said, he's more moderate than I thought he was and he's probably the one person who can bring the Party back to the people. Go, Howard!

On #5, I was glad that the MSM didn't give Kennedy's withdrawal speech too much coverage. I thought he made a mistake not waiting to see how the elections turn out. Plus, doesn't the poor man realize he is a lightning rod for anti-Dem sentiment? It would be better if he stood back and let others lead this particular effort. I thought john Kerry had a good approach today on MTP: He said "great, now we've got the election under our belt, this is the time for Bush to stop screwing things up and get the international community involved".

[Clarkie1]

8. Great post - I agree on all of these n/t

[No Exit]

11. I find it amusing

that Bush-wingnuts will, at the drop of a hat, go all hysterical about, "HILLARY'S GONNA RUN FOR PRESIDENT... THIS IS TERRIBLE... STOP HILLARY!" but at the same time, the idea that any other woman might run for president and actually make a good showing is dismissed with a condescending wave of the hand.

Oh...oh, of course... you didn't mean Boxer couldn't win b/c she is female... oh, of course, you didn't mean that. Oh, sorry, my bad...

[CatholicEdHead]

12. Unless it is Condi

then it is a clean sweep into the White House for her.

[No Exit]

18. Yeah, those pubbies would continue to cry "Condi For Pres"

right up until the time she actually got within reach of the presidency, then suddenly they'd come back down to their own little sordid reality, and think to themselves, "Hey... I can't vote for her! She's black! OMIGOSH! The blacks are taking over!" That's how they usually think about blacks anyway.

[Grooner Five]

26. Like it or not

The GOP has elevated blacks to powerful positions previously unattained in any administration. It may be a political game to draw black voters away from the Democrats, but it's to their credit and our shame that we didn't beat them to it with truly qualified candidates.

The idea that a single and young black woman is now the Secretary of State and in charge of America's foreign policy is something that would have been considered an outrageous pipe dream not all that long ago.

[No Exit]

70. Yeah, boy, they sure are the party of the

people! "A single and young black woman"?? ROFL!! (Hey, but it makes me feel good that you'd call someone of that age "young".)

Yes, a "single and young" oil company board member has been elevated to Secretary of State! Hallelujah.

"In charge of America's foreign policy"??? Condi? What are you smoking?? The big boys burrowed deep in the think tanks (such as the Cato Institute) and the boys from the Project For a New American Century (such as your cloying, sniveling little friend Bill Kristol) are in charge of our foreign policy.

Oh, and yes, Colin Powell was treated with soooooo much respect by this administration. Now Condoleezza gets to hold the same enviable position he held!

The republicans look upon her black complexion as merely an extra coating of Teflon, to protect her and them for the scandals ahead. They're already crying "racist" at all those who opposed her confirmation due to the fact that she LIED. It is a truly hilarious irony that such people are claiming OTHERS are "racist".

For some reason, black voters loved Clinton much more than they love this wonderfully egalitarian administration. Isn't that amazing. Maybe some people are underestimating the power of those black voters to see through rank bullshit. The repukelicans ignore this power at their peril.

[PA Democrat]

135. Hmmm? And how many black GOP members of Congress are there currently?

ZERO!

How many black Democrat members of Congress are there currently?
39 !

In fact, how many black GOP members of Congress have there been in the 20th and 21st centuries?
5 !

How many black Democrat members of Congress have there been in the same time period?
86 !

Oh yes, those Republicans are the party of the "big tent". :eyes:

Edited to add statistics

[Benhurst]

142. And that pipe dream turned into a nightmare when a war criminal,

who happened to be an African American woman, was chosen as the instrument for change by the Bush Crime Family.

[Grooner Five]

14. It has nothing to do with gender.

But rather, reality. I look forward to the day that a woman does become President of the United States based on her ability. I certainly wouldn't vote for a woman (or man) simply because of their gender, but because I think they're the best person for the job.

I like Boxer, and admire her willingness to take a powerful and controversial stance. But I do not think she has the ability to cross perceptions and appeal to a widespread portion of the electorate, any more than Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich can.

That she's a woman is only incidental, and not central to a pro or con argument.

[No Exit]

17. (chuckling) I knew you'd say that

And I would like to express my deep admiration for your egalitarian feelings towards women.

Do you think Hillary could win a presidential campaign? If not, then why does the idea of her running strike so much fear into the hearts (okay... abdomens) of the Bush cultists?

[Grooner Five]

19. Would you support Condi Rice for President?

If not, is it because she's a woman? Or because she's black?

I do not know if Hillary could win an election. She's a very clever campaigner, and also seems aware that the moderates must be addressed in order to win. I supect that she's too controversial and polarizing a figure to withstand an election process, but I could well be wrong.

If the country had known as much about Bush II as we know about Hillary, it's unlikely that he'd have gotten in, either.

[No Exit]

72. "If not, because she's a woman? Or because she's black?"

Next, you'll ask me, "Are you still beating your wife?"

She's a LIAR. Would I support anyone, black or white, who had deep connections to the fraudulent and destructive Bush regime?

You are spewing forth the usual Bush cultist's conundrums/traps:

"If you don't support Condi, you are automatically a racist."

"If you don't support the war in Iraq, you are a terrist (sic)."

I don't need to read these fraudulent arguments on Democratic Underground. I can go to a wingnut forum if I want to read them--or I can just turn on Fox News.

[Grooner Five]

78. But you appear to be seeking

protection from anyone that doesn't think exactly as you do. In my opinion, that's not what the fair exchange of ideas is all about.

You virtually accused me of being sexist with your post about Hillary. When I illustrated your tactic with my question on Ms. Rice, you apparently didn't like it, either. Fair is fair.

[No Exit]

126. And you appear to be seeking

to keep an appearance of calm fairness, while coming onto a democratic forum to criticize democrat politicians. I think you just like a good argument. I have seen your type on many forums.

And it's ever so great to know that the Bush followers are such champions of the advancement of "single, young" black women. It's ever so touching. Looks like all those years when blacks were denied so many rights, little did they know that all they had to do was become Chevron board members, and they would be welcomed by powerful republicans! Gee, if they'd only known, they could've moved to the top of American power in the blink of an eye. LOL.

[No Exit]

13. There is only one type of government that Iraq will have in the

near future: a puppet government. If that brings our troops home, then it's okay with me. But if I were an Iraqi, it would not be okay with me.

[Grooner Five]

15. I hope that's not the case

But even so, a "puppet" democracy in Iraq will be far better for any future Democratic President to work with and grow than one run by an oppressive Islamic Theocracy such as that seen in Iran.

South Africa is also struggling toward democracy, freedom, and equal representation. We should put no more pessimism, conditions, and demands for results on the process in Iraq than we do on that nation.

[No Exit]

22. Why are we so concerned with

what sort of government the Iraqis have? Suppose we were back in 2002... would you then be concerned with what sort of government Iraq had? Put aside the constant hype about "Saddam is a murderer... human rights violations... babies torn out of incubators (since debunked)... woman taken prisoner by Saddam's gov't., raped, husband killed (since debunked)" and ask yourself, would there be a legitimate reason why WE should concern ourselves with what sort of government Iraq had?

Oh. Wait. Israel is much closer to Iraq. Well, the geographic closeness would make the type of gov't. in Iraq of much concern to Israel. Okay. Got it.

[Grooner Five]

24. The entire world

had been concerned with what kind of government the Iraqis had for many years, including the eight years of Clinton's White House. It's folly to ignore that now.

[No Exit]

28. My, my... so it's Clinton's fault?

Where have I heard THAT before?

What's "folly" is to invade a country that is not a threat to us. And that's what we did--largely b/c we have a demented megalomaniac who has taken over our government.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Bouncy Ball]

39. The difference is Clinton knew better than to ATTACK Iraq.

bush did it. BIG huge difference.

[Grooner Five]

44. Clinton made a case for regime change

And now we're getting it. It may not be the most clever or peaceful approach, but it's not diametrically opposed from what a lot of powerful Democrats had been saying for some time. In 1998, John Kerry was even lambasting our allies for going too soft on Saddam.

Was he fooling? Of course not. Bush may have made a botch of the approach and may be using unappealing tactics, but it appears to me that there was pretty widespread bipartisanship on the feeling that Saddam's Iraq was an unacceptable threat to this country. Only the strategies differed - not the goal.

[Bouncy Ball]

55. CLINTON KNEW BETTER THAN TO ATTACK IRAQ.

Can you not read??? Nothing you say can change the fact that CLINTON DID NOT ORDER AN ATTACK ON IRAQ and BUSH DID.

So sorry, but that means your little weecowboy is the one in the wrong. Deal with it. He's a murderer and a warmonger.

[Grooner Five]

62. Again, with the hysterics

Clinton did, of course, attack Iraq. He did not occupy them.

[moggie12]

88. That's a big distinction

Although I agreed with your original post saying that we risk not being heard if we seem to be celebrating American setbacks, that doesn't mean Bush invading Iraq was good policy. Clinton took appropriate steps under the circumstances. Bush whipped up a case for invasion by lying to the American people. Big difference.

You're exactly right in saying that Kerry and others were worried about Iraq -- their comments in '98, when Saddam threw out the inspectors, are on the record. I am not as harsh as others in criticizing Dems who voted for the IWR. Still, I think how Bush proceeded with the Iraq invasion was reckless and will have long-term negative consequences for America.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Grooner Five]

95. I'm afraid you've closed your mind to fair debate

And I'll bet you don't mean it when you call me a friend, either. I think that's a shame, because I particularly like folks who challenge my ideas and worldview, but do it within the bounds of being fair and polite - attacking the ideas, and not the person.

[No Exit]

105. I'm afraid you came in with a closed mind

and that you are phony from the get-go. I reach this conclusion after reading your pathetic attempts to defend Bush's Iraq debacle.

You think it's a shame; I think it's a sham.

[Bouncy Ball]

116. Heh, what was your first clue? When he called you his "faux" friend?

LOL.

Just come out with it: who did you vote for in November? And if it was Kerry, why did you vote for him and not bush?

[American Tragedy]

132. There is a big fuckin difference between pinpoint strikes on suspected

sites, and invading and occupying a country for years to come with many thousands of casualties.

[No Exit]

86. Right! And he wouldn't have invaded Poland, either. n/t

[No Exit]

77. So you say Bush is now implementing the policies of "powerful democrats"?

LMAO!!! Well, hell, what are we so upset about, then? We've got someone in there who's implementing the policies of powerful democrats! Someone who takes his marching orders from John Kerry and Bill Clinton! Gosh, I feel so relieved!

[Grooner Five]

84. Again, I never said "policies"

What I said is that many Democrats - whom I respect and support - went on the record to lambast Saddam's Iraq and call it a threat to America. President Clinton went so far as to consider regime change there a priority for American foreign policy.

While I disagree with the mismanagement, blunt tactics, and methods of the Bush Administration, I can't honestly say that the ideological goals are all that far apart from those espoused by many mainstream Democrats.

Can you?

[No Exit]

96. No--you said "what". So Bush is now implementing the "what" of powerful

Democrats?

Your tortured (pun intended) arguments for why Bush and his regime are not solely responsible for the Iraq mess are downright comical.

The "ideological goal" was WAR. By no stretch of the imagination (even the Bush cultist's paranoid imagination) is war a goal of "powerful Democrats".

Your dishonesty makes it difficult to have a frank discussion with you. You need to first admit that you support the Bush administration. Until you do, I will continue to regard you as a fraud who in fact has nothing but contempt for the Democratic party.

[No Exit]

75. So your answer is, "yes"--it's Clinton's fault. Gotcha.

And it's Kerry's and Edwards' fault, too. Gotcha.

It was the "folks", Bush/Cheney, who "swore up and down that Iraq and saddam were a threat to our security." It was Bush/Cheney who were in power, and who are responsible. No one else. You appear to want us to now dismiss their words, as if it were some kind of political game without meaning.

[Grooner Five]

82. I never said anything was their "fault"

All I said was that I believed their words, and still do.

[No Exit]

97. Did you believe Bush's and Cheney's words?

And yes, you did essentially make the shopworn "it's Clinton's fault!" argument, a hilarious comedy act that is often seen being enacted among Bush cultists.

[No Exit]

27. You say, "a puppet democracy in Iraq will be far better

for any future Democratic President to work with and grow than one run by an oppressive Islamic Theocracy such as that seen in Iran."

First of all, to WHOM is an "Islamic theocracy" oppressive???? Not to muslims. It would be oppressive to westerners, yes. But if that were what the people there wanted, what's wrong with that? BTW, do you think we should have a Christian theocracy here? Many republicans think so, not the least of which is Antonin Scalia.

You are touchingly concerned about reducing problems faced by "a future Democratic President". What about working with the president we currently have? You seem all ready and eager for a democrat to take the presidency. How laudably optimistic of you. But, er, have you noticed that we still have 4 years to go, with a republican president at the helm? Have you no concern for what problems HE might face?

So our president's job is to "work with and grow" the Iraqi government? So we've colonized Iraq? Golly, I thought freedom was on the march--but a colony is not a free country.

It's rather un-Christian for us to look to place our own interests before those of the Iraqi people. I mean, it makes us sound selfish. Gee, that selfishness might erode our image as the most generous, Christian, kindly nation in the world.

Oh, and isn't it funny how we just had to topple Saddam's government when in fact it was a secular, not theocratic, government? But now all of a sudden we're all concerned that a "theocracy" might arise. Well, if we didn't want a theocracy, why couldn't we have left the secular government in place? Kind of stupid of us to eradicate the secular government, and now say "We want a secular government!"

[Grooner Five]

31. You do understand

That the Sunni minority in Iraq oppressed and ruled the majority populations by force, right?

The very same thing happened with whites and blacks in South Africa. Were you supportive of our efforts to change that backward ideology for the better, or did you favor a more passive approach?

[No Exit]

42. What I understand is this: What f***ing business is it of OURS??

I was kind of young at the time to take a position regarding South Africa, but in what little thought I did give to it, I was against "our efforts". I was a follower of the republican party back then.

Incidentally, I have since discovered Israel had a hand in the South African business, too.

[Grooner Five]

47. It's our business

because the development of the world affects every nation in it. That's the very reason for having an organization like the United Nations.

There is much room for debate on approaches and strategies, but what you are suggesting is akin to the outdated philosophy of isolationism - normally expressed by folks like Pat Buchanan.

[No Exit]

81. It is not our place to "develop the world".

Glad to see you're such a staunch supporter of the UN, though. Too bad we didn't listen to it on Iraq.

What you are suggesting is akin to the outdated philosophy of empire and imperialism - normally expressed by folks like Attila the Hun, Napoleon, and Adolf Hitler.

[Grooner Five]

98. Of course it is our place

If it's not the responsibility of benevolent and prosperous nations to help those struggling with modernization, then what is our responsibility? Selfish inward concentration that ignores the plight and misery of others?

France helped us to gain independence from the British. They killed some British to do it. Even some children died.

Where they also acting in the vein of Hitler and Attila the Hun?

[No Exit]

108. We are neither benevolent nor particularly prosperous under

the Bush regime. Except, of course, for the very rich--who are prosperous, but not particularly benevolent.

"Ignores the plight and misery of others"?? You mean, as we are ignoring the "plight and misery" of the Iraqi civilians right now? And what about the "plight and misery" of our own citizens, whose children are dying so Bush/Cheney and their corporate puppet-masters can become richer?

France... oh, yeah, I forgot you people really have a hard-on for France...

I can see you want to steer this into the old "France is bad" b.s. that the wingnuts love so dearly. Let's talk about our own country first: Yes, Bush is acting in the vein of Hitler and Attila the Hun.

Were our founding fathers "outdated isolationists" when they warned against foreign entanglements?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

136. Under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni minority was NOT oppressed

It was the Shiites who were complaining.

[No Exit]

16. They may be "enlarging their party tent", but

I know at least two people they have lost from their "party tent": me, and my spouse.

Many of the people who voted for Bush (who, while he is their figurehead for now, is about as much a republican as was Trotsky), did so out of fear--the "terrism" stuff worked. Meanwhile, the staunch republicans who want to keep Mexicans out are about the break from the party b/c the party (under Bush) ignores them and leaves their congressional reps twisting in the wind (Tancredo told to "never darken my door again"). Meanwhile, the staunch anti-abortion people who want abortion outlawed are about to break from the party b/c the party (under Bush) ignores them. Meanwhile, the staunch republicans who are hysterical that homosexuals marrying will ruin their own marriages are about to break from the party b/c the party (under Bush) ignores them. On this last issue, Bush ignores them b/c he knew it was never much of an issue in the first place: it was a fearmongering campaign which used those bogus anti-gay-marriage state laws on the ballots of 11 states to simply increase turnout among those who are fearful of homosexual marriage.

[Grooner Five]

20. An interesting thing about those gay marriage votes

By the percentages, people who voted for Kerry must have also significantly voted against gay marriage. That speaks volumes on the large base of moderates (and even conservatives) willing to go with the Democratic ticket.

[RandomKoolzip]

32. An even funnier thing:

There was no significant push on the part of the GLBT community to marry before Rove and the Four Sisters did some polling ad discovered how effective of a wedge issue Gay Marriage could be. Thus, they advised Bush to announce that he would propose amending the fucking constitution to ban such a dangerous thought.

In doing this, he forced Democratic politicians into a defensive crouch. He put them on the ropes, knowing that some of them would have to come out in favor of Gay Marriage lest they lose important base support from the GLBT community. When the news started to get out that Bush was bullying and the Dems were caving (some of them), the GLBT community then bacame up in arms that the president was about to sign away their civil rights and the "opposition" party was doing nothing to stop it. Thus, a tempest in a teapot boiled over and set the kitchen on fire.

Now, you could argue until you're blue in the face that this was brilliant strategy, artful politics, etc. That may be true, but one thing it isn't is ethical. The Bush team created this wedge issue virtually out of whole cloth, then expolited it for political gain.

[Grooner Five]

34. And, apparently

many Democrats and Kerry voters went along with it.

What does that say?

[RandomKoolzip]

43. Went along with what?

The proposed amendment or their total reaming from the GOP-controlled media?


What I'm saying is that Bush's team invented the Gay Marriage issue. We all know that Gay Marriage is a radical step, one most Americans, especially in the South and Midwest, are not ready for. If it hadn't been pushed into the media by the GOP strategists, it would have played no role in the election. There wasn't any massive, unified push from the GLBT Community to marry before Rove and co. suddenly inserted the issue into the debate, knowing what a shitstorm would ensue.

However, since the MSM is now an arm of the GOP, high profile Dems were forced to suddenly have an opinion of it because so many in the media were yowling about "Gay Marriage."


What does that say? It says that the republicans have too much goddamn power to frame and define the discourse, since they control the debate topics, the terms of the debate, their opponent's positions on the debate, and whether the debate continues. Like I said, until the Dem billionaires out there manage to create a media elite as powerful as the one the GOP has in place, we will always be on the defensive, usually about shit they just make up.

[No Exit]

85. If they did, then Democrats/Kerry voters must be the true "family values"

people. So why do you have nothing but criticism for these fine people, who are the heart of America?

But I don't concede that they "went along with it." It's impossible to get a real count of the votes when voting and vote counting is controlled by Bush's fascist minions--which it now is.

[No Exit]

45. Hear, hear! You have summed it up beautifully, especially

the UNETHICAL part!

[No Exit]

35. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the Official Story of who voted what way.

In case you haven't noticed, there are whole threads here devoted to the fact that people here don't trust the vote counts. Check them out.

The gay marriage issue first began to be hotly debated early last year. I saw it on the net with my own eyes. Suddenly there were spirited debates about it on Freerepublic. "Save marriage!" Then Newsom in CA and the people in Massachusetts, and that guy in Ithaca, all began marrying same-sex couples. At that point, the republican base was veritably frothing at the mouth. "We've got to do something to save marriage!"

Never fear! Bush and "conservatives" to the rescue! Suddenly 11 states have something on their ballots which allows average Americans to vote against this eeevil concept, gay marriage! Thank heavens! Bush and the republicans saved us again! It was put to a vote and marriage was saved!

Oh, and coincidentally--just coincidentally--all those who were determined to get to the polls to vote down this eevil concept were also at the polls to vote for Bush. Yup, it really drew 'em out of the woodwork.

Many of the state laws they voted for are weak, not enforceable, or downright unconstitutional. But Bush voters are too stupid to see that--after marking their ballots, they returned to their comfy living rooms in plenty of time to resume their idle TV-watching, and their hourly brainwashing from the bought-and-paid for news media.

[Grooner Five]

38. Oregon voted to ban same sex marriage

while simultaneously voting to elect John Kerry.

Where's the fraud?

[No Exit]

48. Prove it. And while you're at it, take your "proof"

over to the 2004 Elections threads. They're interested in all "proof" of how people actually voted.

You are sidetracking the main point, which is: it was never about gay marriage, and the Bush cronies knew that. They knew that, b/c they CREATED the issue in the first place. It was about getting ignoramuses to the polls where, after they'd "voted against gay marriage", they would then of course also mark the ballot for their presidential choice.

If you are saying that a large number of Kerry voters were against gay marriage (and I doubt that), then that should please you. See? Even those horrible Kerry voters stopped short of endorsing a position which would "destroy marriage"! Hey, are we finding out that the Kerry voters were the REAL "family values" people? That's what you seem to suggest.

[Grooner Five]

50. Prove what?

That Oregon had a fair election in which many Kerry voters also supported a ban on gay marriage? I should think that's self-evident.

You'll have a much harder time proving that wasn't the case.

[No Exit]

101. A "fair election"--"self-evident"??! During the Bush regime??

Now THAT'S funny.

So, you're still saying that the Kerry voters are the real Family Values people, then?

[lonestarnot]

21. "Republicans found a way to enlarge their party tent, ..." by lies, lies

and more lies. Educate re lies!

[Grooner Five]

23. Not entirely by lies

They did it by embracing their moderates, and thus giving people on the edge a reason to move toward the GOP ticket.

A deeper examination shows that ultra-conservative ideology and fundamentalist thought holds more sway with the GOP than do the moderates, but not every voter is willing to do that examination.

By highlighting people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, the GOP cleverly makes room for different ideologies on controversial issues like abortion. Democrats would be foolish to ignore that strategy.

[lonestarnot]

30. Horsepoop! Did it with lies and a BIG CHEAT! n/t

[charlie]

41. Embracing their moderates

Like Jeffords, who jumped ship? Or Spector, whom they had sweating bullets before his primary and to this day has to occasionally re-assert his fealty to the conservative claque lest they kick him to the curb? Or Todd Whitman, who's out there squalling "it's MY party too"?

You have it bass-ackwards. Republicans don't distance themselves from their hyper-right fringe. Democrats already have a healthy contingent of moderates and fear the dread "liberal" label.

[No Exit]

53. Not "entirely" by lies??!?

Only partially by lies? A lie is a SIN! How can you admire such a thing??

"Ultra-conservative ideology"... please let us know where Bush stands on this ideology. I'd like to know. As far as I can see, Bush so far only stands for increasing corporate profits (of which I am sure he and his criminal family get a nice share), killing American service members for said profits, terrorizing the American people, and keeping the world safe for American oil. Is that the "ultra-conservative ideology?" If so, a pox on all who support it.

By highlighting people like Barbara Boxer and Jesse Jackson, the Democratic Party cleverly makes room for different ideologies on controversial issues like the theory that there was 2004 election fraud. Republicans would be foolish to ignore that strategy--that's why they don't let the wet-brained, demented George W. Bush determine their party strategy.

[RandomKoolzip]

60. Come on...you're inviting a semi-witty rejoinder about Clinton when you

bring up the word "lies." Don't you know these guys operate?

Clinton brought down both Space Shuttles, dontcha know. And I think he had a hand in the Pope's bad health, too....It's ALL Clinton's fault.

[Grooner Five]

63. Fine, let them be loons

But because they are doesn't mean the truth isn't important.

[RandomKoolzip]

66. Don't worry. I think enough people have hit "alert" already

that most of these comments will disappear quite soon.

[Grooner Five]

69. What comments?

If there is no room for moderate Democratic thinking on this forum, then shouldn't the name be changed to "Intolerant Underground?"

Arguments should be based on their merits, and I can't understand why anyone would want "protection" from a viewpoint they might disagree with. Isn't that a sign of weakness?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Grooner Five]

74. I've never been fond of rules

that trump the free and polite espousing of thoughts and ideas. Kill all the trolls you want, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[RandomKoolzip]

83. So now you're bringing ABORTION into the debate!

I knew that would happen!

(just kidding)

[Grooner Five]

87. LOL

I had to do a double take there. :)

[No Exit]

113. Oh.

"Intolerant Underground". Well, that's one of the milder names I've heard this forum called on those other forums. LOL.

Your "viewpoint" appears to me to be Bushism. Our protection from that is simply to think rationally and to refuse to accept it. Easy.

You show many signs of weakness--deception is the one that is most glaring.

[No Exit]

110. I define a "loon" as someone who

goes to a forum whose general viewpoints s/he does not share, for the purpose of trying to smear some of the mud which covers Bush onto the politicians who tried to stop him.

[No Exit]

104. Yes, and Clinton caused those people to be tortured!

It's insane, I tell you! Clinton has continued to govern this country, even 4 years after leaving office! How terrible that he has our poor helpless Bush and Cheney in his deadly thrall!

[JoshK]

29. You're batting maybe 1-for-5.

Point #4 is not objectionable. Not that Dean is any great shakes -- but considering the DLC slop he's running against, he's probably the best of a bad lot.

Your other 4 points amount to supporting US imperialism, and urging the Dems to move still further to the right. Particularly your point #5, where you scold one of the few Democrats who still deserves respect for daring to speak an important truth.

[Grooner Five]

33. Which important truth is that?

If you want to understand imperialism, study the British empire. If you want to understand American imperialism, look to Japan.

[charlie]

46. Cherry picking

Also look to Nicaragua. Guatamala. Iran. Chile. Phillipines.

[Grooner Five]

49. Sure, we've had bad episodes

But can you name another nation that could (or would) have created a Japan or Germany from the ashes of war?

Russia? England? France?

Forget about it.

[RandomKoolzip]

52. So now Germany's "good?"

I await your placing of Germany and France in the "old Europe" grouping the next time the UN comes up.

[Grooner Five]

61. Sure they're good

They contribute to the global economy and standard of living, enjoy a peaceful and representative government with no further thoughts of conquering their neighbors, and are stable enough to peacefully set their own destiny. America deserves some credit for helping them toward that path.

I may disagree with their foreign policy goals and methods, but I certainly don't condemn their country or people.

[RandomKoolzip]

68. So you did disagree with their foreign policy?

Specifically, their UN vote preventing an Iraq invasion, I presume.

[Grooner Five]

90. That, among others

I think France and Germany feel that by undermining American power (whether used wisely or not), they can elevate the EU on the back of American failures. I think they have decided to sell out Islamic moderates and turn their backs on the needed reformation of the Middle East to do it.

I would rather see a world power structure not conditional on the tearing down of one great power for the sake of another. Together, the great nations of the Earth can really make a difference. Divided, we risk the continuation of chaos and oppression that has been the status quo.

[RandomKoolzip]

99. Right.

I would rather see a world power structure not conditional on the tearing down of one great power for the sake of another.

Which is exactly why the right's/BushCo's anti-UN/anti-Europe comments and policies have rubbed me and the rest of the left the wrong way.

Together, the great nations of the Earth can really make a difference. Divided, we risk the continuation of chaos and oppression that has been the status quo.

Then why the reservations about our continual fight against the American right? The right has done more to foster these untenable conditions than either Europe, Australia, or Asia combined.

I think France and Germany feel that by undermining American power (whether used wisely or not), they can elevate the EU on the back of American failures.

I think they just wanted to do what's right. They knew going to war with Iraq would undermine the cause of worldwide peace and accomplish nothing, and guess what? They were right. Acording to your own words, you supported the Iraq invasion...I suppose you believed that there would be WMD's there, or that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama (Where IS that bastard, anyways?) Now that neither of those theories have come true, why the continued sabre-rattling at Europe? Haven't they been vindicated? Ascribing ulterior motives to anyone who opposes Bush's policies, especially in the realm of foreign policy, assumes that Bush's moral compass always points north; I think there's ample, objective evidence that that ain't the case.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. Undermine American power??

How DARE they!

Don't they know that God appointed America to run the world? (/sarcasm)

[charlie]

56. Off topic

"We're better than they are" has squat to do with whether or not our concerns about the "liberation" of Iraq being a malignant enterprise is justified. There's copious precedent. And the crew driving foreign policy right now makes it not just plausible, but likely.

[JoshK]

54. Kennedy understands that the Iraq adventure is going to prove

so destructive, on balance, that it could seriously compromise this country's long-term prospects. Like some prominent conservatives such as James Baker, Scowcroft, & Brzezinski, he wants to cut US losses, accepting an admittedly painful setback now, rather than a utterly catastrophic one later. Baker et al have no moral objection to the Iraq project; they simply see the writing on the wall in terms of cost/benefit. Kennedy DOES have moral objections, but is speaking out now, also based mostly on a frank assessment of cost/benefit.

As to imperialism -- your general tone suggests that you want US imperialism to succeed, and that you equate the success of imperial projects with the "good of the country." I don't see it that way. I think it's better for "the country" (and the world) if the imperial projects fail miserably. I don't want to see blatant aggression rewarded.

[Clarkie1]

92. And what "truth" is that?

That we should cut and run and leave Iraq a failed state?

[JoshK]

100. Yes, exactly. Installing a US puppet govt is not better than

leaving the indigenous forces to settle things out for themselves.

If you are so sincerely interested in not "cutting and running," why don't you go sign up to serve in Iraq yourself, or volunteer your children to do so?

US control over Iraq is not the opposite of a "failed state." It's simply a different type of failure. I believe the US should pay massive reparations to Iraq to compensate them for our crimes there, and the US should perhaps support some international arrangement for helping to prevent violence. But US control over the region is every bit as harmful, IMHO, as any sort of civil war, or as the outcome which would lead to a fundamentalist Islamic republic (a la Iran). The US has no right to be there, and its influence in the region is harmful for everyone except Republican-connected oil & reconstruction corporations.

[Clarkie1]

111. Actually, it is.

If we withdrew all our forces tomorrow, chaos and more violence would ensue and even more of the Iraqi people would hate us, and they would hate us even more. Our word, our credibility, and the little moral authority we have left would be worth nothing in the world.

We have to stay until the situation is stabilized, and hopefully the Iraqis can govern themselves. I am against this war, and I'm against the neo-con policy that led to it, but we are there and that gives us certain responsibilities.

The sooner we can responsibly leave Iraq, the better. The quicker we can draw down our troop levels, the better for Iraq as well as the U.S. But this is not something that one can put a timeline on. It depends on the situation on the ground, and what the Iraqis ask us to do.

[JoshK]

119. Actually, it's not.

"Stablized" is a code word for "successful installation of a US puppet government." We already have zero moral authority and credibility. There is nothing more to lose except the further deaths and violence our presence is causing, and the costs of the occupation which our Treasury can't afford.

It is not the case that the US presence is "preventing chaos." It is causing chaos. If the US left tomorrow, the nature of the chaos would shift, and it is not clear whether the overall level of violence would be greater or lesser. Additionally, there is a terrible price being paid in terms of the moral fiber of this country: to justify what is essentially a massive crime, the media are obliged to produce dishonest propaganda 24/7. It will take many years for American culture to recover from such intense & massive dishonesty -- let along the toll in combat deaths, international prestige and financial expense.

[No Exit]

127. Actually, you're right.

"It is not the case that the US presence is 'preventing chaos.' It is causing chaos."

This important point cannot be repeated too often!

[Clarkie1]

130. I agree with much of your post

I agree with:

"It will take many years for American culture to recover from such intense & massive dishonesty -- let along the toll in combat deaths, international prestige and financial expense."

I agree party with:

"Stablized" is a code word for "successful installation of a US puppet government."

The current "government" in Iraq is a puppet government, however I believe it is more likely (not necessarily "likely") that the Iraqis will eventually have a government that represents them in the future if we follow through on our reponsibilities to the Iraq people now that we are in this mess. If the Iraqis ask us to leave tomorrow, then by all means we should leave tomorrow. Our goal must be to reduce the U.S. presence as quickly and responsibly as possible without destabilizing the situation more. Our continued presence there is a negative, but leaving it all tomorrow would be a bigger negative.

"We already have zero moral authority and credibility"

Thankfully, that is not true. We have some, and it's been damaged a lot. Leaving Iraq tomorrow would damage it more.

[Bouncy Ball]

36. Ha!

That was a funny post. Was it meant to be humor?

"We are in danger on this forum of celebrating setbacks for America and the burgeoning democracy in Iraq. This attitude is not realistic, does not have widespread appeal, and is ultimately dangerous to both Democratic electability and America at large."

You must not be able to read. We are NOT celebrating setbacks. The setbacks were INEVITABLE, given BUSHCO's MASSIVE MISTAKES. We are REALISTIC. We aren't willing to sugar coat what is happening in Iraq, like so many repukes are quite desperate to do.

Being a witness to the TRUTH does a far better service to the Iraqis AND our troops over there than slapping a magnetic ribbon on our car, and rah-rahing with our heads stuck in the sand.

BTW, Kennedy can say whatever the hell he wants to. Why do his words make you so uncomfortable (as if I didn't already know)? Why would you try to STIFLE him??? Hmmm?

[Grooner Five]

40. It's hardly within my power

to stifle Teddy Kennedy. But like him, I'm happy to use my freedom of speech. Are you stifling me, or do you just disagree with my sentiments?

Of course there are mistakes being made in Iraq. But if you can't see that many folks on this forum lionize the insurgency (and ignore their repulsive methods) while eviscerating American efforts (not Bush, but America), then you are intentionally ignoring the obvious.

[RandomKoolzip]

51. I've never seen anyone on DU "lionize" the Iraqi insurgency.

Every time a soldier dies, you mostly get replies that paraphrase the following statement:

"Oh my God, that's horrible. I hope we can get the troops out soon and they're safe at home. Damn you Bush for starting this horrible war!"

In fact, frankly, that's such a common sentiment it's almost boring. Please point me to ONE post where a DUer cheers on the death of US troops.

(Again...you play the GOP game very well: put a liberal on the defensive for stuff he/she never said. Good job!)

[Grooner Five]

58. Here's one small example

I read this one earlier today, and I found it pretty offensive. Perhaps you read it differently. In fact, the general tone on that thread was steered toward deligitimizing the elections and giving credence to those opposed to them. If that (and fantasizing about being an insurgency leader) is not coming down on the side of the folks opposed to Iraqi democracy, then I don't know what is.

Our country (not Bush) deserves more support than that.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1545923

Until Iraqi insurgents deliver a pillow case full of...

fingers dipped in ink to the nearest American commander

because that's what I would do if I were an insurgent leader

[RandomKoolzip]

64. If that's true, then Peggy Noonan's Reagan fantasies make her an

adulteress.

This is not the same thing as cheering on the death of American troops.

[No Exit]

117. Ah--Bush follower talking point No. 1

"You are either with us (with ME) or you are with the terrists (sic)."

Yeah, we've heard that one. It's untrue, it's crap, as are his other talking points.

[Bouncy Ball]

59. It's amazing to me that these people think they are fooling ANY of us.

We know all the repuke tactics and talking points. They actually think we won't recognize it?

LOL!

[Bouncy Ball]

57. Nope, I'm not.

And you go on and say whatever you want to say, and I'll call bullshit on it all I want.

This invasion was FUBAR from the BEGINNING, do you not understand that?

And if some other country came in, and invaded us, to liberate us from bush and threatened your family and destroyed your home, you mean to tell me you WOULDN'T take up arms against them?

Yeah, right. Whatever. Hey why don't you go get a "Power of Pride" bumper sticker and slap it on your car, make yourself feel better. Tell yourself things are just PEACHY in Iraq. Go watch some Faux News.

[Grooner Five]

65. I suppose it depends

If I were living under the oppressive rule of a brutal minority in which I had no vote or right to dissent, then I might be pleased to be freed from such a scenario.

Perhaps you need to open your mind a little, and consider a deeper understanding than what can be written on a cereal box.

[Bouncy Ball]

67. Oh I see!

So you'd be happy if foreign invaders came in and killed your children!!! Hey, it would be worth it if you could vote in a sham election, right?

You might want to pull your head out of your ass. This war was sold to the American people under the justification of WE ARE UNDER THREAD FROM IRAQ'S WMDs!!!!

Well, guess what? They didn't have any.

So we attacked and invaded that country FOR NOTHING. You don't go retrofitting the reasons AFTER the fact. How shameful.

Sounds like you mighta voted for bush in November.

[Grooner Five]

73. No, I wouldn't be "happy" if my children were killed

Who would?

Many children died in our Revolutionary and civil wars, and many children died in WWII. Did the deaths of those children deligitimize the efforts, or were they a tragic collateral loss in a positive forward movement?

Accusing me of being a Republican is a cheap tactic. Isn't it possible that my experience has merely given me some different viewpoints that can stand or die on their own merits?

For the record, I supported our invasion of Iraq, and am anxious to see democracy in the Middle East. I also think that the current administration has done an atrocious job of striving toward that goal, and I can not support them.

Is there no room for me in the Democratic party?

[RandomKoolzip]

80. It sounds more like there's no room for us

in your vision of what the Democratic Party should be. Honestly, DU is not made up of the most moderate people, and us on the left (and there are far more of us than either party wants to acknowledge) have been getting shafted for the last thirty years by our own party, while the party of corporate power has been stomping all over the world with no opposition. We view moderates as GOP enablers, and there's a kernel of truth to that assessment, as panicky as it might seem.

And, frankly, the "post-church Sunday morning freeper invasion" is a regular feature of the DU forums. So if we're suspicious.....well, jeez, what possible reason would we have to be suspicious, huh?

[Grooner Five]

94. I'm sure the hard right

views GOP moderates like McCain and Giuliani to be Democratic enablers, as well. But if we can't come together even a little bit in the middle, then what hope is there for any policy to be enacted in ways other than force?

And for the record, I've never been to the Free Republic, and am a lapsed Catholic.

I freely admit that I am not a leftist, and find some of that stuff as frightening as I do the hard right. But I do like the left wing influence on American politics, and don't think your goals and ideals have been entirely blocked off in recent political history. In some American policies and trends, it is without question that the left can take some hope and pride.

[RandomKoolzip]

103. Just wonderin':

What about the left do you find frightening? (I really hope it's not "Communism," because you seem smart.)

[Grooner Five]

112. Thanks :-)

I find frightening in the left the same thing I do in the hard right.

The right wants less corporate regulation, but I think the hard left wants too much of it. Companies like Enron banked on increasing regulation of the energy industry to abuse the system as much as they banked on crony politics and paybacks to advance their agenda.

The hard right wants folks to have rocket launchers or tanks in "compliance" with the constitution. The hard left would take my gun away, and leave me powerless to defend my home against criminals that suffer no such worry over gun laws.

The hard right would remove abortion as an option in all circumstances. The hard left would make it so that an eleven year old girl would need to get a release form signed to attain an aspirin at school, but could "secretly" have an abortion without her parents knowledge.

Both the hard right and the hard left seem to favor isolationism in American foreign policy, and that's something America has never prospered with.


These are just some general examples, but I guess my point is that I fear extremity and total purity of ideology more than I do some kind of fought-for balance and compromise on the issues. Not every issue is definable that way, but I think most of them are.

[No Exit]

118. Um, there's quite a gulf between "isolationism"

and imperialist wars. Just b/c someone is against going to war with a country which was no threat to us, does not make them an "isolationist".

Seems to me that it's you, the "moderate", who is ignoring the middle ground.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

139. Libertarian, not Republican

That's my assessment.

[Zhade]

140. I'm stunned DUers haven't called you on this bit of bullshit...

The right wants less corporate regulation, but I think the hard left wants too much of it. Companies like Enron banked on increasing regulation of the energy industry to abuse the system as much as they banked on crony politics and paybacks to advance their agenda.

That's patently false. Enron et al relied on DECREASED regulations to rape Californians like myself.

Nice try, though. You almost got away with it.

[Bouncy Ball]

114. I'll be honest with you,

I find I am HARD pressed to find a single person who voted for Kerry in November, who considers themself a Democrat, and who supports this invasion of Iraq.

So yeah, it is really suspicious. Hell, even repukes are jumping that ship like rats. Even they can see a FUBAR situation.

So you are saying the children who died in this war, an UNNECESSARY, UNJUST, IMMORAL war were just the same as the children who died in the American Revolutionary War and WWII? You are actually comparing those wars to THIS one?

This was a war of CHOICE. We CHOSE to attack Iraq. On the basis of WMDs. Which they didn't have.

Which means every life that has been lost has been for NOTHING. This "bringing democracy" bullshit was developed AFTER we attacked them and found no WMDs. How dishonest can one country fucking GET? You actually supported that?

When Powell went to the UN to convince the world of what a HUGE threat Iraq was, he didn't even have iron-clad proof and if you are going to pre-emptively attack another country, your proof for doing so better be AIR TIGHT AND WATER PROOF. And it wasn't. Not even close.

So all the blood spilled has been in vain and the bush administration has the amazing hubris to act as if we are doing something wonderfully compassionate for the Iraqis. Tell that to the Iraqis who have lost family members, who have lost their jobs, their homes, everything they had. Tell that to Iraqis who can't even walk down the street for fear of car bombs and kidnappings, tell that to the Iraqis who STILL don't have consistent water and electricity, who are too scared to send their kids to school, if the school even still exists.

You CANNOT spread freedom and democracy at the end of a gun barrel. Period.

This whole thing is an immoral SHAM. I don't know if there's room in the Democratic party for someone who supports pre-emptively attacking another country based on a pack of lies. Why would you do so?

[No Exit]

120. Excellent post! However,

I'm afraid that being honest with a shill (like the one we're trying to reason with) is just casting your pearls before swine.

[Bouncy Ball]

131. Yeah, I know.

I was in a generous mood when I typed that. I have since addressed this whole "oh you guys are so negative and want more Iraqis to die!" bullshit in a completely different post in GD.

[No Exit]

141. Hell--they even accuse us of wanting our OWN people to die!

I saw it on a semi-wingnut forum I was reading (I don't post on it) earlier this evening: some hysterical, accusing nut put in big caps: "Liberal Democrats are terrorists!" It just doesn't get much more blatant than that.

If you dare to criticize Bush, you are a "terrorist". What a perfect way of stifling dissent. If you dare to criticize Condi the lying sack of Rice, you are a "racist".

The people who would use these illogical, poisonous arguments to stifle all Bush critics are the worst form of intolerant cultists. I wouldn't wipe my foot on them.

[PA Democrat]

76. Please provide examples of "many folks"

lionizing the insurgency. I think the vast majority of DU'ers would take extreme offense to anyone cheering for the insurgents, and their suicide attacks.

[Grooner Five]

79. Well, good.

I sincerely hope you're right, but can tell you honestly that my impression was different. I will try to pay more attention and open my mind a little. I hope others who would accuse me of trolling or being disingenuous would do the same.

[PA Democrat]

93. Here is my problem with the Iraqi elections

"Success" of the Iraqi elections is a double-edged sword.

I will be thrilled if the Iraqis can establish a true democracy in their country, but I have serious doubts about the prospects for a stable government of any kind in the near future. But the fact that people were able to vote will enable Bush to sell this whole Iraq fiasco as a "success".

And if Bush can claim "success" on any level, we can expect more of the same. We can expect to have more of our children shipped off to die in more foreign countries for Bush's messianic foreign policies. We can expect more of a shift in spending from social programs to pre-emptive war. Didn't you listen to Bush's inaugural address?

Where next? Iran? Syria?

[Grooner Five]

106. Well, that's why we need a Democrat in '08

It bothers me that Bush would get credit for the creation of a (mostly) peaceful and representative government in Iraq, but I know in my heart that such a thing would be better for both America and the Middle East, to the point that it supercedes any immediate political concerns.

The reformation of Iraq, in theory, may be enough to turn the tide against theocratic rule in the Middle East. The folks in Iran may see Iraqis voting, and think "Hey, why not me, too?" Ditto Syria.

But I can't fathom the idea of rolling through the Middle East on some kind of military crusade of spreading democracy, and can only hope the "thinkers" in the Bush administration would be smart and clever enough to focus on the beacon of Iraq, being patient that the rest will happen in time.

If it works, then Bush should get credit for implimenting the vision of his advisors. I can't hate him for that. But with some luck, vision, and a winning strategy, the Democrats could get the credit for making it all work in the long run, and reaching a success with the reformation that the GOP could never be capable of.

In an odd sort of way, I'd call it a "good cop, bad cop" routine for the Middle East. We're getting "bad cop," now, but the strategy can't work without both sides playing the same game.

[PA Democrat]

125. Actually, Iran's movement toward democracy has been REVERSED by

our invasion of Iraq. I have read accounts by numerous experts that confirm this. Here are a few:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200492716154

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Adele-Horin/War-makes-democracy-a-dirty-word/2004/10/29/1099028204397.html?oneclick=true

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5868

[No Exit]

129. Aw, shucks, and he had such a great plan

for the democrats and republicans working together, lovingly smiling at one another, to advance the cause of "democracy" in the middle east and throughout the world. Democrats following the republicans' "bad cop" lead, and complementing it with a "good cop" routine; two parties, under God, united in RANK DECEPTION! Glorious!

Why'dya have to bring up these troublesome "fact" things?? :)

[No Exit]

123. Rather a quick retreat

you made there!

You have seemingly retreated from your statement that "many folks" on this forum are cheering on the Iraq "insurgency". Yet you continue to accuse the leaders of "many folks" on this forum of being complicit in this fraudulent Iraq war. If all those Democrat leaders (you mention Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton) were just cheering on everything Bush did, then why did so many of them support the attempt to unseat him from the presidency?

[No Exit]

122. Bush-follower Talking Point No. 1, again!

"You are either with us (with ME) or you are with the terrists (sic)."

How many more times you gonna use this one? It's not exactly persuasive...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. They're 5 good reasons why the Democratic Party is dying.

Just what do want to offer as an alternative to the RepublicanLite that you're advocating?

The coalition that you desire under the "Big Tent" theory is exactly what has brought the party to point of irrelelvance in which it now finds itself. It can't win elections because it stands for nothing except patronizing the voters and being without values.

Trying to buy off the "libertarians" (a good word stolen by the capitalists), the pro-preggers, and the gun nuts, has done nothing but show the Democrats to be without values.

But, you and your milque-toast Democrats are winning. We'll see how you do without those "too liberal", Leftist, anti-war, activists that have grown weary of holding their noses and voting for the pablum dished up by the DLC.

[mattclearing]

102. 3 and 5 are problems. Otherwise, agreed.

The problem with the Democrats isn't their constituencies...in fact, we have the upperhand, even with our more liberal elements well-represented.

The problem is that people see us as without principle, poll-watchers like Clinton and Kerry were made out to be. I don't think alienating a constituency here or there is the problem.

The main problem is that we don't try to persuade anyone of what is right, only persuade people that we agree with them.

People don't respect that. They won't reward it with a vote if they are on the fence. And I don't blame them.

As for Ted Kennedy, he seems to know that no good can come of an extended stay at Hotel Iraq. Like Vietnam, this mission is FUBAR.

[Guaranteed]

107. Seconded, exactly. nt

[Orangepeel]

109. generally agree, but how have republicans enlarged their tent?

have they become more inclusive? have they moved to the center? have they dropped key parts of their platform in an effort to appeal to moderates?

One argument as to why republicans have been successful in recent elections is that they support positions that more Americans agree with. I don't believe this is true. When people are asked about issues without party affiliations, it is almost always the case that a majority support the largely Democratic position -- this is true on health care, the economy, education, Iraq, reproductive rights, even civil unions. Even on national security issues, a majority will say that republicans are better when asked in general, but they often don't support their specific policies.

In fact, republicans have done better in elections by moving AWAY from positions that are more popular in the abstract. How so?

Republicans have:

1. Projected an image of strength and certainty
2. Shown a willingness to stoop to the lowest level possible and to outright lie about opposing candidates
3. Come up with great, appealing names for policies
4. Skillfully used the media to reinforce the image they want to project and propagate these nice sounding terms

Democrats, on the other hand have basically tried to play fair and be reasonable. It hasn't worked.

[Grooner Five]

115. They really haven't

But that's the impression they give to light and casual voters, or even single-issue voters. In reality, the GOP is steered by the hard right, and governs that way. But they've managed to give an impression that moderates are welcome, and accessible to power politics - while simultaneously demonizing the left as radicals.

That's what tips the scale, and it's something Democrats could emulate and be truer to than the GOP. This is the big tent party, but that's not the popular perception.

[Orangepeel]

121. I agree with that completely, and think it has very important implications

If this is true -- if republicans have managed to create the perception of being more inclusive and less radical while actually becoming less inclusive and more radical -- does it make sense that the Democratic party can create the perception of being more inclusive and less radical simply by actually becoming so?

I don't think so. I don't think that reality has much to do with perceptions in this case. Many people are going to support the republican party because of (or in spite of) its right-leaning positions. Many people are going to support the Democratic party because of (or in spite of) its left-leaning positions. But "independent moderates" in the middle? Most of them don't vote on positions. They vote for the person they "like" better, that they "trust" more. Anybody considering both bush and Kerry didn't pay attention to issues -- the contrast was too stark. The party can't, absolutely can't, appeal to such people by changing positions on issues, because issues aren't the main determinants of their votes.

In my opinion, it isn't about left and right anymore. It is about weak and strong. Charismatic and dull. Straightforward and nuanced.

[No Exit]

124. Once again, you are advocating the use of deception.

Sorry, it is only this foul administration and its republican handmaidens who are experts at getting what they want through LIES. The rest of us want honesty.

[Zhade]

128. Kennedy's speeches may turn off some people...

...but they don't like hearing the truth anyway.

#5 is a really nice RW talking point. So, when are you signing up to ensure "the job is done"? I mean, you are arguing in favor of continuing this illegal occupation, so to avoid being a hypocrite you should march down to the recrutier's office and "do your duty".

[American Tragedy]

133. We might not even be in this fucking mess if Bush had let the inspectors

complete their report, as most of us in the reality-based community had urged. But of course he couldn't allow that.

[Dark]

134. 1,2, & 4 are good, but:

3.They didn't enlarge their tent. Moderates were just more afraid of having Kerry as a president rather than Bush because Kerry was a flip-flopping panderer. They wanted someone who oozed security, or at least consistency.

5. What's wrong with asking for a troop removal time table? Why is it wrong to ask the Admin to come up with a PLAN?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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