Dem bashing, an important Wake-Up Call or Both???

[welshTerrier2]

Just once, let's try to deal with the statements that were made instead of offering an opinion on Ms. Huffington ... she's either right or she isn't ... ad hominem attacks on the messenger are off-topic !!

Here are some quotes made by Arianna Huffington yesterday at the Take Back America conference ... Huffington spoke immediately after Howard Dean who did not refer to Iraq in his speech but did raise numerous domestic policy issues ...

Huffington quotes:
1. "We cannot continue to ignore the debacle in Iraq if we are going to have any hope of ever again being a majority party."
2. "We cannot have a solution on the domestic front without addressing what is happening in Iraq."
3. "I'm very troubled by the way our Democratic leaders go on television and sound like spineless Republicans."
4. "With respect to Senator Clinton, if you are not comfortable setting an exit strategy, please point us to someone who is."
5. "I want a Democratic presidential candidate who can give a straight, unambiguous answer on Iraq."
6. "There is no way in a time of war that you can be a majority party without having a policy position (on the war)."
7. "The Democratic leaders need to make it clear that these men running our foreign policy are dangerous."
8. "There is no way Democrats can win an election unless they make it clear that these Republicans are not making this country safer."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I think she's right

I'd also add that we need a Dem who is willing to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP saying they support the troops but actually make policies that hurt the troops-lack of health care, continuous rotations to the war theater, etc. etc.

As more and more vets speak out against the war and its repercussions, we need to present a viable alternative to the paranoia and fear offered by Bushco.

[meppie-meppie not]

2. I think she is too and that's a great point you raise! I would also add

that a government who lies to the people is NOT for the people.

[FloridaPat]

3. I agree with her 100%. The Democrats need a spine. A real one

all the time, not just one in awhile until the repubs scream at them and the spine disappears. Iraq is a disaster. The Democrats should have stopped it before it began. Again, no spine. This has been going on for 25 years as I have watched our country slowly die. And under * is looks like it's dead. We really need an opposition party.

[Donna Zen]

4. Extending the message...

or in this case the non-message.

During last summer's Democratic Convention, the nuzak kept repeating that their polling showed the 95% of the delegates were against the war, but the plank addressing that burning issue was milk-toast at best. No matter what the latest revelation, the Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, refuse to commit or continue on a in pro-war stance. The evidence leads me to believe that it is less about the truth of the situation in Iraq, and more about protecting the high-profile members of the party who voted for the blank-check IWR.

What really grips me is that those of us, and there are many Democratic activists who have opposed the war, have been asked for our money, and our time, but treated as if we are three-headed raving lunatics when it comes to our stance on the war. The real loons on the right are treated with respect by the republicans. What's with that? We were/are right!

Well, I've been told flat out by members of this forum, that I just don't get smart politics. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if the war is a total fuck-up, and it is, then having someone who can attack it, tell the truth, and present a clear opposition would be smarter politics. Oh sure Clark is one, but there are others including governors, who because they did not vote, are free to take on the war machine.

As far Huffington's remarks about an exit strategy, perhaps a re-framing of "bench marks" would be wiser. IOW, offer a counter proposal that says: when A, B, C are complete then D needs to be done. The ultimate letter here is "O" for "Out." Yes, that is an exit strategy, but it opens up unique possibilities while closing the door on the spinning, and includes the overriding concept that "enough is enough."

[Adelante]

5. I say, thank God, about time

Somebody at that conference talked about foreign policy. Somebody sees we're never going to win another election without calling the Repubs out on the fact that their foreign policy has brought us and the rest of the world to the edge of destruction. Somebody sees that our party presenting itself solely in domestic policy terms is why Americans DO NOT TRUST US with the nation's security.

So, thank you, I had given up hope, and she is right.

[Adelante]

6. For anyone who missed her speech

They have it up at Dembloggers:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/2/9141/91624

She kicked ass.

[Donna Zen]

7. Also, at Dembloggers:

By Gary Hart:

snip~

Democrats, however, are sadly mistaken if they rely on this fact to assume that the power pendulum will automatically swing back to them. Until the dust settles metaphorically and politically from 9.11, the neo-Republican Party will hold an advantage where security is concerned, despite its almost totally inept performance on homeland security and the hornet’s nest of radical fundamentalism it has thoughtlessly kicked open in the Arab world. But that advantage will also not last very long, and Democrats would be well-advised to use this time, which they so far have not done, to create a sweeping new understanding of security and how to obtain it in the 21st century.

link to Hart

I think Gary Hart would agree with a post I made early on this thread: Democrats who do not have foreign policy as their strong suit, do not want to talk about Iraq.

My confusion about the latest push on the DSM (and I signed Conyer's letter--and I'm glad the Kerry is taking the issue to the Senate) is where has everyone been. O'Neill told us this. Wes told us this--including the part about the increased bombing, and Clarke told us this.

Honest to God, sometimes I think I'm being driven over the edge.

[Adelante]

8. I've been wondering about this, too

I read the memo/minutes and signed the letter, but what's new in any of this? I'm perplexed. I asked in a couple of threads, but no response.

[welshTerrier2]

9. Gary Hart is dead on ...

some DU'ers know that the tide has turned ... the Democratic Party is finally awakening ... and it's possible that the neo-cons have done so much damage that Democrats might actually gain some ground in the next election or two ... of course, current polls show the republicans growing less popular but Democrats are NOT growing more popular ...

the real opportunity we have is currently being very badly squandered ...

yes, we'll all be happy beyond belief if we can regain power ... but, absent a real vision for the future that includes a "sweeping understanding of security for the 21st century", any gains we might make will be very short-lived ...

so not only is it bad politics to fail to fight for their beliefs, and our beliefs, on foreign policy, but it's terrible for the country as well ... sitting idly by and remaining mum while republicans flush a whole lot more than the Koran down the toilet is going to weaken this country for generations ... Democrats need to tell the American people the truth ...

what leading Democrats are currently failing to do on foreign policy is unconscionable ...

[Donna Zen]

10. Ah...but..but...but

foreign policy, especially Iraq, is not their strong suit. They are living in 1992 and believing that they "gotta winner."

I just read a blog of someone who attended this conference and the word from the bigwigs is the Hillary has a lock on the nomination. A lock. Yeah--fucking yeah. That's not suppose to be written at DU, but I'm a realist, so let the smiting begin.

There are million reasons that I could give for supporting Clark, not the least of which is that he is undoubtedly capable of getting us the hell out of this mess, but I am willing to consider someone else who got it right and told the truth. Besides, I hesitate to encourage him knowing that Clark will have to give up every job he now has, something he has already done once, and bare the scourges of the Democratic machine.

This is not personal for me. I do not hate the other people; I disagree with them. There's a big difference.

We need a "full service" party, and one that stands up because they stand for something. That party can win. This pie-in-sky attitude of thinking that the world is on 24/7 "let's pretend" doesn't cut it.

As a teacher, this is like I have two students: one has gotten every answer right, so I fail them. The other, too busy preening and passing love notes, has managed to get every answer wrong--I hold them accountable by giving them an "A."

I'm done.

BTW, loved your last post.

[BeFree]

11. We walk a fine line

Americans are a fickle lot. Only @ 50% now believe Iraq was a mistake, and I'll bet 60% still believe the lies the pubs told to get us in there.

So if any of our leaders speak too harshly against the war they face alienating a full 60% of the voters. It is a fine line to have to walk.

In fact, it goes to the issue of protecting us in the future. For most of America, waiting for the other shoe to drop is too discomforting, too weak-kneed, too dangerous. They feel offensive actions are reasonable, yet most Dems are made sick by offensive actions (include me), therefore Dems are never going to satisfy the majority. Otherwise, Kerry would be sitting in the WH today, and the Iraq war would be winding down. Yep.

The best we can do, (Kerry failed to do so) is to express with the gravest concern we can muster, the fact that the present government failed on 9/11, and are failing us at war. Dems can do better than cReeps.

[welshTerrier2]

12. we need to convey our vision and prove we're worthy of leadership

it sounds like your entire assessment of what course the Democratic Party should take in Iraq (Syria, Iran, others?) is based on a subjective evaluation of the political implications ...

when i read your statement, i see nothing about trying to lead the nation in a new direction ... i see nothing about the cost of this devastating occupation to all parties involved ... i see nothing about the hopelessness that neo-con policies have put upon the Iraqi people ... in short, i see no vision and no leadership in the course you recommend the Party should follow ...

and please don't misunderstand me; your political instincts may be dead on the money ... i have no crystal ball about that ... but it just seems to me the way to be a great American and earn the respect of the American people (and win elections) is not by tweaking the politics but rather by leading the country and the world in the right direction ... to me, the best policies generally make the best politics ... and if you lose, at least you did all you could to make the world a better place ...

[BeFree]

14. You nailed me

It was entirely political. Personally, I would have a 100 billion dollar defense budget, no troops overseas, and a 110 billion dollar peace department budget.

I look for a leader, just as you do, who could deliver us from evil. In the meantime, I just want us in power, in the White House, making all the important decisions. Then we can at least have a chance to change the course.

We peace lovers are a minority, for now. We need some semblance of power before we can show our leadership. Getting elected is the first step. Realizing the realities of the electorate is of paramount importance, and I think I do realize, and yes, it pisses me off what I see.

[welshTerrier2]

17. "We need some semblance of power before we can show our leadership"

i have been pleading with Democrats not to accept this view ... i think we will not be given a chance to lead if voters can smell politicians setting policy by reading the polls ...

and this will be made even more true, as it was in the last election, if the neo-cons are able to whip voters into a fearful frenzy that our nation is at risk of being attacked ... Democrats can't pretend this issue doesn't exist and they can't just "go along" ... if they do, we will be seen as weak ... we will be seen as not having the courage of our convictions ... and we will be seen as the "mommy party" that's good at tidying up the house but not good at protecting the family from outside attackers ...

Democrats need to be strong on defense but they still have to be Democrats ... and to me at least, that means that we emphasize national security by emphasizing alliances ... it means that when a war becomes an occupation with no progress at all after more than two years, we stand up and demand some accountability and set some kind of "not later than" date ... we need not demand an exact exit date but we do need to call for some kind of end point ...

anyway, it is my belief that Democrats are getting into deeper and deeper trouble because of their silence ... and soon, we'll attack Syria and then Iran ... what kind of people have we chosen to lead us who say nothing and provide no vision or guidance? i, for one, have no confidence they will choose the right path ... i worry that others will feel the same way ...

[Donna Zen]

13. The last poll said 57% now think the war was a mistake

If you want to counter the republican spin machine you actually have to call them on it each and every time they say it.

If there are leaders out there, then let them lead.

As far as your statement:

In fact, it goes to the issue of protecting us in the future. For most of America, waiting for the other shoe to drop is too discomforting, too weak-kneed, too dangerous. They feel offensive actions are reasonable, yet most Dems are made sick by offensive actions (include me), therefore Dems are never going to satisfy the majority.

I took of advantage of a unique experience for the Democratic party, one that will not come again, I supported a war-winning, anti-this-war, brilliant Four Star General.

[BeFree]

15. 57% eh? Good, but not good enough, give me 85%

The people are fickle, they could easily switch that percentage in days given the right reports.

Clark may be the leader, I dunno. I do know Kerry would be doing wonders had it not been stolen. I feel for Kerry.... if he could have been free to speak his mind, he would have blasted the war making machinery we have built-up over the years.

I see it this way: Had America not been physically able to invade Iraq, we wouldn't. Let's make sure we become incapable. That's my idea of the future.

[NightOwwl]

18. If our Dem "leaders" were out in public talking about the fact...

that the commander-in-chief blatantly lied to the American public, manipulated their fears, and used the deaths of 3000 people to justify the Administration's already decided on war, maybe the number would reach 85%.

But the majority of them are content to sit with their finger up their ass and rotate.

[BeFree]

19. Good one.

I don't disagree... in fact it makes me sick to them rotate thusly.

But there is a political price that will be paid for doing much more, at this time of bloodlust and chest beating the American peole are going through.

I hate to say this, but there will come a time when they can do more than rotate, there has to be, and it has to be soon, eh?

[NightOwwl]

22. If the political price they will pay is called "losing"...

they are doing quite well already.

Contrary to what the media and this Administration would like us to believe, the *majority* of the American public does *not* approve of this president, does *not* support this war, does *not* like the direction this country is heading.

These people need a voice, badly. That voice could and should be our Dem leaders. But they remain silent. So I must disagree with you. The time for action is not soon, it is now.

ETA: You say, "see it this way: Had America not been physically able to invade Iraq, we wouldn't. Let's make sure we become incapable. That's my idea of the future."

Incapable? What do you mean by that?

[Adelante]

16. Correct!

yes, we'll all be happy beyond belief if we can regain power ... but, absent a real vision for the future that includes a "sweeping understanding of security for the 21st century", any gains we might make will be very short-lived ...

Economic security, environmental security, job security, health care security -- these are all national security issues. Dems have to stop cutting and pasting and present a comprehensive vision of what will make the country secure, and it has got to include a sane foreign policy or we are doomed, not just as a party but as a nation.

And we have the better foreign policy -- diplomacy, diplomacy, and more diplomacy, leaving war as the absolute last resort, when all else has failed.

The country just doesn't know it, partly because the Dems are so hopelessly fixated on domestic policy, even when there is a war costing so much that any of our social policies are dead in the water possibly for decades to come. We will never pull out of this if the Democratic leadership doesn't get a fucking grip on foreign policy, and right now.

You're right. It is unconscionable.

[Donna Zen]

20. We do have a new foreign policy:

Syria must be punished!

^^^^^^^^

I'm sitting here hesitating before I post that smarmy but oh so true little post. Tired. WTH

[ngGale]

21. She's right, we've been nice and it hasn't...

gotten us anywhere. The Dems bit the war bullet at the convention and now they are stuck with it. The DSM gives them a chance of a come back - they better use it.

[NightOwwl]

23. The silence from our Dem "leadership"...

is deafening.