Democrats aren't seen as weak because of their positions on defense

[rudy23]

They're seen as weak because of their unwillingness to stand up for those positions. They're seen as weak for their timid brand of politics, which voters use to judge how well they understand the nature of fighting an enemy. If they can't stand up to the Republicans, how will they stand up to terrorists, and leaders of terrorist sponsoring nations? I used to think this was hogwash, now I'm seeing it as a valid construct. However invalid that may be, it still affects the way they are perceived.

[ClassWarrior]

1. How true.

NGU.

[Ufomammut]

2. Dems need to fight enemies foreign *AND* domestic

And, at least in part, appear as having have a "weak" position because the corporations that own/control our press ensure any skeptics - even though dems are usually only sort of skeptical - are relegated to the back burner, if heard at all.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. I have lived my life by "If you fail you.................

might as well fail forward". In other words, if you might fail, you might as well do it by doing something.
This bunch act like deer in the headlights and it is embarrasing.

[Yollam]

4. Dems are seen as weak on "defense" because they would only spend...

...five times more than we need to on redundant and overpriced pork-laden weapons programs and military appropriations, whereas the republicans tend to spend about eight times more than we need.


But the main reason they are seen as weak in general is that they cower and never stand up to the GOP.

A case for a more efficient, less pork-laden, but stronger military could easily be made, but dems will never do that because they are just as owned by the Offense industry as the GOP.

[On the Road]

5. Voters Often Ask Themselves about a Candidate:

"Is this a person I would want protecting me?" Politicans who cave in do not meet that test.

[Toots]

6. I myself see them in that fashion

If they won't stand up now, when?