Five Reality Checks For Democrats: Dump Kofi, Moore, Dopes

Great Debates
61

Newsflash! Outside of NYC, who the hell has ever heard of this rag? Stick to real papers like the NY Times. Now, there’s a credible course. The last thing the Democrats need is advice from a rag paper.

And, as a reminder, the pendulum that swings last, swings best. This means that it ain’t over, until it’s over. And, I predict the pendulum will pull back to the center in two years when Americans wake up from their mistake of giving W a blank check…esp if there is a draft to sustain this not-really-an-occupation of Iraq.

IMHO,

  • Jinx
62

I work in one. I personally know professors who show Michael Moore films as examples of honest and effective rhetoric. I personally know professors who present Castro’s Cuba in class as a wonderful place. I personally know professors who have ruled critiques of feminism out-of-bounds in class discussion.

On my floor there are about a dozen faculty doors adorned with various left-leaning pronouncements. The closest to a counterbalance are a few anti-moral relativism Calvin and Hobbes cartoons on my door, and the “pray for the troops” yellow ribbons on the doors of support staff who have loved ones overseas.

Asserting that academia doesn’t lean waaay left is laughable, even for you, Dio.

63

I’m sure Bricker would agree with you.

64

In more genteel times, Charles Taze Russel, founder of what is known today as Jehovah’s Witnesses, referring to those who went against him and his organization, remarked, “If you kick every dog that barks at you, you won’t get very far”.

Unfortunately today, the ‘barking dogs’ have shown to have the effect of pit bull bites. The winning party must kick down all the barking dogs to submission. The republicans did, the Democrats didn’t.

65

I’d just like to point out that anyone over 63 was alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Not quite as many fatailities, but arguably at least as “horrible” as 9/11.

66

Sure.

And anybody who took the time to learn proper lessons from Pearl Harbor came away with an appreciation of military readiness and up-to-date intel.

It pains me to say it, because it wasn’t always so, but the Democrats are vulnerable on these issues. When Bush attacked Kerry for wanting to cut intelligence, it was a charge that stuck. Kerry never was able to refute it properly.

There will be other Pearl Harbors and other 9/11’s in our future. The Democrats ought to wake to this fact, and plan for it. If that offends those voters with “bake sales for bombers” bumper stickers, so be it. IMHO, those folks have a dangerous world view unworthy of representation in the body politic.

67

But what continues to surprise me was how true this was. The Republicans were undeniably successful in selling the message that putting a Democrat in the White House would cause terrorist attacks. This idea was so widely accepted you’d think Bush was a challenger running against a Democratic incumbent who’d been President on 9/11. Bush was never called upon to defend his record; in fact, he used what was undeniably a failure at some level that occurred during his first administration as a major reason why he should be re-elected to a second one. Bush never had to say “a terrible thing happened while I was President; let me explain why” - he was able to immediately go to “a terrible thing happened while I was President; so I should be re-elected.” It’s as if Bill Clinton had based his 1996 campaign on how terrible adultery was as a reason for voting against Bob Dole.

Now I know some people are going to completely misread this. I do not intend this as Bush-bashing. The reason terrorists attack is because they want to, not because which party the President belongs to. George Bush did not cause the 9/11 attacks (and John Kerry wouldn’t have caused any future terrorist attacks). Both men are against terrorism and both men had plans for preventing it. That said, there are people who will still insist on reading this as nothing but a baseless attack on George Bush/America/the troops/God/motherhood. These people should rest assured I will ignore what they write in the same spirit that they ignore what I’ve written.

68

Well, two things need to be said about that, Little Nemo.

I agree that 9/11 represented a failure of intelligence, and also a failure of the default state of American defense. Such failures don’t arise, however, solely from a mere eight month old administration. The 9/11 commission showed that these were structural failures of long standing. So while Bush surely had some responsibility to bear here, so did Clinton, Bush I, Reagan - really, you can trace a lot of this to the turmoil created in our intelligence apparatus by reforms in the mid-1970s, some of which weren’t fully thought out, IMO.

Secondly, you’re reporting only half of Cheney’s comment. The full quote is as follows:

The criticism was of the pre-9/11 mindset, that arguably allowed an attack in the first place. As such, it’s a legitimate criticism, especially after Kerry made comments about “managing” the terrorist threat.

69

I believe both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were intelligence failures. But did FDR run in 1944 on Pearl Harbor? No. Did FDR bring up Pearl Harbor whenever anyone questioned his handling of the war? No.

Cheney’s quote isn’t quite so noxious when read in its entirety. Of course, he knew that only the unbolded part of the quip quoted by Mr. Moto would be the soundbite on the news. Bush’s statement that we can never win the war on terrorism bounced off teflon, Kerry’s statement that we should reduce it to a nuisance stuck on velcro.

70

Right. And said teflon and velcro is a reflection of the credibility and vulnerability of the respective candidates on this issue.

Kerry was vulnerable on defense matters from the get go, and nothing he ever said addressed this vulnerability to the degree he needed it to.

The most commonly remembered slogan of 1944 was “Don’t change horses in midstream.” FDR certainly campaigned on the war’s progress, and wartime pro-government propaganda reminded Americans incessantly about the day of infamy.

71

Ummm…

BWAHAHA… sorry.

What I meant to say is: perhaps you’re not as well-informed about the campaign of 1944 as you imagine yourself to be. Rest assured that Pearl Harbor, the “day that will live in infamy” played a large part in FDR’s campaign.

72

I’m not old enough to remember personally, I’ve just heard from some that are. Next time I’m around some from the Great Generation I shall ask again. But from what I have heard, reminders of Pearl Harbor were to maintain the resolve on the homefront.

73

BibLibDem, FDR didn’t even attend the Democratic Convention in person in 1944. When he addressed the convention, it was from the deck of a Navy ship in San Diego. The ship then embarked for Pearl Harbor with the President on board.

Now, this is clear politicking on his position as commander-in-chief in wartime. If Bush had tried as brazen an address this year, it’s safe to say you’d be up in arms.

74

OK, I’ll concede the point. But at least FDR politicked a just war.

75

Bricker, please count me as one of the silent lurking types who agree with you, and appreciate your contribution to this subject.

BobLibDem, What is the definition of a “just war”? and how can you know that you are facing one at the start?

76

I’d just like to thank you for the concession.

It may seem like a small point, or an obvious one, but there are those here who never do this: when they are losing ground in a particular area, they simply shift debate to another area without ever conceding the first point, and it’s frustrating to deal with this. I appreciate your willingness to concede a point when lost.

77

Hey, I’m not perfect. You know what happened to the last perfect man.

What is a “just war”? We all have our own definition. Here’s mine:

A war is just if a soverign nation is being invaded by another. The attacked nation may repel the invasion along with any others it can coax into joining in a coalition. A war can be just if a nation is indisputably harboring, aiding, and abetting terrorists.

World War II was just in the first sense. The Afghan war was just in the other. Iraq I was just. Iraq II did not pass my test.

You may have different criteria, of course.

78

I’d like to echo that, BobLibDem.

Please understand me. I concede that I’m a quite partisan Republican and a generally conservative guy. But I have a great interest in a strong Democratic Party, one in touch with the voters across the country, and genuinely responsive to the country’s needs.

The Democrats have a serious credibility problem when it comes to national security. This bothers me, because it wasn’t always so. Had Adlai Stevenson been elected in the 1950’s, he would have been a staunch Cold Warrior. Anybody that doubts this can look at the record of the Democratic presidents before and after his presidential bid.

Trumanesque and Kennedyesque Cold Warriors (indeed, Democratic warriors of any stripe) have become an endangered species. Moynihan is dead and buried, as is Scoop Jackson. John C. Stennis is gone as well. The Democrats who assumed national prominence after these men are not natural and reflexive defenders of America and American ideals, like these men were.

I don’t for one second, though, believe that Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Mondale, or Carter enhanced our nation’s security through their efforts. They did succeed, though, in reforming the party to fit their image.

The party also seems to have a real interest in perpetuating racial struggle instead of reconciliation. This is borne in part out of well-meaning policies that haven’t had purely beneficial effects, like affirmative action. It is also due in part to a cynical attempt to keep others upset about racial issues, in the belief that those that feel slighted by American society will always vote Democratic.

I come from a predominantly Democratic area, and most of my family are Democrats. I’m in many ways a natural Democratic voter - blue collar background, union household, etc. What turned me off about the Democrats at the outset of my voting career, at least in the Pittsburgh area, was the rather casual attitude they had about corruption. Democrats in that area were quite corrupt, but could be counted upon to whitewash each other’s activities. The only time corruption ever became a campaign issue was if the rare Republican were caught, or if a primary fight got truly nasty.

I realize that the Republicans aren’t saints. But the fact remains that Nixon left office after his Republican support in Congress evaporated. Clinton, OTOH, remained in office because his Democratic support held firm.

My affiliation has hardened to the degree that I’ll likely always be a Republican. Faced with a party I no longer fit in with, I’ll likely work to change it rather than switch. Please know, though, that the reason I’m a Republican today is because the Democratic Party chased me away. They’ve lost me, and lots of others like me, and probably for good.

That is a big reason why the Democrats went from a majority to a minority party is litle more than a generation. Change back to Truman and JFK Democrats, and you have a shot at reversing this.

79

That is quite interesting, Mr. Moto. Thank you for sharing. Perhaps the Democrats are chasing some people away. But the sword cuts both ways, please consider some of the things former Governor Milliken ® of Michigan said when endorsing Kerry.

I could go on, but you get the idea. This is not our fathers’ Republican Party.

It’s possible to be a good Republican and love the environment, but you’d never know it from Bush’s policies. Similarly, traditional Republicans have eschewed deficit spending, and of course Bush defies that tradition.

But are the Dems really that weak on defense? I’m not sure the evidence is that compelling. Kerry, after all, voted for many of the military appropriations bills. And both Republicans and Democrats found trimming the military attractive following the Cold War’s end. Many of the defense cuts that Kerry voted for that he was criticised for were supported by both George HW Bush and Dick Cheney. So where that perception comes from and what it is based on, I’d really like to know.

80

The perception comes from a lot of factors, BobLibDem.

First off, recent Democratic presidents gained a reputation for not fully respecting the military or for not doing enough to maintain military readiness. Members of Bill Clinton’s White House staff, and some members of his family, would often be deliberately rude to Marine guards and other military members on duty there. Bill Clinton’s ill-planned reforms of the military also didn’t sit well with a lot of the rank-and file officers and senior NCO’s - the people who actually make things run.

Jimmy Carter gave a blanket amnesty to Vietnam War era draft avoiders, some of whom had demonstrated their patriotism by fleeing to Canada. In addition, already poor military readiness slipped on his watch. The only military action Carter ever undertook was Desert One, and this was an unmitigated failure.

Do you really think that either Kennedy or Truman would have allowed things to slide in this way? Would either one have tolerated disrespect toward a man in uniform?

Governor Milliken has some fair criticisms, and is certainly entitled to his views. I find it funny, though, that similar statements endorsing Bush from Democrats like Zell Miller and Ed Koch are met with derision on the Democratic side, rather than by attempts to strengthen the party so these honorable men won’t bail out.