I can’t help thinking that your complement of Sam Nunn in your earlier post is contradicted by this criticism of Murtha. Sam Nunn stood with Ted Kennedy and others in opposing Bush I on the first Gulf War, so how was Nunn a good role model for pro-defense Democrat, but Murtha is not? (BTW, I agree that appearing with Moron, er, Moran is a mistake.)
So, are you really saying that Democrats should all support a President’s foreign policies, regardless of what party he belongs to? That’s a standard that Republicans certainly did not meet in the 1990s, and you must agree: it did not hurt them at the ballot box.
Unless you change the way elections are run, both of those suggestions would be pointless. The parties would just coalesce again into their current form.
Very well said, ascencray. In particular, I want to highlight the importance of message discipline. Too often we have Democrats out there who say things to undermine the effectiveness of a strongly worded message from another Democrat. Somehow, the media often chooses these people to speak for the Democratic party, and they do a good job at both watering down the message and making a particular Democrat or a Democratic position look questionable. Rein these people in hard.
In re: Murtha and Mr. Moto, what is it about Murtha’s opinion that makes you think he does not or should not represent the Democrats in criticism of the war? I find him to be a perfect spokesperson, not only because he is telling the straight dope about the flaming bag of shit Bush left on our doorsteps, but he is also representing the majority opinion of Americans on this matter. Why do you hate America, Mr. Moto?
On preview: Martin Hyde, your opinions (echoing those of Shodans about Americans defecting from the Democratic party because of its views on Iraq are sheer fantasy. A majority of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling; 56% say he does not have a plan that will achieve victory. A plurality of Americans see the Democrats as MORE likely to make the right decisions about Iraq than Republicans. 44% (versus 49%) say we should leave ASAP, and 59% say that we should have a significant number of troops in Iraq for only one more year at most. 48% say neither the US nor the insurgents are winning the war (only 36% say that we are). 41% say the war did nothing to improve our safety, and 19% say we are now LESS safe because of the war.
A thousand votes are lost? Not hardly. In fact, trends show just the opposite (except that each percentage point the Republicans have lost probably represents more than 1,000 voters).
But clearly the discussion in these threads assumes we keep the same electoral system. So what’s your point? I tell you what. You convince the Democrats to split up their party first, and then we’ll see if the Republicans split up their part in response.
Oh, and for starters, I would punch in the nose every single Democrat in the U.S. House and Senate who didn’t stand up for Dick Durbin. What they did to him was absolutely shameful and a prime example of why the public believes that Democrats stand for nothing.
Well, first of all, both Sam Nunn and Ted Kennedy were dead wrong when they voted the way that they did. The difference is that Sam Nunn had worked strongly for the military for many years prior to this vote. One really cannot say the same about Kennedy.
Both lawmakers, to their great credit, supported fully the war after it was voted upon, not letting our soldiers fight for an ultimate loss.
But Kennedy did just this thing in 1974, helping to ensure most military aid was stopped to South Vietnam, even after most American troops were gone from the country. And I fear Murtha and his allies would do the same today.
Debating whether or not to go to war is entirely legitimate, and I don’t fault Sam Nunn much for being wrong. Like I said above, his good record on defense matters gives him a lot of insulation here.
Once the war starts, though, I think it behooves lawmakers to do what they can to facilitate a military victory, since the country has democratically decided to go to war. Failing to do this is a dereliction of duty, and Kennedy and Murtha can be rightly criticized for it.
I know there was lively debate about Clinton’s foreign policy in the 1990’s, but I don’t recall any serious Republican efforts to make troops pawns in these battles.
Precisely echoing my sentiments that Americans want victory, not “withdrawal at any cost.” My point was that here on the SDMB the more popular stance is “withdrawal at any cost” not “withdrawal with victory.”
Also have never said this was happening; work more on differentiating the posts of two separate posters. I never made the claim that Democrats were losing votes over Iraq, I just put forward an idea as to how they could better present themselves on the issue. In the process I made no claims or passed no real judgment on what they (or the Republicans/the President for that matter) were actually doing on the matter.
Let’s define credible as pro-defense, on both sides. Americans favor a strong defense.
If we had two pro-defense parties debating a military action, it would be about the merits of that action, and an honest debate, IMHO. Innuendo about warmongering, weakness, flagwaving, cowardice or lack of patriotism needn’t enter into the debate.
As for anti-war Democrats, you might be out of luck. America is not a pacifist country, nor should it be one.
I’d like to see the party become more pragmatic. Recognize the maxim (I’m paraphrasing Clinton as best I can remember):
“Everybody likes change in general, but nobody likes it in particular.”
You can’t change everything at once, and letting the Republicans decide that the most important issues are gay marriage, abortion, teaching evolution, and other, more subtle, social issues, allows them to scare people away from those godless, anarchist Democrats.
Just drop gay marriage. You can do the right thing, and say it should be legal, and lose every election, or do the pragmatic thing, and give it up for another ten years, and at least get in power and institute some change. Same with abortion. Keeping abortion on the front burner is just handing the Republicans votes.
Work hard to convince the populace that government is good at influencing jobs, and providing defense, and really isn’t good at being a moral guide.
I didn’t make it up; I’ve heard it used by right-wing types (perhaps one of them would give you a more enlightening definition). I assume the term is referring to radical feminists, alternative lifestyle types, etc. I don’t agree with this characterization, nor do I think that feminism is radical or that alternative lifestyles are loony, but it is most definitely a perception of more conservative Americans.
I think both parties should stop listening to those most voiciferous small ends of the bell curve and get busy with stuff more folks can agree on.
I apologize; I took your apparently positive citation of Shodan’s assertion to that effect as endorsement.
But I reported for you, and you left out in your response, the fact that 44% of Americans want us to leave Iraq “ASAP” (and only 49% say otherwise), and that 59% percent think we should essentially be out in no more than one year (the question did not specify that such departure should be linked to any particular changes in Iraq). So the idea that Americans believe we should stay until we achieve victory is simply erroneous. I think everyone would prefer that we could declare victory and leave, but the facts are that most Americans see that the war was a bad idea to begin with, was conducted very poorly, is too costly and is not achieving any benefit, and want us to get out - if not now then very soon.
Check out the results for yourself at www.pollingreport.com, under the link to polling about Iraq.
You guys are simply giving us an example of the Republican strategy of making false claims and statements - the reality is that the majority of Americans already believe about Iraq what many critics are saying, yet you would try to tell us that by making such statements, Democrats are alienating voters. This is just crazy talk.
You’ve got that just backwards. If Roe v. Wade were overturned – thereby reducing abortion to the status of an ordinary political/legislative/electoral issue – that would be the best thing for the Dem’s election prospects since FDR.
GAR! Please see my post earlier in the thread. The majority of Americans are pro-choice. Abandoning such a position loses votes because we look weak. If we can’t vociferously defend a position that the majority of Americans support, how can we lay any claim to advocate for anything. I feel the same way about gay marriage. If it is the right thing to do, we damn well better do it. It is a great weakness to run from your beliefs, and that rallies nobody to your cause.
I wish the Democrats would take control of their own party. What I mean is, they should make structural changes to shore up party discipline and responsiveness to their members.
Certainly there is plenty of room for disagreement on most issues but there should be a core set of initiatives that all Democratic lawmakers should adhere to. If a Democratic congresscritter votes against a reasonable minimum wage increase or in favor of yet another irresponsible tax cut then they should be kicked out of the party. Don’t let them on the ballot with a (D) next to their name. If states balk at the change take their asses to court. We have a constitutional right to assemble with the people we choose to assemble with.
Pull out of the cumbersome primary system. Instead the party should hold annual conventions at the county, state, and national level. County conventions set local policy, nominate local candidates, and elect delegates to the state convention. State conventions set state policy, nominate state candidates ( including for the US House of Representatives ), and elect delegates to the national convention. National conventions write the national platform, nominate national candidates ( a presidental ticket and for US Senate ), and elect a Leadership Council. The Leadership Council facilitates intraparty communication and moniters party discipline.
I call “bullshit” on this. America already has two pro-defense parties and one of them still gets blamed for weakness, cowardice, and lack of patriotism simply because many in that party do not support a stupid war that kills many American soldiers while making us less rather than more secure. And, they don’t support other stupid things like deploying a missile defense system that doesn’t work.
(1) This war was started by a subversion of democracy by lies and deceptions.
(2) What we are working on now is trying to “win the peace”. Unfortunately, many argue that the presence of American troops does more to make that less likely than it does to help it. You may disagree but that does not mean that these people are guilty of dereliction of duty. Some people here seem to have learned the wrong lessons from Vietnam even after the architects of that war have conceded their folly.
Frankly, if someone is stupid or evil enough to support the Iraq war, I don’t want their support anyway.
Remember Nader ? The various left wing factions are willing to vote for a third party, even if it’s only to make a point and the Democrats lose.
First, if you think the SDMB is “radical left”, then you have no idea of what the radical left is like.
Second, Iraq is already a disaster and a loss. It will take a long time, if ever, to recover from the damage.
No. This is an unjusified war of conquest; they should have opposed it from the beginning, and they should continue to do so, and when it’s over, they should castigate everybody who supported this stupidity.
Opposition to a war of conquest is not the same as pacifism.
IMHO what the Democrats need to do : stop compromising so much, and grow a spine.
