I think Manhattan’s absolutely correct.
The Democrats have to stop being correct, and start pandering to the lowest common denominator on terrorism. The American public doesn’t want to hear about the best way to actually fight terrorism based on past history, they want to hear that the troops are kicking butt Rambo-style.
Once the Democrats are in power, they can do whatever they want to, and just keep telling the public that the troops are out there kicking butt, Rambo-style.
Not sure about what the Dems should do about terrorism but you might try ditching the condescending attitude. When you come out with statements and assumptions like:
*Bolding mine.
This kind of thing does not make people pro-Democratic party the next time around.
Regards
Testy
I think that the Democratic position on terrorism should be once every 5 or 6 years to lob a couple of tomahawk missiles somewhere near a terrorist camp that may or may not be abandoned and call it a day.
The Democratic Party’s position on Islamic terrorism should be the same as its position on any kind of terrorism - it should denounce terrorism in any and all forms and support efforts to combat it (stopping it completely is an impossibility).
The steps needed to combat Islamic terrorism have to include not only armed conflict aimed at readily identifiable targets (versus those efforts aimed at regimes that we don’t happen to support just because they don’t agree with our views on “truth, justice and the American way”), BUT also steps to addressing the underlying issue that gives rise to most of the hatred Islamic fundamentalists feel toward America to begin with (our lack of strong leadership in brokering some sort of begrudging peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians).
I don’t really see that there’s much doubt about what the position should be - how you implement your position through your foreign policy is the difference between the parties.
Thank you, rfgdxm. I thought for sure I would have to dig through old posts to find an example to back up my claim. You saved me the trouble.
This is such a delightfully ambiguous statement that it is equally accurate to say “few of its members agree with the sentiments expressed above.” It is meaningless.
If there was any truth to your assertion about what I’ve said, I’d be all agog with shame, but as there isn’t, I’m only puzzled why you think such a weak point is important. I do think the term “Chickenhawk War” accurately describes the Iraqi occupation, but I don’t think there’s any point in getting into a debate into the nuances of how hypocritical its supporters are, because the real point is that it appeals to the gucks – we’re calling Bush and Cheney and their cronies a bunch of CHICKENS, and everybody knows what that means. And we can make it STICK too, by simple repitition. The term “Chickenhawk War” forces the Pubbies to get all nuanced, trying to explain how “service” in the Air National Guard during Vietnam made Bush a strong war leader.
But why don’t you go over to the other thread if you want to talk about that – maybe it’s because you know you don’t have any arguments with legs to work with in this thread?
As for your prescriptions, I think they’re bad medicine for the Dems. Kerry had plenty of cred – he served in COMBAT in Vietnam, he knows what war is. His problem is, he attempted a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of the war on terrorism, and the gucks didn’t have the attention span to hear or understand it. What the Dems need is to say something like what has already been said earlier in this thread: “Our boys are KICKING ASS in Iraq. And they’re gonna KEEP ON kicking ass in Iraq until it’s safe for democracy!”
No need to go into any nuanced details about minor differences concerning when Iraq is safe for Democracy and when it isn’t. That’s unimportant in election year politics. The thoughtful will read this sort of stuff online, the gucks would never understand it anyway.
No, it’s not.
If you called 1,000 random Americans and read them rfgdxm’s statement, and asked, “Of the Democrats and the Republicans, which party more closely identifies with the statement you just heard?” I am willing to bet that the Democrats would win the poll with substantial margins.
Quite the reverse, IIRC. Buchanan quit the GOP when he decided they’d never be isolationist enough for his taste.
I’ve been trying to think of *any * extremists, or hate groups, that the GOP has repudiated since embarking on the 1968 Southern Strategy of catering to white racists. Perhaps you can name a few?
Cite?
Note carefully that this board is devoted to fighting ignorance/ You and manny are gloatingly happy that your guys won, you can forgive any amount of lying or distortion required to do it, and the results so far have been disastrous. Perhaps you’d feel more comfortable on a board devoted to celebrating ignorance instead? BTW, manny, who are you referring to when you say “pro-terrorists” in the context of US domestic politics, anyway? Please be explicit if you want to be considered to be “debating”.
Reread plnnr’s last - that sums up the OP’s question nicely.
Exactly. The OP’s position is: Republicans WANT terrorism to exist. In fact they purposely encourage terrorism in order to instill fear in Americans. Anyone who votes Republican (or at least for Bush) is stupid.
With a position such as that, you don’t need to worry about what your stance on Islamic terror is-- you’ve already lost the majority of Americans.
What is intensely ironic about the OP, however, is how often he likes to talk about mouth foaming hatred on the right.
I don’t see any amount of sympathy that can reasonably be called “a lot,” maybe you need to take off those Republican-tinted glasses when you read posts. Maybe you’re talking about all the posts where it’s been pointed out that when Americans kill Iraqi civilians, even when they’re doing their best just to get terrorists, it makes Iraqis mad at us … I wouldn’t call that sympathy, it’s just common sense.
Any of a zillion polls showing the Dems are considered weaker on homeland security and terror issues.
And my thought experiment above. Answer that question honestly. If 1,000 people were polled, what would the results be?
Heh heh heh. YOU THINK the results have been disastrous. I think they’ve been great.
Your opinion was wrong before the election - what makes you think it’s right now?
An unimportant point, guckwise. The gucks probably don’t even know what MoveOn is, much less what positions they advocate. Their response would be, “MoveON! KICKASS name! What do they do?”
And the Dem response is, “They support our Democratic contender who wants to KiCK ASS in Iraq until Democracy is safe.”
You can’t overestimate how dumb the debate has to be to win with the gucks.
It’s right here in this thread! We’ve got a poster (on the left, no doubt) saying he supports insurgents killing US troops. The Conservative posters such as myself are outraged by it and I don’t see any Liberals even noticing it. I’d certainly say that wishing them luck in killing US troops can be considered “a lot” of sympathy.
Eh? You have identified all of the people currently engaged in fighting in Iraq and are able to individually isolate their motives?
It’s really quite simple, people who are fighting an insurgency against a force who have invaded their country are not engaged in terrorism. If more people could grasp that fact, this discussion could then return to attitudes towards actual terrorism. Which is a suprisingly easy issue to agree on in the main…
I also support the rights of the citizens of an invaded country to take up arms against the invaders. Do you not?
Um, the conservatives have a point here, rfgdxm. Saying things like this just plays into the Bush camp’s position. If you wanna see a Pubbie elected in 2008, and more in the Senate and House in 2006, keep saying things like that. You may believe them to be true, but the last election clearly showed that the unvarnished truth is not the way to power.
the correct way to put your complaint now is, “The Iraqis resist now because they’ve been blown up so much and it makes 'em resentful, but once they get True Democracy, all will be well.”
The funny thing is, I don’t see many of the Dems on the board coming out and saying how appalled at this statement they are. And I KNOW that many of the Dems on this board realize that the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq aren’t really targetting US troops anymore…but car-bombing, assassinating, suicide bombing CIVILIANS. Only an idiot who isn’t paying any attention to the news would fail to notice who is taking the lions share of the casualties these days in Iraq…namely the Iraqi citizens. And yet…where is the outrage from the left about statements like this? Where is the call to try and fight his ignorance…from the left? I know that many of the leftists/Dems on this board don’t agree with this statement…yet, I don’t hear anything from them. This sort of gives a certain impression…no?
And the award for the biggest pile of steaming horseshit in an OP goes to…
The Dems are perceived as weak on terrorism because of a small minority of VERY vocal people on their side re-enforces the image that they are weak, against any kind of action at all, etc. Frankly I don’t think the Dems CAN do anything about this perception except ride it out and hope the whole terrorist thing just goes away and other issues come to the fore. Or, hope the Republicans fuck up SO bad that people are forced to turn to the Dems as the only alternative. I have serious doubts that the Dems will cut loose their more vocal anti-war element, or the more fevered factions in their party, so thats not really an option. I seriously doubt that, as a party, they will move to a more centrist stance, so thats really not an option either. I guess they are going to just have to wait and see what happenes…balls in the Republicans court and its their game to win or lose. The Dems are like that team every year in the NFL hoping someone will lose so they can get the wildcard slot…
-XT
Those are not Manhattan’s sentiment’s they are mine, and I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.
But no-one has given any indication of being in anyway supportive of those actions.