Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats in disarray over national defense...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democrats in disarray over national defense...

    I've never understood why the Democratic Party has been so weak over national defense since Vietnam. At least in years past there were national dem leaders that you could trust on the issue, such as Sam Nunn. But the dems have gotten weaker and weaker, such that the DP seems totally bereft of any serious thought on the matter. Hillary and Lieberman are the only ones that have an ounce of heft and that's more like heft by default.

    Nowadays, all of the serious discussion and healthy disagreement is among Republicans. The Dems aren't even fulfilling their role of loyal opposition.

    So what can the Dems do to be taken seriously on the issue starting right now?

    Pelosi Hails Democrats' Diverse War Stances

    By Dan Balz
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, December 16, 2005; A23

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

    Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq. There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

    "There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors.

    Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her.

    She said her support for Murtha was not intended to forge a Democratic position on the war, adding that she blocked an effort by some of her colleagues to put the Democrats on record backing Murtha.

    Her comments ruling out a caucus position appeared to put Pelosi at odds with some other party officials. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently said Democrats were beginning to coalesce around a strategy that would pull out all troops over the next two years. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on the day Murtha offered his plan, "As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

    Pelosi, one of the most liberal Democrats in the House, opposed the war and, as the senior Democrat on the intelligence committee before the invasion, argued that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States. She served as Democratic whip when Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and she rallied 126 Democratic votes against the measure when then-Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), the Democratic leader, supported the White House.

    Pelosi said she had not consulted with Dean or Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) before taking her position. Her action angered some Democrats, who believed it left the party vulnerable to criticism from the Republicans, but cheered the party's antiwar activists who want party leaders to challenge Bush more vigorously on the war.

    Meanwhile, House Republicans are planning to seek a vote as early as today on a resolution saying that an "artificial timetable" for the withdrawal of troops is "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."

    In a wide-ranging interview, Pelosi labeled the Republican-controlled Congress "the most corrupt in history" and repeated her assertion that Democrats will make ethics a central issue next year. She said that the issue and ethical climate in the country point to Democratic gains next year, and noted that if the elections were held today, Democrats would take control of the House.

    If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina.

    Pelosi said Democrats scored significant victories recently, the biggest coming on Social Security, on which she said Democratic opposition to Bush's proposed private or personal accounts blocked any hopes the White House had for changing the government retirement insurance program this year.

    "Not only did we take him down on that, but we took down a lot of his credibility as being somebody who cared about 'people like me,' " she said.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

  • #2
    I don't understand how the Democrats are "weak" on national defense. Can someone explain this?

    Bush and the Republicans make us weak by invading a country that poses no threat to us, over-extending our military, increasing hatred of America which in turn gives terrorists more recruits, and runs the war with such incompetence that the result is even worse than what would have happened had we left Saddam in power.

    If anything, I think the Democrats diverse war stances reflects how the nation feels. The country (not just the Democratic Party) is in disarray in how to deal with this problem in Iraq that Bush has created.

    I think the Dem's have the right approach to national defense... Wars should be for defense.... key word... DEFENSE... not OFFENSE...

    I remember the good old days... when he had the support of the world, our allies, and oh yeah... a Democrat president.

    But let's not let reality get in the way of DanS's talking points.
    To us, it is the BEAST.

    Comment


    • #3
      I see Dan posted another nonsensical troll thread which exposes his personal bias.

      BTW you simply must be joking. When it comes to healthy debate it is typically the Democrats who have the healthy internal debates while the Republicans have an extremely dogmatic position dictated by the party leadership.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment


      • #4
        All this boils down to is that Democrats are more of a big tent organization instead of the small tent the Republicans have decided to be. That means they have more ideas and a more dynamic debate with in their party though it also means it is much harder for Democrats to decide on one plateform or position. Typically the party breaks down to 3 parts centrist, 2 parts leftist, and 1 part conservative and it is real hard to get all of them to agree on party wide positions so they end up having three positions on any given issue. I'm not sure how this stifles debate or prevents serious discusion as DanS stated earlier. In fact it means Democrats normally have far more debate on the issues compared to the Republicans whose leadership tends to have a my way or the highway approach.

        I don't see how Democrats can be called weak on defense for being the only ones having an honest debate on Iraq policy either. They have a bunch of different views about how to proceed but I guess DanS's brain has been addled by years of right wing talk radio so he thinks debating policy is a sign of weakness.
        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

        Comment


        • #5
          All this boils down to is that Democrats are more of a big tent organization
          No, what this means is that they've decided not to talk about the issue, because every time they open their mouths about the subject, their poll ratings go down.
          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

          Comment


          • #6
            If you don't like reality, change it! me
            "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
            "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
            "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #7
              Life sure is interesting in DanS's world...

              what are Bush's approval ratings now? 42 or so?

              To us, it is the BEAST.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sorry, you failed

                1.1/10

                Comment


                • #9
                  The fact is that the Dems have neither the wherewithall or mantra to provide a coherent strategy on the current war.

                  The Dems were all excited when Murtha started beating his drum about an Iraq pullout. The talk was that this was the time and issue that the Dems were going to rally behind and make the turn. Then Pelosi backed Murtha. Then one of her aides rebuked her claims. Then Dean started spitting fire and brimstone. Then Lieberman said the Dems were nuts for wanting back a quick withdrawal. Then Hillary agreed with Lieberman.

                  Guess what, the Dems are a multiheaded hydra in a car without an engine. They can't agree on any sort of defense issue. Pelosi is a ****ty leader who likes soundbites more than substance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Don't forget about Pomeroy telling Dean to "shut up" about Iraq. And Hillary pilloried for thinking that the Bush policy is roughly correct.

                    But beyond Iraq, the Democratic Party has neither a cohesive message about national defense nor more than a few members who can speak intelligently about the subject as a whole.
                    Last edited by DanS; December 17, 2005, 01:39.
                    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Automatic DanS Post Generator

                      Mix and match any of these sentences:

                      1. Let the good times roll!
                      2. Bush is doing great!
                      3. Bush can't help this, that's not how American government works.
                      4. Why are the Democrats [any crazy thing you can think of]?
                      5. We should look at local officials' faults here.
                      6. [patronizing explanation of American government]
                      7. You obviously think Bush is Satan's messenger to humanity. You are not worth losing my pants to.
                      8. The free market cures every ill!

                      Handy Tip:
                      * In case you accidentally read a description of the real world, ignore it immediately, and go back to your fantasy about everything being so great that the [laid off workers] [New Orleans citizens] [commercial space entrepreneurs] [Republicans] [whatever] are crapping rainbows. This will help you stay true to the real DanS's viewpoint.

                      meet the new boss, same as the old boss

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You guys just can't get over the fact that The Nation can't carry a theme article over two issues. All their "plans" and "strategies" based on Dem propaganda become obsolete the next day on CSPAN.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If the Dems had a larger coherent message, they could use it to paper over the differences they have on individual policies. This is the lesson the GOP learned ages ago, which is why it's now the majority party.

                          But the Dems don't have an overall message. They only have a blizzard of self-contradictory position papers. And when your party position is the sum of the positions of its members, and the members are all over the map, that's not a Big Tent, it's chaos. Put another way, when you stand for pretty near everything...you stand for nothing. That's the problem.
                          "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Interesting analysis, Rufus.

                            Perhaps if the Dems funded a defense policy institute, it would help them craft a coherent message. (Or perhaps they already do, but it is particularly ineffective.)

                            I would be interested in what you think the reason is for a lack of a deep bench on defense matters and how to solve it.
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wow, a lot of knee-jerk reaction to DanS here. If you're going to argue against him, do so intelligently, will you?

                              House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.


                              That's inane.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X