Full Version: Democrats, Iraq & Vietnam...
Ever since Ned Lamont won the Democratic Primary in Connecticut, there has been talk of the anti-war movement and how it could possibly influence the Democratic Party in unseemly ways for the 2006 election (and possibly 2008). The easiest historical reference is 1972 and McGovern vs. Nixon.
A pretty decent analysis by David Greenberg in Slate looks at this possibility.
snip...
I put this topic in political debate, as opposed to Democratic Party only because I'd like the opinions of those across the aisle and beyond. However, I would ask folks to stay constructive on this topic and keep the Michael Moore/George Soros rants to a minimum
Questions for Debate:
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
A pretty decent analysis by David Greenberg in Slate looks at this possibility.
QUOTE
Many liberals today—rightly disturbed by the shrillness of some of Lamont's supporters and the high profile he's given to demagogues like Al Sharpton—fear the Democratic Party could reprise its blunder of 1972. That year it nominated the ultra-dovish South Dakota Sen. George McGovern for president, commencing an era of crippling neo-isolationism and compounding the party's already-debilitating image as indulgent toward extremists on the left.
snip...
QUOTE
Similarly, there exist today many strains of anti-war opinion. Only a minority of critics of the war would endorse the left-wing maximalism now gaining so much attention in the news media. Indeed, a broad consensus now thinks the Iraq war was a mistake—even if no one can agree on what to do about it. The ground has shifted, and the times favor candidates who make a priority of bringing peace. At a similar point in the Vietnam War, no less a politician than Richard Nixon had figured that out.
I put this topic in political debate, as opposed to Democratic Party only because I'd like the opinions of those across the aisle and beyond. However, I would ask folks to stay constructive on this topic and keep the Michael Moore/George Soros rants to a minimum
Questions for Debate:
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
The Dems lose because they dont go on the offensive EVER!
They are always playing either catch up or damage control.
All they can say is
Bush Bad
you would think by now they would know it dont work
How about a plan? anything that they would do that will work where Bush has failed.
When they call the dems frinds of terrorists shoot back with they help by creating division in the country and trying to frighten citizens so bad they are afraid of shadows--and how this helps the terrorists acheive their goal.
How about that withdrawal of troops is not isolationism--not by a long shot
anything but the sad peeps they make now
and for the record Reid and Pelosi are FAR from inspiring
They are always playing either catch up or damage control.
All they can say is
Bush Bad
you would think by now they would know it dont work
How about a plan? anything that they would do that will work where Bush has failed.
When they call the dems frinds of terrorists shoot back with they help by creating division in the country and trying to frighten citizens so bad they are afraid of shadows--and how this helps the terrorists acheive their goal.
How about that withdrawal of troops is not isolationism--not by a long shot
anything but the sad peeps they make now
and for the record Reid and Pelosi are FAR from inspiring
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
No, that is not a real concern. The Democratic party has never shown must interest in giving voice to any opinions from the 'extreme' left. That people are even entertaining such a silly notion is due to the media's prostituting itself to authority, and leaving unquestioned the constant, spurious claims of the right-center and right-wing (the two voices heard in the mainstream media) to this effect. I suppose one could say they are at risk of appearing to be controlled by the far left, but that would be because of the widespread voice conservative polemicists are given in our media.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
None of us really know. Of course any intelligent person who cares to delve into this with any depth can see that the vast majority of people who oppose this war are not isolationists. The majority of people in this country do not approve of this war. It is possible that many voters will be fooled by the ever-repeating pronouncements equating the anti-war movement with isolationism from the weak-kneed media, but hopefully not too many.
No, that is not a real concern. The Democratic party has never shown must interest in giving voice to any opinions from the 'extreme' left. That people are even entertaining such a silly notion is due to the media's prostituting itself to authority, and leaving unquestioned the constant, spurious claims of the right-center and right-wing (the two voices heard in the mainstream media) to this effect. I suppose one could say they are at risk of appearing to be controlled by the far left, but that would be because of the widespread voice conservative polemicists are given in our media.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
None of us really know. Of course any intelligent person who cares to delve into this with any depth can see that the vast majority of people who oppose this war are not isolationists. The majority of people in this country do not approve of this war. It is possible that many voters will be fooled by the ever-repeating pronouncements equating the anti-war movement with isolationism from the weak-kneed media, but hopefully not too many.
Who knows, if we stayed in Vietnam we could have won in fifty years or something, then you could hold basic training there on various bases...
Anyway, besides that point, its kind of the same in it was the spread of communism, now we have radical Islamic terrorists, and Iraq which is a Vietnam.
Last time I checked though, none of the main talking points from the democrats are simply just about retreating, they could just come out and say that though, and I imagine still get a lot of votes on that one. The reality is they do advocate alteration to the current course of action though, but of course the current administration and its media puppets wont really talk about this, just that democrats are terrorists and want to hide in a cave somewhere while they bomb us. The fact of the matter is democrats still very much want to combat terrorism, but they have issues with Iraq, I do too, and to be honest, I don’t want to wait fifty years to pull out, I don’t want to wait another day really, the civil war is going on regardless, its the same old story in relation to the insurgents and ieds and troops dying, and a government that cant get anything going. Sure, lets just wait, and wait and wait, and then in fifty years when we pull out, it will be the fault of the democrats, boy that’s an easy out.
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
No, you could say the same thing of the right at this point, so it will be slander like usual, just will be more visible because Iraq is making people more aware of the world.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
NO, its really just anti Iraq war, which I think more and more people will begin to favor. Its not because of the sacrifice either, I think its because people think that its sacrifice for little to nothing in return, or a better day.
Anyway, besides that point, its kind of the same in it was the spread of communism, now we have radical Islamic terrorists, and Iraq which is a Vietnam.
Last time I checked though, none of the main talking points from the democrats are simply just about retreating, they could just come out and say that though, and I imagine still get a lot of votes on that one. The reality is they do advocate alteration to the current course of action though, but of course the current administration and its media puppets wont really talk about this, just that democrats are terrorists and want to hide in a cave somewhere while they bomb us. The fact of the matter is democrats still very much want to combat terrorism, but they have issues with Iraq, I do too, and to be honest, I don’t want to wait fifty years to pull out, I don’t want to wait another day really, the civil war is going on regardless, its the same old story in relation to the insurgents and ieds and troops dying, and a government that cant get anything going. Sure, lets just wait, and wait and wait, and then in fifty years when we pull out, it will be the fault of the democrats, boy that’s an easy out.
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
No, you could say the same thing of the right at this point, so it will be slander like usual, just will be more visible because Iraq is making people more aware of the world.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
NO, its really just anti Iraq war, which I think more and more people will begin to favor. Its not because of the sacrifice either, I think its because people think that its sacrifice for little to nothing in return, or a better day.
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
Our foreign policy is on a disastorous course. The Republican Party is in the control of all 3 branches of government and dominated by elements that would have considered extreme right a few decades ago. If the Democratic Party is to provide an effective alternative, it has to give voice to opposition to the war as well as connecting the costs of the war to the economic issues important to its traditional constituencies. Ned Lamont was able to do this effectively. Most "extreme" anti-war advocates recognize the need to bridge gaps between various interest groups. The real problem is whether the leaders like Hillary Clinton recognize the need to give voice to a real alternative to the chaos we have generated in Iraq and the Middle East generally. There is risk that an open stance against the war may scare off some of the corporate funding that is needed for an effective campaign. On the other hand, grass roots outrage will generate a significant pool of funds if the message is solid and corporate interests will be trying to cover their backsides in case the Democrats win against a discredited Republican Party.
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
See #1.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
I would say no because 60% of them now oppose the war themselves. Besides, most people oppose to the war and inclined to vote democratic are not isolationist but believe in multi-laterism and not neocon unilateralism! There are some isolationists in the anti-war movement but they are mostly Libertarian or Paleoconservatives.
Our foreign policy is on a disastorous course. The Republican Party is in the control of all 3 branches of government and dominated by elements that would have considered extreme right a few decades ago. If the Democratic Party is to provide an effective alternative, it has to give voice to opposition to the war as well as connecting the costs of the war to the economic issues important to its traditional constituencies. Ned Lamont was able to do this effectively. Most "extreme" anti-war advocates recognize the need to bridge gaps between various interest groups. The real problem is whether the leaders like Hillary Clinton recognize the need to give voice to a real alternative to the chaos we have generated in Iraq and the Middle East generally. There is risk that an open stance against the war may scare off some of the corporate funding that is needed for an effective campaign. On the other hand, grass roots outrage will generate a significant pool of funds if the message is solid and corporate interests will be trying to cover their backsides in case the Democrats win against a discredited Republican Party.
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
See #1.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
I would say no because 60% of them now oppose the war themselves. Besides, most people oppose to the war and inclined to vote democratic are not isolationist but believe in multi-laterism and not neocon unilateralism! There are some isolationists in the anti-war movement but they are mostly Libertarian or Paleoconservatives.
Questions for Debate:
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
Certainly the left wing of the Party is in control. Dean , Kennedy etc. To say that most Americans are not this far left IMO is an understatement.
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
Not possible with idiots Like Teddy K and Dean making statements that are designed to polarize the debate and get votes in the Nov. election.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
Not sure although I would say that American all across the political spectrum (including me) are looking for policies that keep us out of conflicts that are not strongly driven by vital interests. Lets let the UN and the EU carry the load for a while.
1) Is the Democratic Party at risk of appearing to be controlled by its extreme elements in the 2006 election? Why or Why not?
Certainly the left wing of the Party is in control. Dean , Kennedy etc. To say that most Americans are not this far left IMO is an understatement.
2) If yes to #1, how can the Democratic Party manage the message to negate such appearances?
Not possible with idiots Like Teddy K and Dean making statements that are designed to polarize the debate and get votes in the Nov. election.
3) Do voters equate the present anti-war movement with a desire for isolationism? Why or why not?
Not sure although I would say that American all across the political spectrum (including me) are looking for policies that keep us out of conflicts that are not strongly driven by vital interests. Lets let the UN and the EU carry the load for a while.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.