Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I know is if I hear "stay the course" or "cut and run" any more, I might vomit. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election."

As a Republican I like this strategy for Democrats. Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how some Republicans will always believe that pro-war is the stance the public will love. There's something to be said for nuance, you know. As it stands, anti-war might out perform staunchly pro-war in the midterms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say I was pro-war. I believe Democrats continuing their anti-war stance to try to win elections is a loser. IMO, the time to be anti-war or pro-war is before the war. We are already in the war, and I support the United States Military in that war.

Have a grr-rreat day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, why bother with discourse on a topic that greatly affects the lives of millions of people? Seriously, supporting the military has nothing to do with being anti or pro war.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election."

As a Republican I like this strategy for Democrats. Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how some Republicans will always believe that pro-war is the stance the public will love. There's something to be said for nuance, you know. As it stands, anti-war might out perform staunchly pro-war in the midterms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say I was pro-war. I believe Democrats continuing their anti-war stance to try to win elections is a loser. IMO, the time to be anti-war or pro-war is before the war. We are already in the war, and I support the United States Military in that war.

Have a grr-rreat day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, why bother with discourse on a topic that greatly affects the lives of millions of people? Seriously, supporting the military has nothing to do with being anti or pro war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi!

Seriously, when your military is at war, it does, IMO.

I have said what I wanted to say on this. You can have the last word, if you want it.

Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

How? I can oppose the war and believe that as long as it is being fought we should support our troops.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Link

Cliff's notes on link: A liberal challenger is challenging the incumbent Democrat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. The article notes that the challenger has taken a lead in the polls. The main issue in this race is the perception among CT liberals that Lieberman is too close to the Bush administration and pro-Iraq war.

I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election. 55% of Americans want troops out of Iraq within the next year Link. Some moderate Democrats believe that the "Triangulation" strategy of Bill Clinton to adopt the issues of your opponents to woo centrist voters is the best strategy, while John Kerry and others have become more dovish on the matter. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

A staunchly anti-war stance is a mistake IMO. The majority of America (myself included) was not against the Iraq war at its inception. This says to me two things:
1. American public opinion is not intrinsically against the concept of a pre-emptive strike, or nation-building, or the forcible spreading of democracy to autocratic regimes; and
2. The republican bungling of the war (the sheer number of casualties after the end of "major combat operations," lack of any clear exit strategy, inability to find WMD, inability to install a cohesive government in Iraq, etc. etc.), are what has turned America against the war.

Therefore, just being anti-war for the sake of being anti-war, and adopting a "we must pull the troops out right now and to hell with the consequences" type of attitude is not one that will jive with the majority of American public opinion (or even the majority public opinion in Connecticut, Lieberman may be trailing in the democratic primaries, but he is leading in the polls a hypothetical 3 way race between his democratic challenger and his republican challenger). What I hope the democrats will do is adopt some sort of cohesive strategy, and attack the republicans/Bush on the many ways that they have botched this due to the general incompetence, corruption, and special interests.

Some specific things I'd like to see them go after:

1. No more no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton.
2. Lets value the lives of our troops more than the republicans and actually make sure they are provided for, both physically (such as by supplying them with proper body armor, etc.), and financially (lets stop the republicans from continuously cutting their pay and benefits).
3. Get the damned oil flowing and use it to finance Iraq's security, Americans shouldn't be paying for this for the next 20 years.
4. Start actually listening to the generals on the ground in Iraq (assuming the words of recently retired generals is an indication of what is being said by current generals).
5. And maybe set some sort of timetable for a pullout, by stepping up the training of Iraqi forces, provided that it can be done strategically (and not just campaigning for on an arbitrary pullout date).

However, the caveat to this is that, if Iraq does break down into an all out civil war anytime soon (and this is looking increasingly likely), then I, and I think the majority of the American public, would probably favor giving up and pulling it out. We eventually had to admit defeat in Vietnam, and we may be destined to do the same in Iraq.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I believe the Democrats will offer a pull-out proposal this year, as will some, but not the majority of Republicans. In fact they've pretty much ironed it out.

Iraq has degenerated past the point of repair - just as Global warming is now becoming a priority for both parties because of the dangers involved, no serious Democratic candidate can continue to proclaim his allegiance to the war-profit machine and hope to keep his seat. And the ol "cut and run" line doesn't work when our troops are flat out in the center of an escalating Civil War.

Hence Lamont is pounding the heck out of Lieberman in the primaries - most Democrats don't want anything to do with a "Fox News Democrat"

and I don't think Hillary will run - too many good ol' boys want a shot at this - I doubt she can win and so do the Dems' - so I consider virtually all discussion about Hillary in '08 to be moot - might as well discuss MY presidental chances.

RB

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Seriously, is global warming now an issue in US Politics? I was under the impression is still treated as an unsubstantiated phenomenon as far as US official policy and so by both major parties, and only ever treated seriously by Ralph Nader's party (sorry, can't remember what it was called).

(I'm so outside the realm of politics it's untrue, but I do understand pollution and Global Warming, so this specific issues piqued by interest.)

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

it has become a top priority for many of their base in the Theocratic Right - 70% I believe is the correct figure.

to the point Pat Roberston did a 180 this week.

RB

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election."

As a Republican I like this strategy for Democrats. Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

as a democrat so do I - I especially think the beating that Lieberman will take in the Primaries will do a lot to solidify the Democratic base around an Anti-War platform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14208157/

I'd give up a nut if it would ensure Russ Feingold would get the Presidental nomination. He's the best the Dem's have, IMHO at this time.

RB

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election."

As a Republican I like this strategy for Democrats. Have a great day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

as a democrat so do I - I especially think the beating that Lieberman will take in the Primaries will do a lot to solidify the Democratic base around an Anti-War platform.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14208157/

I'd give up a nut if it would ensure Russ Feingold would get the Presidental nomination. He's the best the Dem's have, IMHO at this time.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

If the democrats want to win, they'll nominate someone like Warner (who would easily carry VA, and with it, the election). Unfortunately, its mostly the kooks who vote in the primaries (in both parties, see McCain in the Repub primaries of '00, or Lieberman in the Dem primaries of '04), which is why you get such ultra-lefties and ultra-righties for candidates.