Many Demos are afraid to look weak

[panader0]

They think they cannot be elected or reelected if they follow the Murtha plan of reasonable redeployment. Some say go now, some say that would be a mistake. I say go now. Being there at all is a mistake.

[Dances with Cats]

1. Then they should....

...stop BEING weak!

[Al-CIAda]

15. yes...too late Dems, you are ALREADY seen as weak.

GROW A DAMNED SPINE.

[Yollam]

2. What could look weaker than being a sycophant to an incompetent warmonger?

Making the case for withdrawal in a forceful way does NOT look weak.


(Not that I disagree with the premise of your post.)

[Atman]

3. PUSSY MO FOS!

Bush's approval is in the low thirties! Who do these assholes think they'll offend? Jesus...we really do need a third party. The mainstream Beltway dems have become the party of clueless pussies. I'm 'bout near done with 'em.

[Dances with Cats]

5. Me too!

n/t

[babylonsister]

4. I disagree. I think people are getting really angry at this

admin who is getting caught in so many lies.
The Dems have been on vacation, and are gathering their forces.
And my advice to Dems? Pipe down for awhile and let the indictments, etc., carry on. :evilgrin:

[Dances with Cats]

6. maybe sing a chorus of Kumbaya, too?

N/T.

[babylonsister]

8. Stand the hell by, Dances.

Why would anyone mess up a perfect storm?

[Dances with Cats]

9. Friendly differnece of opinion...

I beleive if they crack the door...kick it IN! PAssivity seems to have gotten teh Demos nowheere in the past. I used to be a pacifist but what I've seen has changed me. Now I'd rather go down swinging. Thanks for the reply, post another if you like.
:-)

[babylonsister]

12. See Lexingtonian's post down thread; that's what I meant!

He stole my words! Not really; I should be so cogent! :)

[eeyore]

7. I think they are afraid to look too ANYTHING...

It seems that many Dems just don't want to rock the boat - not too strong, not too weak. Too strong gets you the Howard Dean treatment from the media. He's Crazy!

It's all about being careful so that no one can hold them accountable come election time.

[Lexingtonian]

10. it's not that easy

The whole 'Democrats are weak on defense' crap that Republicans treat as an article of faith derives from the Party's conflicted and indecisive behavior during Vietnam, and particularly the final phase where the Democrat-controlled Congress did nothing to prevent South Vietnam from falling (when it was in fact inevitable).

Now there's some settling of that score going on. Some Democrats in Congress are willing to sit by and not give cover while the Republicans in Congress have to first fake support for this stupid war, then schism, then turn on their President, and/or take responsibility to the angry voters they lied to for the 2000 killed and $500 billion thrown at the biggest FUBAR in American history. Or not take responsibility and take it in the chin. It kills the 'Republicans are strong on defense' propaganda point forever, in an ironic symmetry to the Democrats of the Nixon/Ford era.

There's another thing, which is that moderate Republicans are on the edge about Iraq. There's nothing Democrats can really say or do to affect their opinion directly. What has to happen for them to walk away from their Party (i.e. the hardliners) is for the last elements of the Bush program for "freedom and democracy" in Iraq to be given their chance to work- and fail. That's the imposition of a constitution (now achieved) and 'free elections' to get the whole machinery running, i.e. the December 15 elections and formation of a government. On December 16 moderate Republicans will start the clock, and three months or so after that, if Iraq is still the hellhole it is now, they throw up their hands and say it's all proven to be crap. Indies did very much the same thing two months or so after the elections this past January, if you recall.

It's safe and electorally very profitable for Democrats who have (or want/need) lots of moderate Republican constituents to walk away from the Bush Iraq policy right at the point they do and to echo their rationale.

As it is, Congressional and other Democrats in vocal opposition can't actually affect Iraq policy, i.e. save money or lives or prisoners- Republican unity and the election result ensure that. There's serious political profit for the Democrats running in swing states/districts or Red states and those with higher ambitions to hold out and not get ahead of moderate Republican voters. They run the risk of alienating partisan Democrats somewhat. But if I were one them, it's an easy choice. I'd do the same, wait out the moderate Republican electorate, and with some additional effort the Democratic activists will let the thing slide in return for the benefits resulting on Election Day.

[emulatorloo]

11. good analysis. . .thank you n/t

[Loonman]

13. Then they are wobbly fucks who should be voted out

Craven shits want to keep their jobs for them, not for their constituents.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Ironically, it only makes them look weaker by backing the occupation.

With one eye on the polls and the other on the fundraisers they show their grit by clinging tenaciously to the middle. And, then they express shock that the people don't trust them.