Dems Strong on Security Said to be "Moving Right."

[NightOwwl]

Why is it that when Democrats want to strengthen our security they are said to be "moving to the right of Republicans" or "moving to the right of Bush."

Didn't the Democrat=Peacenik phase end about 35 years ago?

Democrats are business people, students, teachers, doctors, homemakers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and so much more.

I am sick and tired of being compartmentalized by the pundits, the journalists and every member of this corrupt Bushco/Republican Administration.

Being strong on security and being a liberal/progressive are not mutually exclusive.

:banghead: End of rant.

[Voltaire99]

1. What does "strengthen our security" mean to you?

Would you mind explaining?

And further: do you view the present expenditure on our military as adequate or inadequate? Also: what's your position on Iraq?

Without knowing those answers, I can't really place you on any political spectrum let alone judge whether you are "moving to the right." The sneer at "peaceniks" is something of a hint, but in the spirit of progressive collegiality let's see what you have to say, first.

[NightOwwl]

2. Wow. uh..ok

1. Strengthen our security was in reference to Dems pushing to strengthen port security.

2. Expenditures - see #3

3. I was NEVER for this incredibly stupid and unecessary war. Any money spent is money that could be better spent here.

Where do you get that I was sneering when I used the word Peacenik? For god's sake...my Mom was a peacenik.

Does that answer your questions?

[Voltaire99]

3. Wow, what?

It's not as if I asked you where you leave the keys to the house, my good fellow.

I read "Didn't the Democrat=Peacenik phase end about 35 years ago?" as a sneer. It shouldn't be too mysterious why: "peacenik" started its life as a derogatory term used to bash the anti-war left. Ask your mom. Anyway, I see now you didn't mean it that way.

Unfortunately, "security" is an ambiguous term in our politics. One person's security is another's invasion--or unchecked military spending, torture, or spying on citizens. So that's why I asked--to understand you.

Your concern was perceptions about the party moving right. Military expenditures and the Iraq war, in fact, are two areas that actually do represent a rightward shift within the Democratic party and especially for its leadership.

Anyway, sure, the port security issue is critical, and I guess if Dems are being criticized as moving right for wanting it, that's going to be irritating to some. Anyone making that charge hasn't been paying attention: the shift has already occurred.

[annabanana]

4. "Said to be"..... by whom?

Who said Dems were moving "right" when they insisted that ports are not secure enough? What a load...