|
were going to kiss and make up(their last message was good!), they come out with this crap. The first part of the message is just a DLC "centrist" sales pitch from an email, which is unfortunate given the timing, seeing as how we're all trying to GET ALONG this week. But it's the references to a paper by Will Marshall that really burns me up. This is the guy that signed the PNAC "Statement on Post War Iraq", and you can feel his imperialist tendencies throughout. Now, I've got no major problems with Mr. Kerry- I am confident he is smart enough to run things well- but I do NOT need Will Marshall, this week, trying to divide us and push us around. So I'm pushing back. (Mods, I can find no copyright info on the DLC site. Besides, I think they would like nothing more than to have their stuff copied freely. Nevertheless, I hesitate to post this anyway, because we are all supposed to be singing Kum-Bya-Yah this week, so dump it if you want to anyway.) From the NDOL email: "Kerry has a historic opportunity to do for Democrats on national security what Bill Clinton did for his party on domestic policy: jettison old ideological baggage, embrace innovation and reform, and occupy the vital center of American politics," Which would be fine if we could identify "the center". Because if "the center" doesn't exist on it's own, to a lot of people it is basically wherever Rush Limbaugh says it is. "As the nominee, he can return the party to its greatest tradition of tough-minded internationalism This is code for imperialism. If you doubt this, go read here: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.phpThe key is for Democrats to appeal to both their liberal base and moderates at the same time Pretty hard to appeal to the liberal base while talking about imperialism.From http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252795&kaid=450004&subid=900020By returning to his party's first principles -- a strong defense, consistent support for economic and political freedom around the world, and energetic U.S. leadership for collective security -- Kerry can lead Democrats out of a 30-year funk of ambivalence The last 12 of which have been while you claim to have been setting the agenda Will!!It is this double-edged experience that enables Kerry to speak with unique authority to both sides of the schism that Vietnam opened among Democrats and that continues to weaken them to this day. Now, is it just me, or is it weird that he refers to Democrats as "them"? This appears in the DLC newsletter! It's FOR Dems! Isn't it? And also, the main "schism" related to Iraq is that some of us (Dems) bought the lies, and some of us didn't. That's hardly a "schism". We just have to agree on how to get out of this mess. Kerry and other "Blair Democrats" backed the Iraq war resolution to strengthen Bush's hand in pressing the United Nations to enforce its mandates against Saddam Hussein. But Howard Dean vaulted to an early lead in the primaries when he attacked Democrats for supporting "George Bush's unilateral war." In the end, though, Dean's campaign fizzled, as even liberal anti-war voters in Iowa and New Hampshire saw Kerry as a more credible challenger to Bush. First of all, I thought the UN was proceeding along pretty well before the war resolution. Second, cheap shot against Dean. My recollection is that Dean was leading in Iowa right up until the week of the caucus, when suddenly, Gephardt started attacking the Deanster, and Kerry, who wasn't even going to compete in Iowa due to lack of money, suddenly jumped in, and also contributed people to a group that also attacked Dean. Then Edwards and Kucinich(!) made a deal regarding delegates! This all had NOTHING to do with the DLC, I'm sure. The DLC would not have worked against a legitimate Dem, would they? Finally, Marshall makes no distinction between "anti-war" voters, and "anti-THIS-war" voters. Bah.Still, some unresolved questions were left lingering in the air: At bottom, are Democrats the anti-war party -- the McGovern party -- or are they the party of muscular internationalists like John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman? This is conservative-speak 101. As if there are only 2 choices. I am confident Kerry is smarter than this. I hope he tells Marshall to get lost.But the rift over Iraq -- and the underlying lack of consensus about the uses of U.S. power that it reflects -- expose the party's soft political underbelly. Hey, thanks for bringing that up Will, during CONVENTION WEEK. Not that it's even true anyway. The only reason (or at least the main reason) there is a lack of consensus is because some were taken in by the lies, and now find it difficult to admit the mistake. There, I said it. And I can say it because it doesn't really matter now. We are here, and we must find a way forward. I think there is a broad, nearly unanimous even, consensus that we need to change our policies in such a way that we can attract allies to help with Iraq, turn it over to the UN as soon as possible, and get out, at least to a large degree. This will also involve developing alternative energy sources. I would say the loudest voice who opposes this is the PNAC. In any case, the US at this point is the WORST entity to be trying to make a peace there. To Republicans, Kerry's balancing act is just another straddle, another example of his alleged tendency to take both sides of every issue. But considering how Bush's black-and-white certitudes have led America astray in Iraq, the United States may be ready for a leader who has grappled seriously with the moral complexities of counter-insurgency and war. In fact, Democrats should dare Republicans to argue that a supple and searching intellect is a disqualification for the White House. Well it's certainly no disqualification for being President of the PPP. I mean, the right couldn't ask for better talking points. And the hypocrisy is disappointing too. Pointing out Bush's "black-and-white certitudes' while at the same time painting all non-imperialist Democrats as "anti-war".Late last year, for example, as Kerry lagged far behind Dean in Iowa, Jim Rassmann, a soldier Kerry fished out of a river during a fierce firefight in 1969 and had not seen since then, flew to Iowa to vouch for the man who had saved his life. The emotional bond Kerry forged with his Vietnam "band of brothers" made it easier for voters to warm to the otherwise grave and reserved senator and helped to spark his come-from-behind victory. Is this supposed to be a shot at Dean? Why is Dean even mentioned here? This point could be made (and better) without naming him. Will, you won. Get over it. Move on.In the past, Democrats often have appeared anxious to change the subject to domestic politics, as in 2002, when they tried to shift the focus of the midterm election debate from national security to Social Security. This is way out of line. Public opinion at the time was something like 75-85% in support of Bush security issues. And isn't Daschle your man? Where was he that summer? Oh yeah, he got an anthrax letter. Also, note that "Democrats" are different from the DLC apparently. Who was it that didn't want to talk about national security in 2002 if it wasn't the DLC? And why are Democrats referred to as "they" again?This shift signaled a Democratic Party coming to terms with America's inescapable pre-eminence and global responsibilities, overcoming its reflexive aversion to military intervention, and being willing to use U.S. power to reinvigorate the idea of collective security. Bullshit! A reflexive aversion to WAR is a GOOD THING, and we have NOT overcome it. Doesn't mean we won't fight. Just means we won't fight unless necessary. Got it? Striking the right balance between force and diplomacy is a recurrent theme in Kerry's thinking on foreign affairs. It is what led him to back the Iraq war resolution, while lambasting Bush's halfhearted and ultimately futile effort to build a broader coalition for disarming Saddam Hussein. Republicans say Kerry is trying to have it both ways, but, in fact, his stance puts him much closer than Bush's to the majority opinion on Iraq. Most Americans are instinctive internationalists. They favor a tough policy toward rogue
dictators like Saddam, but they also grasp the strategic value of strong alliances. Kerry's task is to reassure them that what his opponents call a case of terminal equivocation is actually an approach to defending America that is tough and smart rather than tough and dumb. This is so sad it makes me almost cry. These are the people in charge. I'm going to paraphrase here (and I am not being critical of Kerry, I have high hopes for him. It is dweebs like Marshall who are in a position to put these words in his mouth that I am coming to despise). Kerry's "balance" is what led him to give Bush a BLANK CHECK to go to war. Right. Then more right wing talking points/food. Then we are told that Kerry's Iraq policy is better because it is majority opinion? Wasn't supporting the war resolution "majority opinion"? Kerry has to DO THE RIGHT THING, and then sell it to make it majority opinion if it is not. Why do I read "tough and smart" as meaning, "I still think we should have attacked Iraq, we just would have come up with a better excuse"?To anti-war Democrats, Kerry can offer reassurance of a different kind… Without shying from the use of force, he would undoubtedly set the bar higher than... Talk about trying to have it both ways! And I would imagine this is not at all reassuring to "anti-war" Democrats.Arguing that nations with accountable governments are less likely to foment internal violence or external aggression, Democrats also have made expanding the community of democracies a strategic imperative. Whoa! "Strategic imperative"? What does that mean? Sounds a lot like 'democracy whether you want it or not"!Bush has appropriated the democracy rationale in a bid to shore up faltering public support for his Iraq policy. Rather than criticize him for overreaching and counsel more "realistic" goals, as Kerry has done, a better tack would be to argue that it is too late for Bush to be a credible champion of democracy. Why is Will Marshall, co-founder of the DLC, President of the PPP, Guru to Presidents, publicly criticizing our nominee during the week of the CONVENTION!? Did he not get invited onto the platform committee? Pissed because he can't cross the picket lines to go to the parties? Shameful.Marshall is making a serious mistake by not distinguishing between anti-war Democrats and anti-THIS-war Democrats. I suspect that there are many more of the latter, and yet he treats us all as the former. But then again, it may not be a mistake at all. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
