Sen Bayh, former DLC Chairman, attacks Democrats in Iowa

[bvar22]

Senator Evan Bayh, using the newly issued DLC Talking points from last weeks convention, opened the DLC attack on mainstream Democrats by adopting Republican Talking Points and reinforcing the Republican propaganda that the Democratic party is weak on National Security. This campaign is cleverly crafted so that if DLC Democrats are not elected, the seat will go to a Pro-Corporate Republican instead of a Democratic contender.

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/2609653p-11068999c.html


There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REINFORCE the Republican Talking Points and repeat the Republican LIES.

If BAYH had been a Democrat, he would have simply addressed the Republican LIE by calling it a LIE and pointing out that the Democratic party:

* WINS WARS, and the Republican Party LOSES WARS!

* That the Democratic Party is led by heroes who SERVED in the Armed Forces, and the Republican Party is led by cowards and War Profiteers!

*That is is time to face REALITY and call the Iraq Occupation a HUGE FAILURE and FIRE those responsible for the FAILURE!

BUT NOOOOO! Bayh attacks the Democratic Party!!!!
Thanks Bayh!
Thanks DLC!!!!

[Mojambo]

1. Yeah, it's the left that's tearing the party apart...

:eyes:

Bayh and the DLC can blow me.

[Cha]

73. In my case..

they can go fuck themselves..dickcheney style.

[tavalon]

150. I'm terribly irony impaired tonight

I was going to argue that the DLC isn't the left. And then I reread your post. We're on the same page. The DLC may be slightly left of the Rethugs, but sometimes I wonder.

[Lerkfish]

2. I'm SHOCKED!

[mitchtv]

3. Howard Dean Speaks for me

give this guy a "leiberman award" have Dianne Feinstein present it.He must be Shunned

[still_one]

6. Howard speaks for me

if the DLC thinks this will win them elections they are in for a big surprise. We have been screwed enough, and I will vote for a third party before I vote for someone who gave * the authority to go into Iraq and who says we have to stay until the job is done. Do it with your kids DLC

[Capn Sunshine]

30. Howard speaks for the DNC

and he thinks the DLC is a legend in their own minds.
The DLC lost control of things several years ago, and no amount of posturing or blowhard warmongering will change that.

[Eloriel]

103. And Dean's election as DNC Chair was the logical conclusion

to that process.

Listen to the Capn, folks. He knows whereof he speaks.

[still_one]

4. Now I know where he stands

I will not support anyone who voted to give * the authority to go to war, or anyone who doesn't get us out of Iraq!!!

[joemurphy]

5. Evan Bayh stinks

He was with Gephardt in the Rose Garden schmoozing with Bush working out a "compromise" on the Iraq War Resolution while Kennedy and Byrd were trying to stop the War. He voted for the War and has backed it
every step of the way.

If he thinks he's going to be the Democratic choice for President in 2008, he should re-think.

It's time we ignore this crap about being "soft" on national security. Who the fuck is anti-national security? The issue is how we get it. Pulling out of Iraq might be a reasonable first step.

[bvar22]

7. Bayh MUST promote the War.

The Corporate financiers of the DLC demand it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. BAYH GO CHENEY YOURSELF!!!!...

[LittleClarkie]

9. The Republicans talk a good game

but they don't walk the walk.

If people are only listening and not otherwise paying attention, they buy it.

[LittleClarkie]

10. It is not a lie to make the point about voter perception

regardless of reality, if voters aren't convinced that we're strong on national defense, it doesn't matter what the truth is.

He's talking about how we're seen, not who we are.

He's not saying we're weak. Just that we have to convince voters of that facts to win.

What's the matter with that?

[flpoljunkie]

13. Most Democrats supported this war in Iraq, when they should have stood up

and said, "Hell, no!" Democrats should have demanded that we hunt down and kill or capture Osama bin Laden--something our former Senator Bob Graham, was courageous enough to say in the run up to the war in Iraq.


Taking the nation to an unnecessary and unjust war is not being a "good steward of the Nation's security"--and this is exactly what Dubya and his neocon cabal did.

________________________________

"Unless the American people know that we will be good stewards of the nation's security, they're unlikely to trust us with anything else," said the two-term Indiana senator. "That's a very important threshold we have to get over."

[n2doc]

14. we are only seen this way because of people like Bayh

Who endlessly whine about how the dems have to be more like the pukes and how we are driving people away. If he can't stand up for his party who can he stand up for? The dems are, in my opinion, full of "leaders" ready at every turn to moan about how their party has "lost its way" and is "losing voters". They seem ashamed to be democrats. Why would anyone vote for a democrat if all they hear from them is how they just can't be enough like republicans?? You do not see Repukes talking about how their party is having problems getting blue state voters, do you? NO-it is people like Bayh who are driving folks away from the Dems. Give people a choice, dammit. Repuke lite is a failure, proven over and over.

[bvar22]

15. No, repeating a misperception is not a lie.

I wonder how that LIE became a widespread accepted reality?
ANSWER: Because it was repeated SO MANY TIMES.


Citing and reinforcing this perception may NOT be a lie, but it hurt the Democratic Party because he didn't call it a LIE or offer direct rebuttal.
It was also an attack on the Mainstream members of the Democratic Party who do NOT support the escalation of the war in Iraq and an expansion of the military.

He did LIE here:
"We've got a few voices out there who would be a little bit more on the fringe," Bayh said. "Unfortunately, too often they define the entire party."

The MAJORITY of Democrats do NOT support the expansion of the War in Iraq!

[FrenchieCat]

19. Yes, Bayh-Bye should have denounced the lie as a lie....

not repeated it as a fact!

That man believed this cartoon was evidence!
Need I say more? :shrug:
Asshole! :mad:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

154. It's not a misperception.

It's a perception. It's how we're perceived by a sizeable chunk of the electorate. It may be misguided or it may be inaccurate, but it's their perception nonetheless. It gets back to the idea of how issues (and groups) are framed.

[LTRS]

39. Because it is exceptionally STUPID

[LittleClarkie]

46. But isn't it also the meme Kerry lost on?

We have to change the perception, esp. because it's not true. What's the matter with saying so, and talking about it. If we don't, we'll never fix the distorted perception.

[LTRS]

57. So what if it's true????????????

How do we benefit by calling a press conference to announce it? Kerry was a sucky candidate based on lots of people's opinions and perceptions. Shall we call a press conference to announce that too?

[LittleClarkie]

67. But the point is that IT'S NOT TRUE.

But the American people don't know that as a whole.

Like when Tommy Thompson announced that it would be terribly easy to attack the food supply because it's not being protected. The Freepers freaked because they figured that it was an invitation to attack the food supply. But if Tommy couldn't get anyone to listen to him, and it was the truth, and he wanted to force some change, what choice did he have.

Bayh is saying that, while it's not true, the perception isn't meeting reality.

And, for my money, neither is the perception that Kerry was a lousy candidate.

We're not much for changing either perception.

[LTRS]

80. It's not true that the Dems look like wussies to voters?

The hell it isn't. I am a die hard dem and they sure look like wussies to me. Kerry didn't have the balls to tell voters whether he actually oppposed the war or not, or whether he thought he should vote for expenditures for the war. Many of them VOTED for the war because they were too chickenshit to stand by the courage of their convinctions. They voted to union bust with homeland security and were total wussies when it came to letting Bush take credit for the idea.

They ARE wussies. That is why we lose. Instead of calling a press conference to talk about it they ought to get busy and stop BEING wussies.

Voters simply won't believe that democrats are going to protect this country or stick up for them when these wussies won't even stick up for themselves.

[LittleClarkie]

94. It's not true that we ARE wusses, is the point

Many of us have served. And having seen war, we know what it looks like. Hence the reluctance to go rushing into one.

I think Bush would faint if he ever had to actually kill someone, let alone be anywhere near the person as he dies.

They seem to be having fantasies of WWII and being like their daddies without actually having to come in contact with blood.

We need to change the perception. Because it doesn't match the reality that WE are the party that actually supports the troops and care about what happens to them when they get home.

Take the perception that Kerry's first debate with Bush would be his hardest, since it was about foreign policy, and EVERYONE knows that Dems don't know shit about that. That's why it was such a success. Perception didn't match reality, and people started to see it. Someone was talking sense about foreign policy and it wasn't a Republican.

As for your last point, bullying is only going to get these folks so far. And that's all it is. They are becoming increasingly grotesque, and people are starting to notice.

I see you've bought into the false perception as well.

Is Boxer a wuss?

Clark?

Dean?

How about Hackett?

And, when you've poked him in the eye enough times, Kerry will come out swinging as well. Like someone said, it's alittle like he walks into the phone booth sipping french wine, and comes out with a knife in his teeth. That's the Kerry we got in the last month or two. Too bad he was a late starter.

But folks don't notice, because it doesn't fit their model.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

98. Then we won't win

All or none huh? Riiiiiiiight.

[LTRS]

99. That's right

And until our pols get it, we lose. I can't even blame voters for clearly feeling that way. If our candidates won't stick up for themselves or our agenda, then why should voters believe they will stick up for them.

They won't -- simple as that.

Like I said, you don't see that kind of wussie behavior from rethugs, and that is why they win and we lose.

[LittleClarkie]

100. So perception over truth

Oh, they act tough. But they're not. They're little crybabies much of the time.

They just know how to hang together in lockstep.

If that's the party you want, enjoy.

We're never getting all our leaders to do anything all at once. And I wouldn't want that kind of roboDem, anyway. It's too sickening when you see it on the Repub side.

Sorry, I hope you're wrong. Because in my eyes, if what you're saying is true, and we must as one start acting like a bunch of Republicans with no breaks in rank, then we might as well hope for a black hole to swallow us all. It ain't gonna happen.

[LTRS]

124. How about perception AND truth?

And yes, that IS the party I want. How do you think Dems held the congress for nearly 40 yrs running?

The issue isn't so about marching lockstep, it's about not having the cajones to stand by what you believe in. Stand up and be proud to be a democratic and a liberal or just don't be one. Why is that so hard???

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. See my post #112

No one said that Boxer or Clark or Hackett are wusses. (Remember the flowers sent to Boxer for helping to challenge the Ohio results? We appreciate them when they do the right thing.)

But an empty suit like Evan Bayh going on the cable shows and dissing Democrats has more influence on public perceptions than members of the Progressive Caucus and other gutsy Dems, who can't get non-CSPAN TV coverage, no matter what.

Bayh, Lieberman, and more recently Hillary are courted by the MSM precisely because they are non-threatening to the elites. If any of them started talking like Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank or Cynthia McKinney, they'd be gone from the TV talk shows in an instant.

With wimps as the public face of the Democratic party, the Republicanites have nothing to worry about. Either they win, or some Dem wins who won't challenge them on much of anything.

[HootieMcBoob]

76. I think that by even saying it he reinforces it

I don't think General Clark would ever say something like that. He says that he would never bash another Democrat and he certainly would find a way of addressing peoples concerns without reinforcing a false perception.

[LittleClarkie]

95. So why can't Clarkies and Deaniacs get along, I ask you

when Wesley has stood loud and proud and said that Dean spoke for him?

I never get that.

[HootieMcBoob]

96. Well they should

I love Dean and he is absolutely the right person to be running the party. I have great respect for the Dean people and what they've managed to do. Clark and Dean are my Two favorite people in the party - hands down.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

153. Wrong Messenger...

I think that Howard Dean could have said exactly the same thing (probably has, at some point). But the fact that it's a DLC Chairman means that it gets a chilly reception around here. And I agree with that assessment -- when Kerry didn't hit back (hard) against the Swift Boat attacks, doubtless some Americans were thinking, "If he won't defend himself, how's he going to defend me?" It's perception, and it's not accurate, but it effects voting behavior.

[flpoljunkie]

11. The woodenly handsome Evan Bayh has decided to dump on Dems to try

and position himself to run in the presidential primaries. Is he this clueless?

Democrats should be making hay pointing out Dubya's disastrous decision to focus on Iraq--rather than go after Osama bin Laden.

Why would you not use your strong suit on national security--instead of unfairly dumping on your own party.

[FrenchieCat]

12. It's Evan Bye who's weak on National Defense....

Can you say.....W-E-A-K? :thumbsdown:

BAYH-BYE :hi: IN 2008!

<-------Silly grins are for kids!

[Larkspur]

16. Evan "Bye-bye" Bayh is an idiot

He hired Dean's pollster, Paul Mauslin. Either Mauslin left or is not doing polls yet, or Bayh is just clueless about Dems in general.

[BrewerJohn]

17. I guess this is what the DLC meant by "Unity"

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Thursday that his party lacks credibility on national security and needs to convince Americans that Democrats are willing to use force when necessary.

Great. Just great.
With "allies" like these, who needs Republicans?

[Al-CIAda]

102. What a fucking dumbass. Yes, do the RW's work for them and repeat the lies

[Clark2008]

18. I think Wes Clark needs to have a nice, long sit-down

with Sen. Bayh and explain to him the finer points of national security.

Funny thing, senator, Clark isn't weak on national security, but you are.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Contrast and compare....

Clark on National Security....


Bayh as a Democrat standing up to the GOP!

[Clark2008]

27. Hahahahahahaha!

:rofl:

[bvar22]

91. Post of the YEAR!

Wish I could nominate an individual post!

[HootieMcBoob]

78. you took the words right out of my mouth n/t

[Raiden]

20. OMG! This yellow-dog Dem finally found a Democrat

that I cannot not vote for. This is TOO much! Biden, Hillary, even Joementum? I can hold my nose and vote. I cannot do that for this shithead. Show this to all the DLC Defenders!

[Pithy Cherub]

21. Evan Bayh OD's on DLC Joementum...

:rofl: Honestly, will they ever learn...

[aspberger]

22. Bayh beat Repuke candidate Mutz

by running to the right of Mutz. As my brother says, if Indiana was a plane it couldn't fly because it has 2 right wings.

[wyldwolf]

23. Evan Bayh is absolutely correct... and Dean agrees with him

...and you ARE NOT.

There is a disconnect among the American people with the Democratic party's stance on national security.

Is isn't an "attack" to point that out and to state a plan to rectify that misconception.

"Republicans are now more hawkish and Democrats more dovish than at any time in the past two decades," the group said in announcing its survey, which is available online at www.pewresearch.org/trends.

From Howard Dean:

Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/dean.dems/

So if there is no image problem with Democrats and National Defense, why would Dean have to build a reputation as being strong on it?

But we're going to have a positive agenda that's going to be centered around a strong national defense...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june05/dean_6-22.html

You mean our agenda isn't already centered on a strong national defense? Is Dean attacking "mainstream" Democrats?

National defense has been a tough area for Democrats, (Dean) said, because “30 percent of Americans don’t believe we’re tough enough to pull the trigger” to defend the country.

http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=17395&issue=265

[Clark2008]

28. There is a disconnect with the voters, I agree.`

But it was THIS sentence that had me bristle:

Bayh said his electoral success in heavily Republican Indiana and moderate views are a model for Democrats to end their recent electoral failures. Summing up those failures are polls that show voters overwhelmingly trusting Republicans on national security, he said.

See, moderate Dems AREN'T anymore successful (or haven't been since 1996) that regualar Dems. In fact, it's Dems like Paul Hackett, who call the bullshit what it is, who are able to whip up at 25 percent increase in Dem voters.

That's what had me laughing so hard because it's simply not true.

[wyldwolf]

29. where is that statement wrong?

1. His statement on the polls and national security is correct. He didn't make that up.

2. Would you like to do a state by state/race by race comparison of moderate dem's electoral successes lately?

First, we may want to have a clear picture of what rank and file Democrats want:

"Looking at the party's future, Dean activists voice strong sentiment for the Democrats to move to the left. Two-thirds (67%) want the Democratic Party to reflect more progressive or liberal positions, while just 13% would prefer a shift to more centrist positions.

"These attitudes contrast sharply with the opinions of both Democratic officials and rank-and-file Democrats. A Gallup poll of Democratic National Committee members (in February 2005) showed that, by more than two-to-one (52%-23%) the DNC members want the party to become more moderate, rather than more liberal. That view is shared by Democrats nationally; in a January survey, Gallup found that 59% of Democrats wanted the party to take a more moderate course." From Pew Research

The utter reactionary bullshit that goes on here is mind numbing.

Howard Deans says the same thing and silence. Bayh says it and he's attacking Dems.

[Clark2008]

90. Where is this state-by-state comparison?

I asked for that a week ago and I still haven't seen it.

I know that moderates haven't won the presidency (or maybe they did, we just don't know) since 1996.

And, I'm not a Deaniac, so that last statement of yours doesn't apply to me. I like him as DNC chair, just fine, but I don't hang on his every word.

[wyldwolf]

129. I asked if you would like to do one...

Isn't that what I asked? Did I say I had one?

know that moderates haven't won the presidency (or maybe they did, we just don't know) since 1996.

I thought Gore won? Seems to be the consensus.

Many here thought Kerry won?

When has the far left EVER won the presidency?

And back to my original question. Would YOU like to do a state by state comparison of Dems wins since 1996 and see who has won - moderates vs. whatever the further left is calling themselves this week?

[Clark2008]

135. I don't have time (nor a high-speed net connection) to do one.

I asked someone in another thread a week ago to do one because they asked.

I thought maybe they had done it and you had seen it (and I had missed it) and that's what you're basing your argument on.

I think you were in that thread, as well.

And - regarding Gore, that's why I put in parenthesis "we just don't know." We do know, of course, but the point is that he's NOT in the White House, is he? Neither is Kerry.

I think Dems and certain moderates are getting tired of the "go along to get along" attitude of the Democratic Party, which is why they flocked in droves (a 25 percent turn-around) to vote for the balls-to-the-wall Paul Hackett in Ohio.

It's not that I necessarily disagree with the DLC on some issues, it's just that they all, particularly the subject of this thread, come across as so much milquetoast. Wishy, squishy and sappy. You know?

[Texas_Kat]

148. Remind me please.....

Who was the last president who nominated a Democratic Secretary of Defense?

Just asking 'cos I can't remember for sure.....

And WHY do some Democrats always seem to turn to Republicans?

[Count Popeula]

149. This is a bit of a tangent...

I just felt like point out that the far left has won elections. 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944 come readily to mind. 1796 and 1800, too. And those seemed to turn out quite well for us.

[wyldwolf]

163. absolutely not

FDR wasn't far left. Sorry.

Nor were Adams and Jefferson.

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. Amen!

It is as if many of these posters have not even read the Bayh statement. Of course there are others that have clear agendas that include advancing their man regardless of the facts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

112. But how do you demonstrate strength?

By saying, "Ooh, ooh, Republicans. You're so right. We are so weak on natoinal security. Oh, a thousand pardons. We'll vote for that useless new weapons system just because you told us that voting against it will make us look weak on national security! Thank you for deigning to show us the error of our ways, o Wise Ones. Any place you want to invade is just dandy with us!"

Or by saying, "National security, huh? Just where is Osama bin Laden? Just how has the iraq War made us safe? What do you chicken hawks know anyway? And while we're on the subject, look at all the profiteering that's going on while our young people are inadequately eqiupped..."

Which approach is "tougher"?

And labels of "right" and "left" are useless unless clearly defined. Are the respondents agreed on what "right" and "left" mean, or are they all applying their own perceptions? Are they referring to gay marriage or to controls on corporate malfeasance? Without such information, the poll is useless.

I'd like to see us scrap those horizontal labels and substitute "up" (favoring the interests of the elites) and "down" (favoring the interests of average Americans).

[LittleClarkie]

116. Googling the first quote

I can't find anyone who's actually said that.

All Bayh said is that there is a perception problem in an interview with the AP. Not that we aren't strong, just that we aren't seen that way.

We need to discuss this. The Republicans disrespect every Democrat in uniform they encounter and then turn around and shout "support the troops"! And people go along with it.

We don't have to change who we are. Plenty of us have served. We just have to make that point loud and proud, and point out that because we've seen war, that's why we're not so hot as Bush to MAKE war.

Someone should create an ad that shows all the soldiers they've slandered, plus Rummy's quote about going to war with the army you have, the number of soldiers going to war without equipment, the veteran benefit that have been shot down, and then ask once and for all how the Republicans can really say they support the troops.

They love the idea of war. But they don't know how the fuck to actually wage one. And if they'd actually ever seen one, they'd never want another.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. Duh, I was giving an imression of their attitude and actions

and what wussy attitudes and wussy actions imply.

[LittleClarkie]

120. Duh, and I was giving a sarcastic reply to point out

that your impression was cartoonish and over the top.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Not THAT over the top

I've spent the last 25 years cringing at the way some Dems self-sabotage by acting as if they believe the Republicans' lies about them.

[bvar22]

32. Here's the difference.

Dean is calling the perception a lie, and providing the CURE.

All you need to do is read the WHOLE quote, and not the "out-of-context" piece Wyldwolf is using to distort Dean's position!

"National defense has been a tough area for Democrats, he said, because “30 percent of Americans don’t believe we’re tough enough to pull the trigger” to defend the country. However, he said previous wars conducted while Democrats led the United States show that “America is safer with Democrats in the White House.”

“This president sends troops to Iraq but does nothing about North Korea or Iran for five years,” he said, adding, “The problem is not that this administration isn’t tough. It’s that they can’t tell the difference between a threat and a nuisance.”

http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=17395&issue=265

What DEAN does is very different from what Bayh and the DLC do. What BAYH did does NOT help the Democratic Party.
Where did BAYH attack the Republicans?

I encourage EVERYONE to go to the link provided and read the WHOLE speech, and decide if DEAN agrees with BAYH.

[wyldwolf]

34. There is no difference

... and I might add - if you read post 31, you'll see that the AP (and you) misquoted Bayh.

I encourage everyone to read Bayh's REAL quotes linked in post 31 and see how different they are from Dean's.

[dogman]

42. My problem with him is the first sentence.

snip>Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Thursday that his party lacks credibility on national security and needs to convince Americans that Democrats are willing to use force when necessary.<snip
"Necessary"! It's his interpretation of this word and his judgement that I find fault with.

[wyldwolf]

45. His "interpretation?" What is his "interpretation?"

Do tell.

[dogman]

47. That the Iraq War was Necessary n/t

[wyldwolf]

49. where did he say that?

I believe that is YOUR interpretation.

[dogman]

55. Google Bayh + Iraq War

Iraq Al-Qeuada connection? Don't criticize Bush about Iraq War?

[AllAmerica]

38. adsf

From a recent Bayh speech:

It all begins with strength – the strength to defend our country during perilous times. We Democrats have always known that it is a dangerous world and there is evil in it. Sometimes – sometimes we have to use force. Of course there is a right way and wrong way; of course there is a right time and place and a wrong time and place, but we never even get to have that discussion because too many of our fellow countrymen and women out here in the heartland have concluded, inappropriately – but they’ve concluded nonetheless – that we don’t have the spine or the backbone to use force even in the face of the most compelling of circumstances, and that must change.

It must change because those in charge in Washington today have done so much to deplete our strength and to undermine our national security. On their watch – on their watch, North Korea has become a virtually assembly line for nuclear weapons. It’s on their watch that stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear materials have gone unsecured across the former Soviet Union. It’s on their watch that our nation remains woefully unprepared to face the calamity of a global pandemic. On their watch, our military forces have been stretched to the breaking point. On their watch, our alliances have been frayed. And it’s on their watch that the situation in Iraq has been terribly, terribly mismanaged. (Applause.)

We never had enough troops to secure that country. It’s obvious they had not plan for winning the peace. When I was in Baghdad in December, our top intelligence official told me, things would be 100 percent in Iraq – 100 percent – if we’d only not sent the Iraqi army home. But they did, and that is a tragedy. It is a tragedy. And we as Democrats can do better. We can do better than the false bravado of “bring ‘em on.” We can do better than the illusion of “mission accomplished.” We can do better than the flippancy of “you go to war with the army that you’ve got.” We can do better than those things. What happened in Iraq: they came on. The mission is far from accomplished, and we went to the war with the army that we had but we didn’t give our troops the equipment that they needed to do the job and protect themselves. (Applause.)

That’s not strength; it’s incompetence – (applause) – and those responsible need to be held to account. And we Democrats have the strength and the understanding to know that to truly secure this America, to truly secure this country, and to make us strong it involves a whole lot more than sending our brave soldiers to fight battles in far away lands. It involves each and every one of us doing our part right here at home each and every day. But that takes leadership – a leadership that’s been lacking with those in charge in Washington today. (Applause.)

It sounds to me that it's virtually a carbon copy of what dean's saying...

[wyldwolf]

43. It IS a carbon copy of what Dean is saying...

... but we can't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good (and desperate) anti-DLC rant.

[Cha]

84. Exactly! Dean is

not in agreement at all with bayh.

[IndianaGreen]

118. Invading Iraq has weakened our national security and...

if we don't pull all the troops out of there soon, we won't have a military left to defend our nation from real enemies.

Republican talking points are just that, talking points. The GOP version of national security, and the foreign policy that is necessary to do so, is all entirely faith-based. Now, if you boys want to destroy our military, get a lot of people unnecessarily killed, and create more terrorists than Al-Qaeda can even managed, by all means stay the course.

Our mad commander-in-chief is at the helm chasing his white whale. Those that choose to follow his lead are condemned to drown after Bush's inner demons sink the ship.

[ChiciB1]

24. I'm So Tempted To Say Something I Shouldn't...

And I won't, but with Democrats like this how can they possibly ever think this is supporting "We The People"???

What's it gonna take to start the ground-swell and hold EVEN the Democrats feet to the fire???

[otohara]

26. Bayh Saying The GOP Is Doing A Great Job

I guess.

I don't know what else to take from these obscene statements about dems. How about dems are smarter than these fucking moron neocons in power now, who are less likely to lie through their teeth, Evan!

[AllAmerica]

31. Bayh didn't criticize Democrats.

First, the AP is wrong. Bayh didn't say that the Dems weren't credible on national security.

Bayh said that there's a perception, among average voters, that Dems are weaker on security matters than the GOP. This is hard fact. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the average voters of this country.

Bayh's saying that Dems need to acknowledge that we have a perception problem. Because clearly, Dems ought to be much more credible than the GOP because most of this country's wars have been fought and won by Democratic leaders. Bayh's saying that we need to make that defense heritage more prominent in our party's posture.

It all begins with strength – the strength to defend our country during perilous times. We Democrats have always known that it is a dangerous world and there is evil in it. Sometimes – sometimes we have to use force. Of course there is a right way and wrong way; of course there is a right time and place and a wrong time and place, but we never even get to have that discussion because too many of our fellow countrymen and women out here in the heartland have concluded, inappropriately – but they’ve concluded nonetheless – that we don’t have the spine or the backbone to use force even in the face of the most compelling of circumstances, and that must change. -Evan Bayh

[wyldwolf]

33. sssh! Don't spoil a perfectly good DLC -bash with facts

...

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

48. facts have everything to do with it

Howard Dean is saying the same things.

But he really means it, right? :eyes:

[LTRS]

54. What does Dean have to do with my point?

In what part of my post do I say anything about Dean, the DLC or anything even related to that?

Bayh is a frigging idiot for making these comments and so are other democrats that call press conferences to say such moronic things, or otherwise look like apologists for the party, whether they are Dean democrats or DLC democrats, or whatever.

Now if you are a DLC'er and you think he gets a pass because he is also a DLC'er than you are part of the problem and you don't get it either. Which is exactly why dems lose.

[wyldwolf]

64. The thread is about the DLC

as in any discussion thread, one expects one to follow the flow of the discussion.

Dean's quite similar words have been entered into the discussion in comparison to Bayh's.

Check the heart level. The stress must be killing you.

[LTRS]

92. So it follows that every post to this thread is about...

Either liking or disliking the DLC? You know, I really hate to say things like this, but one of my biggest problems with the DLC is that they have made democrats nearly indistinguishable from rethugs. And of course people will vote for the real thing everytime if they have a choice. This meme was chiefly responsible for Gore's loss in 2000, when he should have won by a mile.

And you know, I resist believing that meme, but I do have to say when I read posts by DLC'ers here I am constantly reminded that they seem to think in a very similar fashion to republicans. The so called logic you have used in this particular side discussion with me stinks to high heaven of the ridiculous circular logic arguments that republicans make.

The thread is about Evan Byah's comments, not about the DLC.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I think the issues is

We already know about this perception..... :boring:

The bigger question is what in the fuck is Bayh doing about it?

"that we don’t have the spine or the backbone to use force even in the face of the most compelling of circumstances, and that must change." -Evan Bayh

So what's was his answer? Vote "HELL YES" to invade Iraq based on evidence that didn't exist?

Why am I not "impressed" with his particular "backbone and spine" approach?? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

40. yes, but that wasn't the point of the opening poster's rant

Now that it has been exposed that the opening poster mischaracterized Bayh's words, and it has been shown that Dean has expressed the same sentiment, you want to redirect the point of the discussion to gripe that Bayh didn't provide a plan? Or yet another rant about the IWR vote? Did Bayh vote on that?

The last time someone posted a Democratic plan for national defense, it was jeered here as republican lite.

There really is no pleaseing some people when they have tunnel vision.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Doh....like....Yeah-A!

If Bayh wanted to make a comment on what he sees as a problem, I suggest that he have a fucking solution handy.

It's all about the framing, and what example he has provided by his own actions.

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

The Dems showed their lack of spine when they could have stood tough for the sake of our National Security by opposing the IRW, which has made us less safe.

As Wellstone so aptly put it on the floor of the senate before that vote....

The resolution we will be debating today would explicitly authorize a go-it-alone approach. I believe an international approach is essential. In my view, our policy should have four key elements. First and foremost, the United States must work with our allies to deal with Iraq. We should not go it alone or virtually alone with a pre-emptive ground invasion. Most critically, acting alone could jeopardize our top national security priority, the continuing war on terror. The intense cooperation of other nations in matters related to intelligence-sharing, security, political and economic cooperation, law enforcement and financial surveillance, and other areas has been crucial to this fight, and enables us to wage it effectively with our allies. Over the past year, this cooperation has been our most successful weapon against terror networks. That -- not attacking Iraq should be the main focus of our efforts in the war on terror.

Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting sensibly and in a measured way in concert with our allies, with bipartisan Congressional support, would be a sign of our strength. It would also be a sign of the wisdom of our founders, who lodged in the President the power to command U.S. armed forces, and in Congress the power to make war, ensuring a balance of powers between co-equal branches of government.
snip
But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
snip
There are other questions, about the impact of an attack in relation to our economy. The United States could face soaring oil prices and could spend billions both on a war and on a years-long effort to stabilize Iraq after an invasion.
snip
Authorizing the pre-emptive, go-it-alone use of force now, right in the midst of continuing efforts to enlist the world community to back a tough new disarmament resolution on Iraq, could be a costly mistake for our country.
http://www.wellstone.org/print_article.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

So you see, Bayh is not an example of someone that was listening to those he should have been listening to. Bayh had no clue....and is a prime example of someone who didn't recognize what National Security even WAS and IS!

Bayh's action, along with those of Bush and congress have rendered us less safe. So yeah, Bayh is weak on National Defense.

I don't believe that rubberstamping the opposition party on a hyped up threat and giving Bush a blank check to spell S-T-R-E-N-G-T-H.


Far as I see it....Bayh is part of the problem.

[bvar22]

77. Don't think so!

"Now that it has been exposed that the opening poster mischaracterized Bayh's words"
You have been far from conclusive. You have merely demonstrated that some may have a different opinion.

"Dean has expressed the same sentiment"
This statement has already been debunked within this thread, and is a red herring anyway.


"redirect the point of the discussion to gripe that Bayh didn't provide a plan"
Repeating the Republican Talking points without rebuttal WAS a part of the OP

"If BAYH had been a Democrat, he would have simply addressed the Republican LIE by calling it a LIE and pointing out that the Democratic party:

* WINS WARS, and the Republican Party LOSES WARS!

* That the Democratic Party is led by heroes who SERVED in the Armed Forces, and the Republican Party is led by cowards and War Profiteers!

*That is is time to face REALITY and call the Iraq Occupation a HUGE FAILURE and FIRE those responsible for the FAILURE!"

[Raiden]

107. No, Dean is NOT saying the same thing!

Dean is saying that the perception is wrong. Bayh is saying that the perception is apt and that we have to mirror the Republicans on defense issues if we aim to win. Well, that plan hasn't succeeded and I for one am tired of losing so spineless DINOs can please their corporate buddies. Bayh's strategy is a losing one. Even if we win elections because of it, we lose. Why? Becuase in order to do it we have to sacrifice our principles.

This statement isn't the only problem I have with Bayh, so don't suggest that this is only an anti-DLC rant. Bayh has consistently pandered to the right. His strategy is to run to the right of Republicans in order to win, and that is at the expense of DEMOCRATIC principles. If Bayh advocates becoming Republicans in order to win, I say I'd rather lose.

[LTRS]

37. The dumbass doesn't know how this would be portrayed?

This is exhibit A of the dumbasses we have in our party who say the stupiest shit to the press as if they had no clue how it would be portrayed in print. Do we not have ANY decent communications people on our side? Are they all this stupid? Apparently.

Dems don't NEED to ACKNOWLEDGE that they have a preception problem, they need to say that the republicans lie their ass off an denigrate democrats on defense just as they do our soldiers past and present if they happen to be democrats.

And they need to bust the republicans chops daily for getting our guys killed for a lie, and not providing the appropriate equipment and supplies to protect themselves despite the fact that congress has appropriated 200 billion for that purpose.

Lastly, the Dems need to "acknowledge" and remind people that the wars we have won over the last 100 plus years have been won by democrats.

I swear to effin GOD we are never going to win with these idiots representing us! And please STOP making excuses for these morons!

[wyldwolf]

41. once again, then, let's criticize everyone...

The "dumbass" Dean, for example, for some of the stuff he's said?

C'mon, let's be fair.

Now that it has been exposed that the opening poster mischaracterized Bayh's words, and it has been shown that Dean has expressed the same sentiment, you want to redirect the point of the discussion to continue an anti-DLC rant.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

52. thank you

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

61. thank you for being honest

And I made no "half assed" assumption thus, there is nothing to apologize for.

[LTRS]

65. Well of course you did

You made an assumption that I was criticizing the moronic comments by Bayh because he is a DLC'er. No, I am criticizing them because they were moronic.

[wyldwolf]

68. Well of course I didn't

You made an assumption that I was criticizing the moronic comments by Bayh because he is a DLC'er.

Where?

You did try to broaden the discussion away from Bayh's words after it was shown that the party's chair has said the same thing and that Bahy's words were correct.

[LTRS]

74. Right here, and I quote:

"you want to redirect the point of the discussion to continue an anti-DLC rant."

[wyldwolf]

130. that wan't an assumption

It was observed fact. Your reply moved beyond what Bayh said.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

162. Yup! Your diversionary tactics ain't working

The thread, originally a bash of Bayh and the DLC, evolved into just another DLC bash thread when the original poster's points were found to be, at least in error and at most hypocritical given his support of Howard Dean.

You continued taking the thread off track.

[Al-CIAda]

166. Preach on. nt.

[JohnnyBoots]

35. DLC, the party of Judas

[Adelante]

51. I read it

Your interpretation is just wrong. I'm not even a Bayh fan, but I can tell you the perception he's talking about is real and the whole Democratic Party knows it. Reid knows it. Dean knows it. Pelosi knows it. It's a misperception that needs correcting. The party has been actively working to correct it all year.

[wyldwolf]

53. I think some people Google "DLC" news each day...

...and try to find a way to spin negatively any story that comes up.

[LTRS]

62. A bit paranoid, are you?

The DLC'ers suck just as bad as the rest of the no-message, stupid message dems if not worse because they attack their own so frequently. I don't see any honor in defending them simply because they are a DLC'er and you are too.

After all, isn't that the main problem with republicans? Any amoral thing they do is okay with their followers simply because they have an R after their name.

[wyldwolf]

66. no, a bit realistic

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

60. Exactly!

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REINFORCE the Republican Talking Points and repeat the Republican LIES.

If BAYH had been a Democrat, he would have simply addressed the Republican LIE by calling it a LIE and pointing out that the Democratic party:

* WINS WARS, and the Republican Party LOSES WARS!

* That the Democratic Party is led by heroes who SERVED in the Armed Forces, and the Republican Party is led by cowards and War Profiteers!

*That is is time to face REALITY and call the Iraq Occupation a HUGE FAILURE and FIRE those responsible for the FAILURE!

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

70. what republican lie?

[FrenchieCat]

75. Correctomundo.....

Bayh should have taken a page out of Wes Clark's playbook.

Anyone who tells you that one political party has a monopoly on the best defense of our nation is committing a fraud on the American people. Franklin Roosevelt said it best: "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."

The safety of our country demands urgent and innovative measures to
strengthen our armed forces. The safety of our country demands credible intelligence. The safety of our country demands cooperation with our allies. The safety of our country demands making more friends and fewer enemies. The safety of our country demands an end to the doctrinaire, ineffective policies that currently grip Washington. Enough is enough!
snip
Great Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, who led us to victory in World War I.Great Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, who turned back the tide of fascism to win World War II. Great Democrats like John Kennedy, who stood firm and steered us safely through the Cuban Missile Crisis. And great Democrats like Bill Clinton, who confronted ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, and with diplomacy - backed by force - brought peace to a shattered land.

My fellow Americans, Democrats are leaders. Democrats are fighters.--Wes Clark

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2004/0002221806&EDATE=

And THAT, my friends, is how Democrats can tell the truth and use examples as to why Dems ARE STRONG IN DEFENSE, and not repeat the obvious framing from the GOP, but rather call what it is; a lie, and let the people know what good national security is.

That is a message to rectify the ALREADY KNOWN PERCEPTION.

[LTRS]

81. He should have, but he was too much of a wussy to say that

[flpoljunkie]

171. If media doing its job, headline would be "Bush Rolled by Iran in Iraq"

Instead, the incompetents are shielded from their disastrous mistakes by the gutless, corporate media, and the Democrats remain mute--except for calls to increase the size of the military!

I cannot imagine they would be holding their fire if a Democratic president had pivoted immediately from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden to go to war in Iraq.

Speaking of which, instead of CNN calling the mess in Iraq "The Fight for Iraq"--it should be called what it really is, "The Occupation of Iraq."

[Adelante]

79. The poster should post a link that actually

backs up what he's saying instead of this bullshit.

If you did a review of news articles over the last six months you would find every other Democrat saying the same thing. It's not an attack on Democrats. It's something the party's actively trying to work out. It's been in the news. It's not a secret. Saying so is not the crime of the century, except when it fits into this little witch-hunt going on here against the DLC.

Personally, I have nothing to do with the DLC or with Bayh. I just feel strongly that OPs at DU should be honest, not posted just to rile the people who don't click through links, so that everybody can have a good conniption fit.

[bvar22]

87. I'm entitled to my opinion.

The link was clearly posted.
You also are entitled to YOUR opinion.


I am Equal Opportunity. Every time someone hurts the Democratic Party or the Working Class, and helps the Republicans, I'm glad to point that out.

I attack Joe Biden all the time, and he is not DLC.

"you would find every other Democrat saying the same thing"
NOT a true statement.
Irrrelevant anyway.

[Adelante]

167. I share your opinion

Dem leaders should be shouting from the rooftops that the Democrats have a better record and smarter policies on national security. Bayh was wrong not to have done that. But he did not "attack" the Democratic Party in that news article. He gave his opinion, which is the Democratic Party opinion, that there is a misperception among the public that Democrats can't protect the nation. It is a misperception and he said so. Dean talks about it. Reid talks about it. Pelosi talks about it. Wes Clark has been drumming it into our heads (meaning his grassroots supporters) and the party's head for over a year. Congress has a committee of national security experts specifically to educate Congressional staff about the need to present the Democrats national security achievements and the Bush Administration failures. If the voters only ever see the Dems as the domestic policy party, we are doomed to keep losing national elections, because that's how voters vote in the GE, and the place and time to start is in the state elections. So, I don't have a problem with Bayh or anybody pointing out a misperception among the voting public that actually exists, as far as it goes. I wish it had gone farther, but it was not an "attack" on the party. You posted a link that did not back up your argument and that's why we're having this argument. No other reason.

[ulysses]

63. woohoo! party unity from its greatest practitioners!

:party:

[HootieMcBoob]

71. My God I can't stand those bastards!

the more they talk this shit the more I am convinced that they are moles sent in by the Republican Party to destroy any chance the Democratic Party has of taking back the country.

They're very happy with the status quo. They get to stay in power and reap the benefits of the corporations along with the Republicans and the American People be damned!

God do they SUCK!

Hillary is gonna get nothing but grief from me unless she disassociates herself from those punks.

[JHBowden]

72. I agree with Bayh on this.

The polling indicates we have leads on issues from the environment to education to abortion, but Bush and the Republicans are strongly ahead of us on issues of terrorism and defense.

We have an image problem; I see it even here. A few days ago Friedman stated there is no excuse to resorting to terrorism when one is a citizen of an open society, and people jumped all over the article, probably since they preferred to use the London bombings to cheerlead a pullout of Iraq. An argument for a pullout doesn't need someone's act of homicide for intellectual support, but many on the fringe can't see this.

Things like this make it look like we aren't serious about terrorism.

[snowbear]

82. No shit.. Where did he insult Democrats ??????

Read his comments from start to finish -- there's NO insults!

He didn't say that Democrats are worse in those areas -- he said we need to change the BOGUS PUBLIC PERCEPTION !!!

It's mind-boggling that anyone could disagree with that :crazy:

The (((( PERCEPTION )))) has been tainted by ReTHUG smear tactics. You don't agree with that?? :o

[LTRS]

86. Read the thread

... because the problem is not the accuracy of what he said, but rather the rank stupidity of calling the press together to say, "yeah, people think we are wussies with no backbone... sure 'enuf! We aren't, but yeah EVERYONE thinks so!"

How stupid can they be?

In fact the truth is the dems are wussies, which is why we lose. This quote is a prime example of a dem being a wussy. But true or not, it sure is exceptionally stupid to get in front of the press and acknowledge that people think that.

[LittleClarkie]

109. Where does it say he called the press toegether

all I see is a reference to an interview with the Associated Press.

[LTRS]

125. The AP didn't force him to do an interview

and say that, did they?

[LittleClarkie]

128. But neither does it say he requested the interview

Hence, nowhere does it say that he "called the press together."

[LTRS]

137. What possible difference does that make?

And you don't know many politicians personally, do you?

[LittleClarkie]

138. Well, considering the tone of this thread is that he gathered them round

just to bash Dems, it's important if he was asked and was answering a question, as opposed as a "by the way, Dems are wusses" sort of announcement.

Just looking for some context and some fairness, even if he's not my favorite guy in the whole world.

And no, I'm not a Washington insider. You?

[LTRS]

139. This thread is not to "just" bash dems

It is to point out, for the millionth time, and until they get it, that if dems want to stopped being percieved like wussies they have to stop acting like them. Which would include not apologizing for being a dem (yet again).

[LTRS]

83. If the fringe were the problem then rethugs wouldn't

be in power, because their fringe is their base and they are loony as hell.

The problem is not the base or the fringe, the problem is the wussy candidates like Bayh who can't wait to apologize for their party, and the wussies within the party who are too cowardly to stick up for themselves.

[JHBowden]

105. People think Democrats won't kill the baddies

That's been a problem for us since Carter. If a nation like Syria was developing WMD and having their public officials preach about how The Great Satan (i.e. us) needed to be destroyed, how would a Democratic President handle it? Would force be on the table? Often times Democrats give the impression that if a country like France didn't agree with us, or if we weren't attacked first, we should do nothing about security threats except write mean letters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. The American people have been propagandized by Reagan and his

successors for 25 years. Reagan won partly by screaming, "The Russians are coming." But it wasn't true.

Instead of using U.S. strength to build alliances, the Bush administration has been acting like an Arab radical's caricature of the U.S.

All this "toughness" is one of the roots of the problem, not its solution.

The British are showing how to deal with terrorism--through police work.

[JHBowden]

158. U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures

Is this what you're talking about?

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - Foreigners who preach hatred, sponsor violence or belong to extremist groups could be deported from Britain under strict new measures that Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Friday, nearly a month after suicide bombers killed 52 people on London's transit system.

Membership in extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir would become a crime under the new measures. The group, which advocates the creation of an Islamic state in Central Asia, already is outlawed in several countries.

Blair said the government also would compile a list of Web sites, bookshops and centers that incite hatred and violence. British nationals involved with such organizations could face strict penalties. Foreign nationals could be deported, he said.

"They come here and they play by our rules and our way of life," Blair said at his monthly news conference. "If they don't, they are going to have to go."

The government would hold a one-month consultation on new grounds for excluding and deporting people from the United Kingdom, he said.

Britain's ability to deport foreign nationals has been hampered by human rights legislation. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain is not allowed to deport people to a country where they may face torture or death.

The British government has been seeking assurances from several countries — including Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt — for suspects to be protected against inhumane treatment if deported. The government has already reached an agreement with Jordan.

Britain was seeking assurances from about 10 countries, and Blair said he had constructive talks with leaders of Algeria and Lebanon on Thursday. The government was prepared to amend human rights legislation if legal challenges arose from the new deportation measures, he said.

Blair said anyone linked with terrorism could be refused asylum, and the new measures make it easier for the government to strip extremists of dual citizenship.

The government also was considering a request from police and security services to hold terror suspects for three months without charge. The current time limit is 14 days.

A spokesman for Hizb ut Tahrir Britain, Imran Waheed, said Blair's comments were "most unjust," and the group would fight any ban through the courts.

"Hizb ut Tahrir is a nonviolent political party," he said. "Our members are all for political expression, not for violence."

Blair said the government will consult with Muslim leaders on how to close mosques "used as a center for fomenting extremism" and would draw up a list of foreign Islamic clerics "not suitable to preach who will be excluded from Britain."

"We will establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise on how, consistent with people's complete freedom to worship in the way they want, and to follow their own religion and culture, there is better integration of those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated," Blair said.

The prime minister dismissed a message from the al-Qaida terror network broadcast Thursday that linked the London bombings to Britain's involvement in the
Iraq war.

Terror attacks by four suspected suicide bombers on July 7 killed 56 people, including the four bombers. There were no casualties in bombings two weeks later on July 21 — attacks that also targeted three subways and a double-decker bus.

Police have not established firm links between the London bombings and al-Qaida, or between the two sets of bombings.

Police believe they have in custody the four attackers from July 21. One reportedly said the attacks were fueled by Britain's involvement in Iraq.

In a message broadcast Thursday on the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri warned Britons and blamed Blair.

"Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring more of that, God willing," al-Zawahri said.

He did not claim responsibility for the attacks.

Blair said it was impossible to negotiate with al-Qaida leaders.

"You only have to read the demands coming from al-Qaida to realize there is no compromise possible with these people," Blair said.

[Adelante]

85. And you're not alone

The Democratic Party agrees with you and Bayh. I'm just grateful they're seeing it, because it's why we keep losing elections.

[xkenx]

88. F*** Bayh. Paul Hackett's Showing Vindicates

Wes Clark's (and Howard Dean's) approach towards "Taking it to the Rethugs." Hackett campaigned on Democratic values, blasted the chickenhawk Bush, and nearly came away with the victory. Never should we be "Republican lite," as Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Warner, et al are doing. I hope there are a lot of Democrats out there whose eyes were opened by Hackett's campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

89. I think that there are two issues here.....

and I think that we need to look at what we are arguing about.

Issue one: Bayh says that Democrats have a "perception" problem when it comes to National Security.

Ok, that's is true. I don't disagree with that. I hope that Democrats do understand this, because it is so.

BUT!

Issue Two: What does Bayh intend to do about this perception problem, and is he an example of someone strong in National Security?

That's where my problem lies. You see I don't see Bayh as being strong in that area, and I don't see him proposing anything that will make us stronger in that area. He doesn't explain why this Perception should not be so, nor can he use himself as an example of strength...because strength does not equate to starting immoral wars or standing by a fucked up policy because it is the political expedient thing to do.

So in the end, he's parroting something that certainly we must and have acknowledge.....but again, he's been more part of the problem that part of the solution with his actual actions.

[LTRS]

93. Exactly!

It's about the stupiest piece of "messaging" from a dem I have seen this week (and I really wish I could say this year, but I can't).

[Q]

101. Bayh Bayh, Bayh

There are a thousand talking points to level against the Right and Bayh chooses to attack those in 'his' own party?

Why didn't he ask: Where's bin Laden?

Why not point out that 9-11 happened on BUSH'S WATCH and their 'strong on national security' response was to do nothing as terrorists attacked our country.

Or he could talk about the BILLIONS of US dollars 'gone missing' in Iraq. Or the war profiteering. Or the lack of equipment for the troops.

It's becoming very clear that the enemy of the DLC is NOT the Bushie Republicans. Their mutual enemy: Liberals/Progressives/ Populists/Activists and anyone else who gets in the way of their unnecessary wars, phony war on terrorism and their dream of the corporate state.

But something good may come of this. Between Bayh and Bill and Hillary pandering to the Right on so many issues...it just may open more eyes to the fact that we can do better than these Democratic Sellouts.

[greekspeak]

106. Thank you for the most level-headed post on this thread

Pukes are in power. So what do we do? We get up and, instead of correcting the problems and offering solutions, we get another self-abasing attack from a "democrat" who can't get enough Republicanism. Where is the indignation over 9-11? Where is the fact that "Homeland Security" is a cash cow? What of the money that has gone missing in Iraq? Why are soldiers not being protected? Demanding answers to these questions is our democratic representatives jobs. This speech is clearly nothing but a milquetoast calling other milquetoasts milquetoasts. WHAT DOES THAT SOLVE? BE PROACTIVE--JUST ONCE--FOR CHRISSAKE!

[LittleClarkie]

108. I wonder why Kerry is still listed among them

In so many ways he's a square peg there. He only vaguely fits. Bill and Hillary esp. are trying to support Bush, while he's repelling away.

I hope the tether snaps eventually. He's better than that.

[Cha]

111. I agree..Kerry is

much better than that.

[Donna Zen]

115. Kerry is not DLC to me:

Kerry only joined the DLC as he was gathering forces for a run. He could have joined long before then if he had wanted to, but he never did. Why? Maybe he didn't want to be pinned down by their message. That's my guess.

Anyway, it is a powerful organization when it comes to alliances for a presidential candidate. I've never thought as Kerry as being in lockstep with them.

The DLC controls endorsements at both the national and state level. Notice how many governors belong. They contol many levers inside the party, and while their message grows disharmonious with the reality of the country's changing circumstances, their hold on party power grows ever tighter.

Ted Kennedy was one of Kerry's main power brokers in 2004, but Kennedy lost plenty when Kerry lost.

Think of the Dem party as a high school with its associated cliques.

[LittleClarkie]

117. So you're saying his name has only been on the list for a couple years?

Hmm. Didn't know that. Thanks.

[Donna Zen]

123. Correct

Shortly after the first crowning of the boy-king, Gore was invited to attend some big DLC luncheon...I think it was in NYC. Gore declined and said that he had another committment. So I'm putting the time around Feb. 2001. Of course Gore was seen around town just having lunch with a buddy.

Something tells me that it was around that same time, maybe the same lunch, that Kerry joined. It is understandable. Only the DLC can work the inside system to a candidate's avantage.

I'm suspecting that we will get yet another one in the 2008 election.

BTW, Clark, who knows everyone in Washington, is not DLC. Actually, he did a great interview where he slams the table, and refutes the constant move toward the republican talking points. Frenchie, the magnificent may know the one I mean.

[wyldwolf]

134. wrong

Kerry was lnked to the DLC as early as 1998.

the Senate New Democrat Coalition was formed in 2000 and that's when Kerry officially joined.

a search of their site has Kerry mentioned numerous times in DLC events pre-2000.

Here is a page from 1998 -

http://web.archive.org/web/19990117025037/www.dlcppi.org/conferences/98conference/98post_conf.htm

[Donna Zen]

140. Thanks for this clarification:

When did he join? I somehow remember him joining as he readied for the run. I'm also not sure that it was mandatory to belong in order to speak. But...okay

Anyway, I found some interesting snips about the things that go bump at the DLC:

Perhaps the day's strongest impression was made by Kerrey. In a brisk speech, the Nebraska lawmaker stressed his support for a series of proposals likely to spark controversy among Democratic voters. Kerrey called for replacing the income tax with a "progressive consumption tax"...

Kerrey was most animated in touting his plan to revamp Social Security by cutting payroll taxes by 2 percentage points and allowing workers to use the money to set up individual accounts for retirement...

The senator from Massachusetts received a more mixed reaction. Focusing on education, Kerry delivered a sometimes repetitive speech that mixed provocative proposals and rhetorical platitudes in roughly equal measure. Kerry called for converting every public school into a "charter school" free from most central oversight, ending "tenure as we know it"...

^^^^^^^^

Also, I had this conversation with Will Pitt once, and he didn't correct me. Oh well.

[Cha]

110. Q..making

sense again :toast:

[Robeson]

126. Absolutely.....

...If we have a "perception" problem about this issue with some Americans, then our leaders need to discuss how to handle it when they are behind closed doors. Its called, "strategy session". They do not need to be throwing it our there for general consumption, because it only reinforces those stereotypes. As you said, there are so many talking points that they could be hammering the Republicans with on a daily basis. Its time our leaders, in front of the media, adopt the 11th commandment. And the 12th commandment should be "Hammer Bush everytime a microphone is in our face".

[journalist3072]

122. Can someone please send Bayh the memo

That the Democratic Party already has national security credentials.

Excuse me, it was the last Democratic President (and last democratically elected President) that helped stop the New Year's bombing of LAX Airport.

It was a Democratic President that required those in in his administration with oversight of national security (i.e. Attorney General, etc) to go to the White House every day during the Millenium threat, so they could "shake the trees" and share information.

It was that Democratic President's Attorney General who slept in the Justice Department on New Year's Eve, in case of a national emergency.

It was that Democratic President's Defense Secretary, who was called to Capitol Hill and yelled at by Republicans, because his boss went after Al Qaeda training camps and bombed Iraq.

[Donna Zen]

127. Paging Dr. Lakoff!

Dear Dr. Lakoff,

To remove a false perception should we:

• repeat the false perception and then deny it?

• present the facts as we see them in the positive?

Thank you.

^^^^^^^^^

We can all agree that for several years now the republicans and I would think the defense lobbyist, find it very useful to label the Democrats as weak on defense. It keeps Democrats voting for every piece of shit that rolls through the ole pork barrel appropriations process. If the Democrat has a Defense/National Security big fat hole in their otherwise tidy resume, then all the more reason to bow and scrap to the MIC. For republicans, chicken-hawk or no, it doesn't matter.

Bayh, who just happened to be in Iowa, was making the case for his own resume. He should learn to frame in the positive. Talk about his time in the service, his experience. But repeating the lie, even with qualifiers, is still putting it out there. This administration is tearing the military apart. Those marines, after three years of war, were riding in an amphibious vehicle in the desert. Talk about what Democrats are doing for veterans. Talk about Democratic successes and republican failures. And for God's sake, nix on the "I'll use lethal force bullshit." The country needs to be reminded that Democrats love their country and will protect and defend it. We do, we have, and we will.

[Nikki Stone 1]

131. "He should learn to frame in the positive. "

Well, let's see how that works

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. May I remind the DLC apologists that Paul Wellstone, who

voted against the IWR was absolutely adored by veterans because he went to bat for their interests.

Oh, and despite the fact that he was short and had never been in the military, no one ever thought of him as a wimp.

[bvar22]

136. Agree, this MAN was no wimp!

The Republicans and the Corporatisits FEARED Paul.

I don't remember Paul sitting around and handwringing about perceptions and images.
Paul just went straight out, told the TRUTH, and directly kicked ass!.

[FrenchieCat]

141. Yep....

Wimp is, as Wimp does.

Wellstone was no wimp, because he had passion in his beliefs and was not a panderer nor an appeaser.

Bayh, however, is a wimp in my book.

If he thinks that his service on the intelligence committee (or what-E-ver)in the Senate must mean that we should think him strong on National Defense and Foreign relations (which is what he wants us to think cause he is running in '08), He's got another thing coming.

Bayh is not only a Wimp, but he is also a poseur.

He saw the same intelligence that Graham had seen....and yet, he still voted for the war. When I think of National security strength in a Senator, Bayh does not come to mind.

How's that?

[mopinko]

133. mr bayh if u attack dems, you are a republican

like randi says.

[paulk]

144. there are plenty of Dems attacked in this thread

and not by Mr. Bayh.

would you care to comment on that?

[mopinko]

151. the dlc are not

democrats, they are republicans. you can't just go by the letter after their names.

[paulk]

156. LOL

thanks for clearing that up...

:rofl:

[salin]

142. Hey - welcome to my senator - who has lurched right since his election.

This guy, many months after David Kay (bushite weapons inspector who led the WMD search after the invasion) returned and declared that not only had No WMDs been found, that there was no evidence of the repub meme that the weapons had been there, but had been moved just before the war began, MONTHS after this - while the admin stuch to the "we will finds WMDs" meme... Bayh dutifully does the Sunday am talk show circuit declaring that he believed that not only were there WMDs in Iraq, but that would still be found.

Bayh, for whatever reason, early on decided that his political fate (ambitions, presidential and all that) hinged on supported bushco per their military adeventures. His words towards the partyh deserves nothing more than a yawn.

[flyarm]

143. please call Sen Bayh office and tell him to go to hell!!

TELL HIM he does not speak for us!..i hate these bastards almost as much as rethugs!

[MisterP]

145. we are weak: the GOP is correct--don't ever vote for us until we are as

bloodthirsty as Perle

[bettyellen]

146. kick

[Cascadian]

147. And they accuse the left of dividing the Democratic Party.

Screw the DLC. They are doing their damnedest to split the party. They accuse the left and liberals of splitting the party but look at what they are doing? The pot calling the kettle black!


Bayh and the DLCers should just sit down and shut up or join the Republicans. Man! I am glad he did not get the DNC chair. The Democratic Party would be dead!







John

[Goldeneye]

152. He said perceived.

He didn't say we are weak on national security, he said we were perceived as weak on national security. And this backlash on DU is exactly the problem. How are we going to change the perception if we can't even talk about it?

[Q]

155. It's telling that anyone should have to explain...

...or apologize for Bayh. His words should speak for themselves and without interpretation.

Many seem to think Bayh's message was meant for general consumption. But it was aimed at those 'elitist' Democrats that refuse to jump on board the 'Progressive Patriotism" bandwagon. The sign on the side of the wagon says: any war is a good war if our sponsors are making a gluttonous profit.

The 'backlash' on DU isn't the problem and it's not up to 'us' to change the perception.

The problem is that the DLC/Bayh is trying to sell Bush's war as their own and it's not going over too well in DemocraticVille.

We know that Bush has lied to this nation from the moment that he 'took' office. His worst lies have been about Iraq and the war on terror. The DLC and too many other Democratic 'leaders' have JOINED HIM in perpetuating these lies. It's embarrassing.

The DLC should know by now that WE won't help them lie to the nation just so one of them can grab the oval office and become the next 'war president'.

[bvar22]

161. LIke T his:

*The Republicans have been telling a HUGE LIE to the American People!

*The Democrats are STRONG on National Security and WE have the track record to PROVE IT!!!!

*The Democrats WON a World War on TWO Fronts against TWO WORLD Class enemies in LESS time than George bush* has been chasing Osama!

*The Democrats captured and imprisoned ALL the terrorists involved in the 1st WTC Bombing without invading THE WRONG COUNTRY, throwing away $300Billion and killing a bunch of American soldiers!

*Its TIME to call the the Republican War in Iraq what it IS: A MISERABLE FAILURE that has made America LESS SAFE!!!!



SEE!. That is how you do it. You certainly don't keep repeating the LIE. Handwringing and whining about perceptions ONLY makes the Party look EVEN WEAKER! CONFRONT THE FUCKING LIE DIRECTLY!!!! (SEE: the Hackett campaign in Ohio)

Read the rest of the interview.
How much time does he spend attacking the Republicans?
How much time does he spend on the Democrats perception problems?

1) Bayh NEVER stated that the perception was FALSE, and a LIE perpetuated by Republicans.(in fact, he leaves that open so that he can sell the DLC's plan to divert MORE money into their Corporate Financiers pockets)

2)His statement is itself a LIE, but a clever one. He uses the propagandists favorite tool, the Passive Voice.
"The Democratic Party is seen as weak on defense".

1)This statement is essentially FALSE because it suggests the ALL people see the DemParty a weak on Defense, when in fact, 1/2 the people KNOW that this is a Republican LIE.
Do YOU see the Democratic Party as weak on defense? I don't!
If I did, I wouldn't vote Democratic.
I KNOW this is a LIE. The entire Democratic Party knows this is a LIE...so STOP repeating it!!! The perception is NOT the problem. The Republican LIARS are the problem!!!

2) The Passive voice allows him to escape taking responsibility for the statement! It is much worse than Fox New's "some people say" If he was being honest, he would assign responsibility.

3)He states that the perception is the problem. It isn't. The problem is the Republican LIE machine, but don't expect BAYH to criticize the Republicans or attack the REAL problem.


Did you read the line about how the Democrats shouldn't even criticize bush*? because we have a perception problem???!!!!:puke:

[xchrom]

168. indeed -- but moderates only want to talk about

the democrats in terms set out by repukes -- and old habits{and corporate lobbyists money} are hard to give up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

157. He such a nice looking man

A little bit of eye candy never hurts. Other than that, the mute button on the remote gets tested when he appears.

[Zhade]

160. Kick!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[AX10]

164. Actually, what he was saying was that there is a perception...

that Democrats are weak. The problem is that Bayh does not know how to speak properly. He sounds like he' s attacking the party, which he's not. But still, he CANNOT be our canddiate in 08' because he'll have his arse handed to him. He can't speak, Wes Can and so forth. Wes Clark 08'!

[bvar22]

165. See post #161.

Repeating and dwelling on a perception reinforces the perception and adds a 2nd Level of WEAKNESS. NOW the Democrats are victims of a perception. There IS a way to deal with this issue, Post #161.

[sendero]

169. An old song lyric comes to mind...

..."where's your shame, you've left us up to our necks in it".


Any politician who thinks that Dems are weak on National Security should just become a Repug and share in all their glorious successes, like the first major terrorist attack on American soil, 911.

[nickshepDEM]

170. We ARE perceived as weak on national security/defense.

Thats just the facts. See: Election Results 2002, 2004.

[Q]

172. Bush lied this nation into war...the DLCers followed...

...yet where is the 'perception' that this is wrong?

What the HELL has the Democratic party become?

Instead of talking about our 'perceived' weaknesses...why not DRIVE HOME the message that the Bush Neocon's response to national security is to drop bombs on the heads of innocent men, women and children...while those who actually committed these atrocities are still running free?

Bayh and the DLC offers nothing but a defensive, victim mentality. Oh, poor us...we're wrongly perceived as being weak.

But then again...the DLC Leadership IS weak when all they can do is lick Bush's boots and agree with his 'doctine' of 'preventative' attacks and torture.