|
...one is reminded of French tactical doctrine at the start of WWI--modernizing weapons was expensive; revamping command and control was complicated and contentious; retraining troops to deal with changes to military technology was time-consuming...so instead of doing all those things (despite the lessons of two Balkan wars only 1-3 years previously), millions of French soldiers were marched--with "elan" or fighting/patriotic spirit, but no steel helmets--into massed artillery barrages and concentrated heavy machine-gun fire, to die by the hundreds of thousands...before reality reared its ugly head, and the necessary upgrades and changes were belatedly made.
The reasons we discuss these matters is because they are outstanding issues of major contention that have yet to be resolved from previous elections, and leave Dem's vulnerable, divided, off-message and disorganized in the current election. The problem with the Dem's campaign(s) this year is that they have competing agendas: the DLC-approved "Bush Lite" agenda of Clinton, the Nelson's, Menendez, Cantwell, Lincoln, etc; and the somewhat more (if vaguely) "liberal" agenda of the usual C-Span suspects.
With the accumulation of scandels surrounding the GOPs, the original campaign strategy of lying low and letting public disgust with the GOP elect Dem's just may work (although barely, if it does), but does not do anything to rally the base, much less send a message to independents and so-called Reagan (rank and file) democrats. Indeed, recent votes on such litmus-test issues as the 'torture' bill only outrage and alienate not only left-liberal Democrats (as do such candidacies as Bob Casey's), but give non-Democratic civil libertarians a clear disincentive to vote Democratic.
One other point: the "lassaize faire" campaign strategy of the Dem's means they have no way to effectively respond to any October Surprise--for instance: say the Foley imbroglio isn't the Rovan mechanation some here poist, but a full-blown crisis for the GOP that only gets worse as election day approaches...if so, the pressure on the WH to engineer a surprise of such proportions as to turn the tide would, of course, be military action against Iran--say, a few days of intense air operations the weekend before the election, all to protect U.S. from an "intolerable", if non-existant, Iranian threat (nukes, WMD's, whatever)...close enough to the election to manipulate it; but before the utterly predictable (and already predicted) reactions and consequences--what would Democratic candidates do? I can guarantee you that almost all of them will (once again) rally 'round the president "in time of war", and spout all the neo-con propaganda about "security" that Rove et al could ever wish to hear. If the DP had adopted a genuine anti-occupation, anti-WOT policy from the start of this campaign, they could they would be entitled to respond to this scenario (which really isn't THAT far-fetched) with all the bombastic self-righteousness they deserve. Instead, by being WOT enablers--extraordinary DoD appropriations for Iraq/Afghanistan in the upper 11-figures; the torture bill--Dem's can only bleat their timid, "me-too-only-moreso" assent to their own defeat.
While i'm ranting: i totally reject the notion that to vote against the torture bill means one is labeled 'soft' on terrorism, and that axiomatically leads to electoral defeat. It is, at best, a very untested proposition (much like Dem's filibustering anything proposed by the WH or GOP--no one knows: it's never been tried). There are four plausible reasons for 12 D-Sen. and 34-D-House to vote with the neo-con's: 1) they are elitists who don't believe we are entitled to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments (or Sec. 1 of the 14th)--civil liberties just get in the way of riding herd on the masses. 2) They are ignorant, or just plain too stupid, to understand the seminal importance of the issue. 3) They are cynically indifferent enough to our rights that they can be sacrificed on the alter of their political ambitions. 4) They really do believe in civil liberties, but are simply cowards. Whichever excuse tickles your fancy, none of them relflect well on either candidate or the Party. Who's to say that standing up for the Bill of Rights is a losing proposition, especially when it's the perfect wedge issue to use against the GOP with their more redneck constituancy (hey, guys, your guns are NEXT). Besides, i've long regarded the Bill of Rights as THE litmus-test issue for any candidate--if standing up for civil liberties and human rights (and against fascism) ISN'T a litmus-test issue, then what in heaven's name is? Why are we so afraid to take THAT to the people?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
