Steve Brodner
Some Democrats in the center of the war debate: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Webb of Virginia, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Senator John Kerry, Patricia Madrid of New Mexico and Senator Joseph Biden Jr.
Posted on 09/16/2006 6:39:22 PM PDT by neverdem
Issue One
Steve Brodner
Some Democrats in the center of the war debate: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Webb of Virginia, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Senator John Kerry, Patricia Madrid of New Mexico and Senator Joseph Biden Jr.
FOR Democrats in Congress and those hoping to join them, the troublesome war in Iraq presents both a significant political opportunity and an exquisite dilemma.
Some recent polls show that voters consider the war the most important issue facing the country today and are very uneasy about the way the Bush administration is handling it.
Yet the public appears evenly split on what to do about it. Half say the United States should keep its troops in Iraq and the other half want the soldiers brought home. Half support a firm timetable for withdrawal; the other half think that’s a bad idea.
So what’s a Democratic candidate for Congress to say about Iraq, beyond articulating a broad antiwar message? Should he or she present a detailed plan for extricating the country from the increasingly unpopular war? Offer support for a firm timetable for withdrawal but leave the start and end dates vague? Say that such decisions are best left to the generals on the ground? Or just keep pounding President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Republicans in Congress for starting a misbegotten war with no way out?
Democratic candidates around the country are trying each of these approaches in a cacophony of frustration and sorrow, reflecting divisions in the party at the national level. If it is hard to see a Democratic plan to end the war, it’s because there isn’t one.
“It’s a dog’s breakfast,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which has done extensive polling on public...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If anyone wants the text and HTML code for the above pics, FReepmail me and I'll send you a copy.
Their lunatics want us to help the terrorists get their virgens at a rapid pace, so I can understand their dilemma in that sense. But the Democrats let their little gremlins out of the locked cage, fed them, helped them grow. Why? because they energetically attacked Bush. The fact it now hurts them is their fault.
I can tell them want the Majority want.
To win the war fast, whatever it takes be done, and then withdraw quickly.
They'll never understand that from the polls though.
They wonder how it can be that people say they want them home, but won't accept a timetable. They will never understand why people can be down on war, yet have an anti-war candidate be a drag on a national ticket.
Americans don't like Losing. It's that simple. Timetables are for losers to save face. they are rejected. They don't like war, they want it over. They remember 9-11, they know we're at risk. Conclusion? Slam the enemy hard in a non politically correct way, seize victory, enforce it, then come home fast.
There you go. That's how to read the polls.
The Dems would do nothing. Then, when someone called them on it, they'd say it was a smear. In sum, who cares what the Democrats would do?
They would cut and run quicker than a Chinese sweatshop full of marathoners. Not a spine in the bunch. You have to put McCain and Lindsey boy Graham in there too. No testicles.
ahem..
it is "RE-deploy"....
they insist that there is a big difference....
the dems would put us in a world of hurt
So what’s a Democratic candidate for Congress to say about Iraq, beyond articulating a broad antiwar message?
Maybe he/she should be honest with the voters and state his/her plan for dealing with Iraq. I know that would be a break from the deception that liberals usually employ when running for office, but maybe, just once, it is worth a try.
That pretty well sums it all up in a few words. Gets right to the heart of things as to why we must not let the Dems regain the majority in either the House or Senate.
Don't you love it?
The Democrats aren't asking, what should we do, different from Bush, for the good of our country and the civilized world?
They are asking, what should we say we'll do in order to get ourselves elected?
Rather a different question, and Steve Broder of the New York Times evidently sees nothing wrong with it, since he lays it right out there in his column.
Probably because he's addressing a New York Times kind of audience, who think the same as he does. They don't give a rat's *ss about our country or the people of Iraq or the future of civilization. They only want to throw the Republicans out of office, by hook or by crook, so they can regain power and throw great cocktail parties once again in DC.
What would Gen Patton do about the war in Iraq if he were alive?
What would MacArthur do about the war in Iraq if he were alive?
Less than what the sitting president has done. And the NYT would praise it to the skies.
“Many of them think it’s enough to run on negativity on the Bush policy. I’m not convinced that’s true. That feeds the perception that Democrats know what they’re against but not what they’re for.”
And that is the reason the dems, baring some unforeseen event, will continue in the minority position after the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.