What Would Scoop Do? (Fellow Democrats, get serious about defense or get used to losing)

Opinion Journal ^ | 05/21/03 | DONNA BRAZILE AND TIMOTHY BERGREEN

[Pokey78]

Forty-eight hours after President Bush told a cheering throng of sailors on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln that major combat in Iraq was over, the nine candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination held their first debate, in Charleston, S.C. It would have been a perfect occasion for a serious discussion of the national-security challenges that we as a nation face in the wake of the Iraq war. Instead, we were seen fighting among ourselves on national television over whether the United States will continue to be the world's dominant military power.

[vbmoneyspender]

How can the Democrats ever be credible on defense when they have backers like Arthur Sulzburger, Jr., who believes that the people who deserved to die in Vietnam were not the NVA or the Viet Cong, but rather our own troops.

[egarvue]

I would say that this is surprisingly refreshing, but reading between the lines you can see that they don't really mean for the Democrats to really be for an internationally strong America, they only want the party to appear strong, so that Democrats can win elections. The same, naked lust for power...Clintonism at its worst.

[gov_bean_ counter]

In addition, one night of Kossovo bombing killed more civies than all the sorties in GWII and for what? Can't believe the Dems hang their hat on that one as their example of being strong on defense.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Hey Donna, wanna? I got your national defense r-i-ight here, Baby! Yo, Donna! Lemme put an ICBM in your silo, Mama. Ooh, you lookin' tough, girl! Mmmm, Baby! You makin' me stiffen my military defense. You hot! You want some alpha male? Forget Algore, Donna, I show you some white hot Willy Peter!

[Moosehead]

#1 on the most idiotic post today. Congrats.

[Mike Fieschko]

if voters continue to see us as feckless and effete they will not listen to our message next year and they will re-elect Mr. Bush.

Donna Brazile wrote this?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Why, thanks! That means so much. In light of Ms. Brazile's feckless support of national defense, I felt it was entirely appropriate. I'll leave you to your deep thoughts now.

[SkyPilot]

I watched as the first minutes of the debate generated into a Cat Fight between Kerry and Whats-His-Name over who loves homosexuals more:

KERRY: "I love the homosexuals more than ANYONE!"

WHAT's-HIS-NAME: "Unnn Uhh! I love gays more--you jerk!!"

KERRY: "I know you are but what am I?!"

WHAT's-HIS-NAME: "You don't have the brains to stand for Queer-Rights!"

KERRY: "I don't need a lecture from you--back in VIETNAM......."

[CyberAnt]

Well ... FDR may have led us through WWII, but he did it with a REPUBLICAN - General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Even FDR was smart enough to know only repubs are good at war.

[jagrmeister]

I read this with the satisfaction that Democrats still don't get it - not even the authors of this editorial. The national security concerns of the American people after 9/11 are genuine and justified. They are not "insecurities". Politicians that address these real concerns are not "fear-mongering", they are eliminating real threats. So long as Democrats see the public as "over-reacting" to 9/11, the defining event of a generation, they will never come up with the answers, let alone the rhetoric to mollify the public.

[doosee]

Ms. Brazile, who served as the campaign manager for Gore 2000, is a political strategist and a member of the board of advisers of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a think tank on terrorism.

This is Donna "We cant let the white boys win" Brazile. Who was she rooting for in Mogadishu?

[Budge]

... through Harry Truman's refusal to acquiesce to the North Korean invasion of the South or the Soviet attempt to starve the Western powers out of Berlin, to John F. Kennedy's steely-eyed showdown with Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis...

Oh yes, "Harry Truman's refusal to acquiesce..." Tell us all about this.

Then please explain Truman's mad desire to fire General Douglas McArthur because he had the plan to defeat the North Koreans.

The only one Truman stood up to was McArthur

Ah, JFK's "steely-eyed showdown with Khruschev..." You mean like his cowardly refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion when Castro could have easily been overthrown?

Even when we have demonstrated toughness and foresight--as President Clinton did in deploying military force to reverse ethnic cleansing in the Balkans--we have not blown our own bugle.

BWAHAHAHA! How DARE you put "Clinton," "toughness and foresight" in the same sentence! Yes indeed, X-42 really demonstrated "leadership" then!

One final thing, "we have not blown our own bugle." You demobrats have never quit tootin' your own horn, all the while whorshiping at the altar of the Clintons, that great military mind who stated in writing he "loathed the military!"

I don't know what drugs you people are on, or what you are smoking, but it certainly has distorted your conception of history!

[randita]

This article is makes some valid points, but doesn't address the whole problem the Democrats have. The bottom line is that their platform doesn't appeal to enough voters to win a national election and most statewide elections.

The Democrat's tent is getting smaller and smaller and consists of a disparate group of special interests who are vying with each other over access to the public trough.

The Republican's tent is expanding and is united over the core principles of a free market economy, strong defense, and smaller government (this principle is currently on the back burner).

Until or unless the Democrat's adopt some core principles that a majority voters can unite behind, they will continue to lose.