ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:56 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Cheap Shots (Article)
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
From The New Republic-

Peter Beinart wrote:
A week into his presidential bid, Wesley Clark looks less like the Democrats' soolution than another symptom of their basic problem. That problem is that much of the Democratic base still doesn't take national security seriously. Sure, Democrats know that most Americans don't trust the aprty to keep them safe. But they deny that this distrust has anything to do with prevailing Democratic ideology. The party, they reassure themselves, merely needs a tougher image.

And so Democrats keep trying to find new, ever more Rambo-like personas to proclaim essentially the same message. First, there was John Kerry, whose Vietnam heroism supposedly inoculated him against GOP attacks, his incoherent Iraq position notwithstanding. Now, there is General Clark. Maybe Clark does indeed have a proactive, coherent national security message. But, with his Kerry-esque, have-it-both-ways position on Iraq, he certainly hasn't articulated that message on the stump. And many of the Democrats who cheered Clark's entrance into the race don't particularly care; for them, Clark's resume is the messahe/ Once again, the Democrats are trying to solve an ideological problem with a biographical solution. It didn't work for decorated World War II flying ace George Mcgovern; it didn't work for Vietnam triple-amputee Max Cleland. And it won't work next fall. The voters - shocking as it may seem - actually care what the parties believe.

In fact, at the very moment Democrats are swooning over Clark, the party's view on Iraq are growing even more confused. Throughout the summer, Democrats rightly slammed the Bush administration for minimizing the difficulty of rebuilding Iraq. "It's been hide the ball every step of the way," fumed Senator Kent Conrad in July. "They've consistently understated the cost by a factor of several-fold." Two weeks later, Office of Management and Budget chief Joshua Bolten's refusal to estimate the costs of occupation led Senator Joseph Biden to ask, "When are you guys starting (sic) to be honest with us?"

Biden got his answer on September 7. In his speech that night, President Bush did what Democrats had been demanding: He abandoned the fiction that Iraq could be rebuilt on the cheap. His $87 billion request even included new money for Afghanistan, where Democrats had hammered his insufficient commitment to nation-building.

You'd think the Democrats would have applauded the president's conversions, perhaps even claimed credit for it. Instead, leading Democrats responded to Bush's U-turn with one of their own. With the polls showing that a majority of Americans, and a huge majority of Democrats, don't want to spend more money on Iraq, prominent Democrats decided Bush was too committed to nation-building. Almost overnight, it was Democrats who wanted to reconstruct Iraq on the cheap.

Democrats support the $51 billion Bush has requested for Iraqi military operations. But they want him to separate that from the roughly $20 billion he has requested for rebuilding Iraq's hospitals, electrical grid, and police. Ask Democrats whether they support that latter request, and they give three responses, each more dishonest and opportunistic than the last.

The first response is that the Bush administration should be spending the money at home. As John Kerry said at the September 9 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) debate, "If we can open firehouses in Baghdad, we can keep them open in the United States of America." Yes, if we repealed the tax cuts, perhaps we could. But that's not going to happen, so, in the real world, Democrats have to decide whether to support large sums for Iraqi nation-building, even though their constituents won't get the domestic spending they vastly prefer. At the end of the day, Kerry will probably vote yes. But his debate answer pandered to an audience that wanted to hear him say no.

The second response is that Democrats can't evluate Bush's request without more information. At the CBC debate, John Edwards said he wouldn't vote yes "without the president telling us how much this is going to cost over the long term, how long we're going to be there, and who is going to share the cost wit hus." But this isn't a position; it's a dodge. We already know who is going to share the cost with us: almost nobody. Estimates suggest the Bush administration will receive roughly 10 percent of the international aid it wants for Iraq. That's awful - and at least partly the Bushies' fault. But, if anything, it's reason for Democrats - if they're serious about succeeding in Iraq - to demand more than $20 billion in U.S. aid. Edwards also wants to know "how much this is going to cost over the long term" and "how long we're going to be there." Those questions can't be fully answered, but, even if they could - House Democrats recently estimated the Iraq occupation would cost roughly $300-400 billion over ten years - what difference would it make? Edwards has all the information he needs to make a decision on Bush's budget request right now. Liberal internationalism says he should vote yes; the Democratic base says he should vote no. And his demand for plans, estimates, and timetables is a device to avoid choosing between the two.

The third dodge is to equate reconstructing Iraq with lining Dick Cheney's pockets. "I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq," proclaimed Bob Graham at the CBC debate. But, for better or worse, rebuilding Iraq and securing Halliburton's profits are now intimately connected, and it is not exactly a sign of foreign policy seriousness to propose abandoning the former in order to prevbent the latter.

These three nonresponses to Bush's budget request expose the shallowness of what passes for Democratic national security doctrine. If Democrats had a distinct post-September 11, 2001, vision, it was partly that the war on terrorism required a Marshall Plan as well as a Truman Doctrine; we needed to build schools in the Muslim world, not just crack skulls. Yet, now, with the Bush administration finally recognizing that defeating terrorism requires making sure Iraqis have electricity and clean water, the Democratic presidential candidates are looking for any excuse to avoid saying yes. Pandering to public isolationism may make short-term political sense, but, in the long-term, it will simply confirm what many Americans already believe: that you can dress up the Democratic Party in whatever uniform you want, it still doesn't have a strategy for the defining challange of our time


Is this a fair, unfair, right or wrong analysis of the democrats in congress, and in particular the democratic presidential nominees? Discuss.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:23 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
I think it's fair. I support the democratic ideals, but at the moment they're too disorganized. I forsee that in the near future, a split will occur in the party, breaking it into two similar yet different parties. And, really, I think that the nation could use that. We were never meant to get mired down in these intra- and inter-party politics; that was never the intention of the founders of the United States.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:06 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Shock and awe, I'm agreeing with Eronarn. On the issue of "the Democrats are going to fission," at least. I'd welcome the return of Democrats in the vein of F.D.R. and Victor Davis Hanson, and it would also serve to push the Kucinich-style Democrats even further out onto the edge (as far as power bases go; they're already on the edge ideologically).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:21 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:54 pm
Posts: 331
Location: Within range of cakewalk's wifi.
If anyone is going to bring about the fall and restructuring of the Democratic party, it'd be Donna Pelosi. This is the only real way I can imagine that woman's existence to be good for America.

As for the article, it's the same kinda name-calling that comes out of berkeley every few months. It's just the kinda stuff I tend to ignore.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:40 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 448
Location: Yet another city of degenerate fools
The article has good criticism (which I would wholeheartedly agree with), but it belies one of the even worse dodges of Republicans: saying, "Well, yes, you could argue that our position A is bad, and you might be right, but look at the Democrats; they're not doing anything about it."

_________________
"I have asked God for only one thing in my life
and that is that he should make people laugh at my enemies.
"And he did."
-Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:58 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 128
Location: Evanston, IL (USA)
The McGovern comparison/mention/whatever in the article seems fairly appropriate--the upcoming election is starting to look more and more like '72, and I think the Democrats need to land another hippie-dippy radical if they're going to have any shot at ousting Bush. The article is dead right in that the party can't keep its dogma straight right now, and that's not in the least part due to the splintered race for the cantidacy right now. We've already seen from Liebermann and especially Clark that wishy-washy "split the middle" centrist tactics don't work for Iraq. The cantidates do keep dodging, and it is pissing off a lot of their supporters; the article has that much right.

Now, to me, this begs the question: What do the Democrats need to do to get the party together and stop contradicting themselves? Me, I'm all for setting someone up as "the opposite of Bush." The tax cuts are here to stay, and Halliburton pulling out of Iraq is slightly more likely than a nineteen year-old pulling out of his prom date, but we can get a government in there and get America out, damn fast. At the start of the war, the Democrats were all bitching and moaning about how this wasn't our war and it wasn't our job to "fix the world"; I say, great, let's go back to that. We should have pulled out of 'Nam about three years before we did; why would we stay on in Iraq? Stick in as best a government as we can scrap together on the cheap, pull out, and tell the U.N. that they can finally have the presence in Iraq they want.

Good for the party? Well, right now people want to hear that we're dedicated to peace in Iraq, so there'd better be some serious spin on the whole "Well, we're actually screwing them to help you out" part of things. But on the other hand, it goes back to that anti-globalist militarism sentiment that we had back in spring, and, more importantly, it gives those few voters who actually might swing one way or the other a distinct opposition to Bush to identify with, rather than someone trying to pose as the man to patch the holes in Bush's policies.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group