PDA

View Full Version : Consider this post an open letter to Senate Democrats.


jAZ
06-23-2006, 02:57 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008830.php

(June 23, 2006 -- 12:20 PM EST // link)
Consider this post an open letter to Senate Democrats.

You're really doing a poor job in the public debate over Iraq.

Luckily, unlike what's imagined by the imbeciles who write The Note and others in Washington, reality is not simply a DC media and politics confection. The Dems can muff this several times before coming back and getting it right. And they'd still be more or less fine. Because the Iraq War is still really unpopular. And the great majority of the country has lost faith in President Bush's conduct of the war.

But that's still no excuse for handling this so poorly.

The Democrats have to be much more aggressive. But 'more aggressive' doesn't mean a quicker withdrawal. It means making your point forcefully, on your own terms, repeatedly.

But they're not doing that.

What I see is Republicans on TV repeating their 'cut and run' charges. And to the extent I see Democrats, it's Democrats denying the charge. No, we're not for cutting and running.

The president wants to stay in Iraq for at least three more years. It's not that he won't set a date to withdraw. He doesn't even have a plan that gets to the point where the US could end the occupation. In practice he wants to stay in Iraq forever. What Repubicans are voting for is More of the Same, More of the Same failed policy.

Let's work through a bit of this. If the president had a plan for success he would say, 'I plan to get X, Y and Z done and then we're going to bring American troops back home. I expect those three things will be accomplished by the middle of 2007.' Or maybe he'd say 2008 or the beginning of 2009.

But he doesn't say any of those things. When he says we're staying in Iraq as long as he's in the White House he makes clear that he doesn't have any plan other than staying in Iraq. Other than staying their indefinitiely or basically forever. Isn't it possible his 'plan' could work and have us out in 2008? Obviously, he's discounted that possibility because, again, he has no plan.

For my part, I'd rather put more troops into Iraq than leave the status quo, as long as their was a clear plan for bringing the war and occupation to a satisfactory conclusion. The thing is that the status quo is morally indefensible because it just means continue to burn through men and money for a failed policy because President Bush isn't capable of admitting his policies have failed.

He's like an owner of a business that's slowly going under. He doesn't know how to save the situation. So he won't get more money or resources to fix the business. That's throwing good money after bad. And he won't just liquidate and save what he can, because then he'd have to come to grips with the fact that he's failed. So his policy is denial and slow failure. Here of course the analogy to President Bush is rather precise since he only has to hold out until 2009 when he can give the problem to someone else, just as he did in his past life with other businesses he drove into the ground.

But for the country that's not acceptable. We don't have a policy except for slow burn and denial. And the president's ego isn't enough to ask men and women to die for. We need an actual plan. And the president doesn't have one.

Democrats need to hammer this point again and again and not get tripped up in the president's bully-boy rhetoric. The president has no plan. He wants to stay in Iraq forever. He says for at least three more years. All the Republicans agree they want more of the same.

No one wants that in this country. All the Democrats have to do is get up on the airwaves and say it. Again and again.

Even the side with an insipid argument can take the day if the other side remains unheard.

-- Josh Marshall

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:02 PM
Democrats don't need to hammer any points.

They need to fill the void in leadership at the top.

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:02 PM
Democrats need to hammer this point again and again and not get tripped up in the president's bully-boy rhetoric.

As long as Democrats continue to press forward with what they're against, and not what they are for, they will continue to lose.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:11 PM
Democrats don't need to hammer any points.

They need to fill the void in leadership at the top.

clean out your box dude

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:15 PM
clean out your box dude
Done

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:22 PM
Done

This is what I am getting now:

ZachKC has exceded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space.

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:25 PM
This is what I am getting now:

ZachKC has exceded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space.
Weird lemme try again. I guess killing sent messages doesnt help.

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:29 PM
Weird lemme try again. I guess killing sent messages doesnt help.
Should work now.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:30 PM
Should work now.

Still getting it dude. Does that meter at the top say under 150?

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:33 PM
Still getting it dude. Does that meter at the top say under 150?
Ha. I literally just cleared out the whole damn thing. Try one more time.

StcChief
06-23-2006, 03:34 PM
Dum-ocrats continue to fight amongst yourselves..
You have that strategy down pat.
Leader send in make a movie sKerry or sHillary, or screamin' Dean. That's all you got.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:35 PM
Ha. I literally just cleared out the whole damn thing. Try one more time.

You should have got it. You must have had a ton of shit in your box. ROFL

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 03:46 PM
You should have got it. You must have had a ton of shit in your box. ROFL
Ya there were 300 total I think. How many CP vets does it take to clear out a frickin mailbox?

It was interesting going through tu subject lines as I deleted them page by page. I have been doing this thing for a while...talked to a lot of people. I guess I never thought about it that much until now.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 03:52 PM
Ya there were 300 total I think. How many CP vets does it take to clear out a frickin mailbox?

It was interesting going through tu subject lines as I deleted them page by page. I have been doing this thing for a while...talked to a lot of people. I guess I never thought about it that much until now.

He should contact you pretty soon he is online right now.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 03:55 PM
As long as Democrats continue to press forward with what they're against, and not what they are for, they will continue to lose.
Weren't you the same Donger who was mocking Democrats for pressing forward with "what they are for" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142667).

Donger
06-23-2006, 03:58 PM
Weren't you the same Donger who was mocking Democrats for pressing forward with "what they are for" (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142667).

Depends on your point of view.

You would say that they are for pulling out of Iraq.

I would say that they are simply against the war in Iraq and want to pull out prematurely.

Advice, mind you, I hope all Democrats of child-bearing age heed.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:10 PM
Depends on your point of view.

You would say that they are for pulling out of Iraq.

I would say that they are simply against the war in Iraq and want to pull out prematurely.

Advice, mind you, I hope all Democrats of child-bearing age heed.
So what you are saying is that IYO, "As long as Democrats (do) not (press forward with) what (Donger is) for, they will continue to lose."

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:11 PM
Democrats don't need to hammer any points.

They need to fill the void in leadership at the top.
Can you explain what you mean here?

Donger
06-23-2006, 04:12 PM
So what you are saying is that IYO, "As long as Democrats (do) not (press forward with) what (Donger is) for, they will continue to lose."

My opinion is that most Americans will view the Democrats' position on Iraq as being AGAINST the war, and not FOR peace.

We'll see.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 04:41 PM
My opinion is that most Americans will view the Democrats' position on Iraq as being AGAINST the war, and not FOR peace.

We'll see.
See how you've created this nice little circular logic. Any position a Dem takes in favor of changing some policy or addressing some problem... can be framed as "being against" that policy or problem. And we can't have that!

Donger
06-23-2006, 04:48 PM
See how you've created this nice little circular logic. Any position a Dem takes in favor of changing some policy or addressing some problem... can be framed as "being against" that policy or problem. And we can't have that!

The same can be said from the Democratic point of view.

"Republicans are FOR war and against peace."

What don't you get about this?

Cochise
06-23-2006, 04:48 PM
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?" No discernable message other than that.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2006, 04:49 PM
Can you explain what you mean here?


The leadership at the top of the party are all POS, that's a huge problem. Even I wish the Dems were stronger it let's the Republicans run unchecked. Give us a good Blue Dog Democrat please.

SBK
06-23-2006, 04:50 PM
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?" No discernable message other than that.

They've been on an Ann Coulter sucks binge lately too. I guess that means they have 2 messages.

banyon
06-23-2006, 05:09 PM
They've been on an Ann Coulter sucks binge lately too. I guess that means they have 2 messages.

That's really just because She's been on an "Ann Coulter sucks" binge lately.

banyon
06-23-2006, 05:09 PM
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?" No discernable message other than that.

gotta call a spade a spade.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 05:16 PM
The same can be said from the Democratic point of view.

"Republicans are FOR war and against peace."

What don't you get about this?
That your rhetoric that Dems are "for" anything... and only "against" things (and that they won't win until they change this) is a completely horseshit statement. It's purely a political claim that means nothing and only pretends to sound like something.

It's bullshit and you are either robitic enough to be victim of it, or dishonestly partisan enough to advance it as some empty criticsm and equally empty solution.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 05:22 PM
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?" No discernable message other than that.
Why do you feel the need to make shit up like this? It's just lame.

Donger
06-23-2006, 05:24 PM
That your rhetoric that Dems are "for" anything... and only "against" things (and that they won't win until they change this) is a completely horseshit statement. It's purely a political claim that means nothing and only pretends to sound like something.

It's bullshit and you are either robitic enough to be victim of it, or dishonestly partisan enough to advance it as some empty criticsm and equally empty solution.

No, not really.

They are FOR raising taxes, FOR increasing the size of the government, FOR being subject to UN approval, FOR socialized medicine, etc.

They are FOR those things, so let's see them run on them.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 05:51 PM
No, not really.

They are FOR raising taxes, FOR increasing the size of the government, FOR being subject to UN approval, FOR socialized medicine, etc.

They are FOR those things, so let's see them run on them.
Donger's framing aside... looks like he has a bone to pick with Cochise.
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?"

Logical
06-23-2006, 07:18 PM
My opinion is that most Americans will view the Democrats' position on Iraq as being AGAINST the war, and not FOR peace.

We'll see.And really what is wrong with being against the Iraq Occupation? I see that as an admirable position and a position I support.

Donger
06-23-2006, 08:15 PM
Donger's framing aside... looks like he has a bone to pick with Cochise.

Not at all. Since Democrats lack the conviction to run on what they are for, the will run on what they are against.

Personally, I'd love to see a Democrat stand up and say that if elected, he/she'll vote to raise taxes, socialize healthcare, increase the size of governement, etc.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 09:50 PM
Not at all. Since Democrats lack the conviction to run on what they are for, the will run on what they are against.

Personally, I'd love to see a Democrat stand up and say that if elected, he/she'll vote to raise taxes, socialize healthcare, increase the size of governement, etc.
Your framing aside, increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy was a major platform of the Kerry campaign and the 2004 DNC platform... as was a national healthcare program. Clinton actually reduced the size of government while in office, so I don't know that your 3rd suggestion makes any sense no matter how your frame it.

headsnap
06-23-2006, 10:17 PM
Your framing aside, increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy was a major platform of the Kerry campaign and the 2004 DNC platform... as was a national healthcare program. Clinton actually reduced the size of government while in office, so I don't know that your 3rd suggestion makes any sense no matter how your frame it.
that third Clinton accomplishment would have never happened without a Republican Congress. ;)

Donger
06-23-2006, 10:18 PM
Your framing aside, increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy was a major platform of the Kerry campaign and the 2004 DNC platform... as was a national healthcare program. Clinton actually reduced the size of government while in office, so I don't know that your 3rd suggestion makes any sense no matter how your frame it.

And, what was the result of the election, again?

I didn't know I was a 'framer.' That sounds nice, however.

That aside, yes, those were part of the platform. And, hopefully, it will be again. It's funny, you did the exact thing that I'm talking about:

"increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy"

That equals being against, not for, IMO. "Bush paid off his welathy friends and we're against that!"

Again, point-of-view. I'm sure you'll disagree.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:00 PM
And, what was the result of the election, again?

I didn't know I was a 'framer.' That sounds nice, however.

That aside, yes, those were part of the platform. And, hopefully, it will be again. It's funny, you did the exact thing that I'm talking about:

"increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy"

That equals being against, not for, IMO. "Bush paid off his welathy friends and we're against that!"

Again, point-of-view. I'm sure you'll disagree.
Let's see... we've already agreed that each issue either party is addressing can be viewed as "for" one thing, or "against" the converse of it.

Then whenever it's a Dem policy being discussed, you've made a personal decision to take their "for" framing of an issue and invert it into the "against" frame.... which gives you something to bitch about. Something completely fabricated and admittedly something that could be similarly fabricated about each party.

But somehow it's a Dem problem.

Can you keep your bullshit straight, or do I have to keep providing these Cliff's Notes?

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:02 PM
that third Clinton accomplishment would have never happened without a Republican Congress. ;)
Yeah, cause this Republican Congress has a stellar track record of shrinking government. Or do you give the credit to the Republican President? Oh wait there's no credit to be given cause Government has only gotten bigger under Bush and the GOP Congress! That's right.

So what nonsense were you spewing again?

Donger
06-23-2006, 11:09 PM
Let's see... we've already agreed that each issue either party is addressing can be viewed as "for" one thing, or "against" the converse of it.

Then whenever it's a Dem policy being discussed, you've made a personal decision to take their "for" framing of an issue and invert it into the "against" frame.... which gives you something to bitch about. Something completely fabricated and admittedly something that could be similarly fabricated about each party.

But somehow it's a Dem problem.

Can you keep your bullshit straight, or do I have to keep providing these Cliff's Notes?

Your arrogance is amusing.

If and when the Democrats run on being for the items I listed, we'll have another chat. Sans that, your words are meaningless.

We'll see if they do. But, I'd be willing to wager that they do not. Their tone and message will be very much "We are against" blah, blah, blah.

You watch, and learn.

Logical
06-23-2006, 11:16 PM
And, what was the result of the election, again?

I didn't know I was a 'framer.' That sounds nice, however.

That aside, yes, those were part of the platform. And, hopefully, it will be again. It's funny, you did the exact thing that I'm talking about :

"increasing taxes on the wealthy by rolling back Bush's 2002 tax cuts for the wealthy"

That equals being against, not for, IMO. "Bush paid off his welathy friends and we're against that!"

Again, point-of-view. I'm sure you'll disagree.How could you frame it so it would be for something. Isn't it by nature against something if it is for something? Can it be any other way?

Donger
06-23-2006, 11:18 PM
How could you frame it so it would be for something. Isn't it by nature against something if it is for something? Can it be any other way?

Yes, of course. jAZ doesn't appear to grasp that simple truth, however.

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 11:30 PM
That your rhetoric that Dems are "for" anything... and only "against" things (and that they won't win until they change this) is a completely horseshit statement. It's purely a political claim that means nothing and only pretends to sound like something.

It's bullshit and you are either robitic enough to be victim of it, or dishonestly partisan enough to advance it as some empty criticsm and equally empty solution.

Translation: I can't refute what Donger said so I'll post a bunch of meaningless bullshit to cover.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:36 PM
Translation: I can't refute what Donger said so I'll post a bunch of meaningless bullshit to cover.
Sorry to have confused you. It's really not that complicated though, so I'd give it a 2nd read and try to keep up.

recxjake
06-23-2006, 11:37 PM
Translation: I can't refute what Donger said so I'll post a bunch of meaningless bullshit to cover.

hahaha

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 11:44 PM
Sorry to have confused you. It's really not that complicated though, so I'd give it a 2nd read and try to keep up.]

I'll give you the same consideration. I hope you are intelligent enough to understand.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:47 PM
How could you frame it so it would be for something. Isn't it by nature against something if it is for something? Can it be any other way?
As I pointed out for Donger...

Democrats are "for" increasing taxes on the wealthy and returning to the fiscal responsiblity that cause the rapid economic growth of the Clinton years.

Which was one of the centerpieces of the Kerry campaign.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:48 PM
]

I'll give you the same consideration. I hope you are intelligent enough to understand.
I admit, I have no idea what "]" means in this context.

Lurch
06-23-2006, 11:49 PM
As I pointed out for Donger...

Democrats are "for" increasing taxes on the wealthy and returning to the fiscal responsiblity that cause the rapid economic growth of the Clinton years.

Which was one of the centerpieces of the Kerry campaign.

Then run on it: "I support tax increases."

See what happens...

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:52 PM
Then run on it: "I support tax increases."

See what happens...
Your paraphrasing of the policy is bullshit. It's what Donger's been dishonestly trying to do (dropping relevant details). But none the less, it was indeed (despite all of Donger's best attempts to rewrite history on this thread) a part of the 2004 campaign. And will be again a part of the 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

Running up credit card debt is no way to run a household and no way to run a nation. Despite what Republicans will want you to believe.

Lurch
06-23-2006, 11:56 PM
Your paraphrasing of the policy is bullshit. It's what Donger's been dishonestly trying to do (dropping relevant details).

All Joe Sixpack hears is "raise taxes." Nothing else matters.

Ask Joe Sixpack (the ones who vote anyway), if he thinks raising taxes on those making above say 100K is raising taxes on the "rich" and is a good idea?

Donger
06-23-2006, 11:58 PM
This thread is great. Every jAZ denial speaks volumes as to why the Democrats keep losing.

Keep at it, jAZ!

Lurch
06-24-2006, 12:01 AM
This thread is great. Every jAZ denial speaks volumes as to why the Democrats keep losing.

Keep at it, jAZ!

For a couple of months, I actually thought he was rational. More than a mouth-piece spouting the latest DNC talking points. I was wrong.

Donger
06-24-2006, 12:03 AM
For a couple of months, I actually thought he was rational. More than a mouth-piece spouting the latest DNC talking points. I was wrong.

He's quite bright; he just lacks any semblance of common sense.

Lurch
06-24-2006, 12:08 AM
He's quite bright; he just lacks any semblance of common sense.

Bright without common sense is not a good place to be. Unless one lives in Utopia.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 12:13 AM
All Joe Sixpack hears is "raise taxes." Nothing else matters.
Well, I don't disagree with that. But all that view does is surrender to bad policy (low taxes, massive spending, huge debt) in favor of good politics (lower taxes... ignore the massive spending, and exponential debt growth, huge foreign debt ownership, etc).

I can't believe we are pretending there is an actual debate here. What Donger is doing is positioning Democrats as being fundementally flawed and pointing to a weakness in politicing. A weakness that Republicans like Donger try to frame, focus and emphasize at the expense of paying close attention to the sound policy underlying the bad politics.

On a purely political-strategy level I understand what's going on here, but that doesn't mean I have to allow Donger to advance the bullshit and ignore the policy details.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 12:15 AM
This thread is great. Every jAZ denial speaks volumes as to why the Democrats keep losing.

Keep at it, jAZ!
And every time Donger ignores the facts and obfuscates the details in favor of blind rhetoric speaks volumes about his role here... more and more like RINGLEADER every day. That's a shame.

alanm
06-25-2006, 10:14 AM
What policies do they have besides "bush sucks?" No discernable message other than that.
In no particular order I would say the demoncrats are most concerned with gay marriage and abortion. :)
Other than that they got nothin.