Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dems Drop the Ball Again

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted January 21, 2006.


The Democrats will never become the majority party until they can prove to the American people that they have a better plan for keeping us safe.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

So the Democrats have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to deliver the party's response to President Bush's State of the Union speech. Chalk up another one for the What the Hell Are They Thinking? file.

On the same day that Osama Bin Laden's chilling warnings make it Red Alert clear that Bush's obsession with Iraq has not made us safer here at home -- and, indeed, has caused us to take our eye off the real enemy -- the Dems decide that the charge against Bush shouldn't be led by someone who can forcefully articulate why the GOP is not the party that can best keep us safe, but by someone whose only claim to fame is that he carried a red state. Talk about clueless.

The Democrats don't seem to know what the Republicans do know: that the GOP is losing ground on its core issue of national security. That's why Bush is planning to shift his State of the Union focus away from Iraq and onto an attack on rising health care costs. And the re-emergence of the architect of 9/11 -- promising to bring further death and destruction to our door, and touting Iraq's help as an al-Qaeda recruiting tool -- can only further weaken Bush's national security standing.

So why don't the Democrats have the guts to aggressively go after Bush on the issue?

I know I've said this before and before, but the Democrats will never become the majority party until they can prove to the American people that they have a better plan for keeping us safe. And that means having someone like Jack Murtha give the State of the Union response -- someone with the authority to make the point that, on every level, Iraq is the wrong priority. And that the hundreds of billions already spent on Iraq (and the countless billions to come) would be better spent shoring up our ports, roadways, railways, securing our nuclear installations and chemical plants, and properly supporting our first responders.

Don't ask me why, but I actually watched Kaine's inaugural address on C-SPAN, and I was stunned to hear him dare compare the cause of Virginians like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to our cause in Iraq: "They stood here at a time, just as today, when Virginians serving freedom's cause sacrificed their lives so that democracy could prevail over tyranny."

Iraq as a war to ensure that democracy can prevail over tyranny is George Bush's talking point. God help us if it's also the talking point of the man the Democrats have chosen to respond to him after the State of the Union.

And during Kaine's run for Governor, he adopted another Bush talking point -- that it would send "a horrible message" to "cut and run" in Iraq. Could that be any further from Murtha's message that Iraq has become a civil war -- a civil war being inflamed by our continuing presence?

Maybe you are thinking -- at least those of you who have a life and missed his inaugural speech on C-SPAN -- that Kaine is a charismatic speaker who will really wow the American people. Well, he ain't. In fact, he scored so low on the scintillating speaker meter, that today's Note suggests Democrats make it a priority to get the Guv a speech tutor before the State of the Union.

I've got a better idea. Why don't the Democrats reconsider their choice and pick someone more able than Kaine to make the national security argument? They don't even have to make a big deal out of the switch. Kaine can simply come down with a really, really bad cold that night. Cough, cough… and Murtha is waiting in the wings.

The Friday before the 2004 election, bin Laden re-emerged from another protracted silence and released another tape, dominating the news. But instead of aggressively making the point that his reappearance proved that Bush had failed to make America safer, Democratic strategists flinched and had Kerry focus on the economy instead. And we all remember how well that turned out.

The question is: Do the leaders of the Democratic Party remember?

Digg!

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why not use Dean?
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 21, 2006 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like there is a "Kaine" mutiny going on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why not use Dean? OKAY Posted by: Ellie1
» Al Contrare Mufrer! Posted by: Josue
okay.
Posted by: tcx2 on Jan 21, 2006 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can I be the first to admit that I'm sick and tired of "National Security?"

I want freedom goddammit.

Osama killed something like 3,000 people on 9/11. How many are killed each year in auto accidents? Where is the outrage there? Seriously.

Here's a solution: let's ignore Osama. Pretend he doesn't exist. Either that, or treat it as it really is: 9/11 was a crime. Not an act of war.

How fucking pathetic is this nation? 3,000 died out of 290+ MILLION. And we trade every fucking freedom we have for "security."

What about the 600,000+ Iraqis that have died in a shorter period of time than the Vietnam war? We only lost 50k people in Vietnam and WE STILL REMEMBER THAT OUTRAGE.

Democrats shouldn't have to do anything to promote "National Security." The War on Terror was a fraud to begin with.

If anything should be done, we should be looking into our own foreign policy and how the CIA created Islamic extremists like Osama. Put the blame where it should be. The Fed is responsible for 9/11. Tell the American people that the Fed is going to fix their foreign policy and isn't going to be the fucking tyrant they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, dear, not again. Posted by: Pepper
» RE: Oh, dear, not again. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Oh, dear, not again. Posted by: NotConvinced
» RE: Oh, dear, not again. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Think about the timing of this tape's timing
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Jan 21, 2006 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On HoPo the comments about this article are talking about the timing of this very convent tape popping up, just as one did for 2004 election. The only area Bush still rates in is his ability to protect US. Of course he has not done as Katrina proved. But impeachment has been introduced and republicans have to have Bush's state of the Union speech go back to his strongest area, keeping us safe: since Bush has not done anything to help anyone, but the rich. Some say he will talk about gasoline, since the bottom of the stock market really dropped out on at the roomer of rising crude prices on Friday. Murta is experiencing the Rove machine right now and much as I hate what it does to people, FOX still does rules the news. What will those people believe in the red states believe? Certainly not us to the left of far right. I think this has more to do with the Democratic Leadership Council, than the Democratic Party. They seem to feel only millionaires can compete with Republicans and those are the candidates they are choosing to support, like John Kerry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the mission?
Posted by: johnecolby on Jan 21, 2006 3:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, I agree that attacking Bush on his greatest vulnerability is a wise move. But I don't think it should be done exactly as the author puts it. It can be layed out clearly. Here's a short list of talking points. Answer the following 3 questions.

1. What's the mission?
a. Finding WMD's
(not accomplished - we haven't yet)
b. Bringing democracy to Iraq
(not possible - Iraq is in civil war)
c. Defeating terrorism
(not working - Iraq has become a training ground for
terrorism, resources diverted from effective
domestic security)
d. Creating a Israel-friendly Iraq (not working - Iraq has
become a greater threat to Israel since we invaded)
e. Grabbing the oil (not working - we're pumping less than
under Saddam)
f. Keeping military bases (not possible - Iraqis won't accept
it)
g. Staving off defeat (not possible - eventually we'll tire of
the fight)

Answer: Take your pick, any one we lose. We cannot accomplish any of the stated or inferred missions.

2. Costs?
a) Thousands of American killed, many more wounded,
many many more psychologically damaged. (Definite)
b) Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by being in
the wrong place at the wrong time. (Definite)
c) Trillions of dollars. (Definite - estimated costs in the
trillions)
d) Destruction of the army. (Ongoing - recruitment is at
record low, troops stretched thin, lack of equipment)
e) Moral damage to nation. (Definite - Abu Ghraib and public
exposure and legimitimization of torture)
f) Executive belief that it is above the law. (Definite - it is
flouted daily)

Answer: all of the above.

3. What should we do?
a) Respect the troops.
b) Bring the troops home.
c) Let the Iraqis work out their problems (which we have
compounded).

Answer: all of the above - end the mission (whatever it is). Show some real courage, admit your mistakes and fix them. That's respecting the troops!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the mission? Posted by: asque
Real Security
Posted by: marxalot on Jan 21, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First order of business is to 'secure' employment and healthcare for all Americans. While the threat from Osama et al is real enough, I am 100 times more likely to die from cancer (because I couldn't afford the doctor visit that would have caught it early enough) than I am from an attack by Islamic murderers.

Period.

We let them frame security as nothing other than the threat from foreign bad guys we all lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eal Security Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: eal Security Posted by: kmallen1
New plan? Wrong premise, Arianna
Posted by: tompoe on Jan 21, 2006 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, Arianna, why do you buy into this "war" thing, to begin with. It's an occupation, not a war. Call it what it is.

Secondly, Arianna, the Democrats don't need to do anything. This occupation is a creation of the folks in the white house. The occupation ends, and America continues down the road, returning to the values of Democracy, and the threat goes away.

If, on the other hand, the Democrats declare a continuation of imperialistic occupation and power grab over those sovereignties that object to such policies, the threat of our safety will, indeed, continue. Your article is buying into some weird misconceptions. Better you come up with a better plan, and start by acknowledging the values and goals long held by Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fed Up! Posted by: Josue
» RE: Fed Up! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Fed Up! Posted by: Josue
» RE: New plan? Wrong premise, Arianna Posted by: shula weiner
» RE: New plan? Wrong premise, Arianna Posted by: NotConvinced
Demos weak in leadership?
Posted by: kgs1947 on Jan 21, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrates aren't week in leadership! They have no leadership! Whatever happened to the candidates for president? Nowhere to be found! Silence. Inaction. Wow! If they had been elected, where the hell would we have been now? Worse off? We're in a real mess! Impeach the emperor-with-no-cloths? There no one around innocent or courageous enough to tell him he has no cloths!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kaine may be a DLCer but trust me
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 21, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he's no Joe Lieberman yet even though I was upset that Kaine endorsed Lieberman back in 2004 during the pres primaries. The problem with Kaine's victory is that his victory came from suburban and ex-urban areas most of which were strong GOP strongholds in addition to maximizing his urban victory while KILgore won most of the rural areas. That said, the DLC is going to do everything to control Kaine's thinking but as a Virginian who voted for him, I could care less what he says about the war as long as he doesn't run for higher office at this point as long as he shuts up and focuses on the state issues such as the economy, environment, security, etc ... and doesn't pander to the right on it as I've had enough of the Democrats pandering to the right even on social issues such as god, gays, guns, abortion, etc ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's ok. You're forgiven. Posted by: maxpayne
One more thing.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 21, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I forgot to mention that I was pissed off at Kaine going along with the GOP on sales taxes. Yes, it's true that if the GOP were to do it, nothing would happen to them whereas if Democrats do it, they get pounced. For now, although the GOP likes the idea, they're happy to see some Democrats do their dirty work and take the fall for it just like everything else such as Iraq War, "tax cuts", class action "fairness", "partial birth abortion ban", deregulation, bankruptcy overhaul, etc ...

It's funny that Arianna doesn't even bother to mention it in her article but given the GOP's urge to always raise sales taxes for everything, for the Democrats to go along with the idea and kill progressive taxation is political suicide. By the time the GOP on the national level scraps the income tax and replaces it with a national sales tax which probably isn't too far down the road, I wouldn't be surprised to find more than half the Democrats going along with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The question is: Do the leaders of the Democratic Party remember?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 21, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they remember. Many Democrats buy into the "ineptitude" of the Democrats as the problem. It isn't. The Democrats have as much skill as the Republicans, and maybe more. Their skill is in keeping Democrats convinced that they are "the party of the people". When actually they are the other party of the corporate establishment. The problem is that the working class citizen has no party. This is the bitter truth we must face and the problem we must solve. We the people must solve this problem; the politicians won't. Join the Lincoln Initiative, a grassroots movement, not an organization. There are no dues, no contributions, no registration, no leaders, no meetings, no marches, no hassle. Fight the revolution from the comfort of your own home. Help make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. Click on join today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keeping us safe??
Posted by: tkwilson on Jan 21, 2006 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democraps will turn into an actual force for change (as opposed to stagnation) when they can prove that they can "keep us safe" from the biggest threat to our freedom,OUR GOVERNMENT!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: Pepper
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: tkwilson
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: cacky
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: cacky
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: tkwilson
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Keeping us safe?? Posted by: jag585
Who In Hell Is Tom Kaine? And Why Is He Speaking For Democrats?
Posted by: custersbud on Jan 21, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose we should be thankful that Joe Lieberman isn't giving the response. Oh, I forgot, his only response to any Bush utterance has been agreement and way-to-go George head shaking. Jack Murtha should be giving the response, and Wes Clark should be the only person allowed out in public to speak for our (Democratic) party!!!!Wes Clark in '08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beth
Posted by: riley on Jan 21, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ALL of us should start being pro-active on defeating the inevitable. Watch the Bushites as they use the same play they did in 2002 on Iran in the lead-up to the 2006 election. Also watch for some off-the-wall "religious" side-show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and your point is?
Posted by: bookwoman on Jan 21, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no way of keeping us safe. When is everyone going to get that point. If the Democrats come up with a cracker jack plan which trumps all arguments, the chances of it working in a real crisis are nil. A short time before Katrina a "drill" showed that New Orleans was safe from a Category 3 hurricane - guess what, they got hit with a category 4. If they find Bin Lauden, someone else will jump up in his place like one of those shooting games in a carnival. "The price of freedom is vigilence" On 9/11, we were not vigilent because we assumed we were safe. The changes which have been made to the government in the creation of Homeland Security remind me of the Emperor's New Clothes. In a real crisis, they look like members of a chinese fire drill.

We need to go forward into the future with the idea that our danger did not end with the Cold War. There is no door which we can open and find "happy". This is what we call life. The next time the citizens of the United States have an opportunity to choose a President, they should ignore the "safe" card completely. The idea that safety from the exigencies of life is possible is a fantasy which we can't afford to believe when choosing the next person to live in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: and your point is? Posted by: cacky
Adrianna doesn't get it
Posted by: bigart on Jan 21, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adrianna, as much as I have appreciated some of your insites, your coments about the Democrats response to the State of the Union speech shows you think there still is a two party system in the US. Not so, both parties--Democrats and Republicans-- are owned by big money and serve big money's purposes. Get with it dear girl, we need a new political structure in the US one that protects the interests of the average American. The two party system is dead,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Adrianna doesn't get it Posted by: Lincoln fan
Let Jay Leno do the State of the Union response.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 21, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush deserves to be ridiculed. He's a clown, and so it takes a sense of humor to see the senselessness of his posturing.

I cannot call him a criminal until he is finally tried and convicted. But the evidence has only now just begun to see the light of day.

The GOP operates like the mob. Can the Demos fight it without also becoming a mob? Not yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jyork
Posted by: jyork on Jan 21, 2006 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To offer a real alternative would require stating why we have terrorism in the first place. It is “blow back” from the many years we have interfered with the countries in question for the purpose of protecting the US oil companies and stealing their countries' natural resources.

The oil companies have succeeded in getting the US taxpayers and the DOD to do their security work for them. So far, the Iraq war has cost about $250.00/barrel of oil in Iraq — cost of war divided by the best high estimate of oil production over the next 20 years – roughly $250.00 per barrel plus, of course, the lives of our young men and women and the lives of the approximately 100,000 Iraqis who have died and who knows how many Iraqis injured.

To date, the Iraqi oil will be the most expensive oil we have ever imported with the US oil companies cherry picking the profits and leaving the liabilities, risks, death and destruction for everyone else to pay. Acknowledge that, or, the Democrats have no alternative plan.

Any plan for increasing our security has to include very substantial reductions in our oil consumption, which is doable. The Democrats would never take up this as part of our nation’s security plan.

We are in for some real blow back from the illegal aliens in the US too as they wake up and start acting like the Muslims in France did some few weeks ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jyork Posted by: gonzoskismet
AMERICANS BLEW IT BY IGNORING RALPH NADER
Posted by: miz on Jan 21, 2006 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why was the only true PATRIOT's (a word so squandered by the scum-maggot illegally occupying the White House that it means nothing anymore) campaign for president confined to TV airing between 4 and 6 a.m. only? Nader did something neither candidate had the COURAGE to do - maintain a web site where Americans could see EXACTLY what his intentions as President would be. Not even debating reveals such clarity of purpose - he was setting the bar so high that Corporate America was more TERRIFIED of him than the threat of actual terrorists. This highly literate and brave individual was NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE BY THE MEDIA and confined to time frames where his message would be lost. NOT ONCE was his focus that of FEAR, therefore - a true leader for the destiny of America. He was not "just that environmentalist guy", but had a stunning grasp of the global neighborhood that was just as inspiring as JFK's optimism. That this noble individual was subjected to the insult of being begged not to run because a green party candidate was not perceived as credible was insulting beyond comprehension. The Democratic party should have STOOD BEHIND NADER 100% because they WERE watching between 4 and 6 a.m., as were bushbaby's goons - and BOTH KNEW Nader was the oustanding Presidential candidate who could have easily defeated them both at the polls if only Americans had been permitted to hear what he had to say. America - you are still so ignorant you do not even comprehend now how BADLY you "threw away" a true American Son.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should they have to prove anything?
Posted by: rini on Jan 21, 2006 3:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there were an fair, objective press, an educated objective populace and a fair election process (I know, we're talking about Nirvana here) not only would ole "W" have been scrambling to explain 9/11, but he would have already been impeached for endangering the security of our country and general global populace. Of course, if we had those things, he would just be some spoiled papa's boy in Texas whom nobody had heard of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We needlessly lost bin Laden
Posted by: yellow on Jan 21, 2006 4:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to a US Army veteran acquaintence of mine, Kerry was right to claim in his first debate with Bush in 2004 that we needlessly lost bin Laden. According to many in the know, Bin Laden had been successfully tracked to a secured compound in Tora Bora in Afghanistan and surrounded and observed for some time by the 10th mountain division of the US Army. Sadly, the much awaited order of approval from the Commander in Chief to attack the compound and capture bin Laden never arrived. This stunned and shocked many who sincerely believed we were in Afghanistan to catch the world's most wanted terrorist who is now back in play to menace the US and its allies. At this critical point most available manpower and equipment was diverted to what was apparently the real target, Iraq! The rest is well known. Bush has plenty to answer for though he probably will never be called to account. I believe that Michael Moore was correct to point out that Bush's past deep associations with the bin Laden family business probably provide the key to much of the answer to why Osama bin Laden is still at large. Like so much else, we may never know the real story behind the amorphous "War on Terror."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hold on a minute
Posted by: fferris on Jan 21, 2006 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Murtha wants to REDEPLOY the troops outside of Iraq. Murtha is a HAWK. He's right about Iraq being a quagmire, and our troops having no useful purpose at this point. But he fundamentally believes in the policies of imperialism using our obscenely bloated military.
Bin Laden's pronouncements will have the effect of delaying the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's tugging the beard of the chickenhawks (if you can picture that), and they can't be seen to acquiesce. It would not surprise me to find that the White House orchestrates Bin Laden's appearances.
The Democratic Party, or at least the DLC, wants to promote military adventurism -- there's big money in it. Also, perhaps there is the perception that most voters still favor U.S. military intervention overseas. Perhaps it is an accurate perception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq is a example of bad governance, the focus is goverance
Posted by: dadzilla on Jan 21, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this is interesting, I think it misses a couple of points.

The republicans for the last 13 years have shown they can win in the south. As the old expression runs, "everyone loves a winner". A little display of candidates that can and have won isn't a bad thing.

And while Iraq is a large a sore spot for the president it hit's Congress evenly. Democrats overall were just as fooled as Republicans.

Elections tend to fold around economic and goverance issues. Now that the republicans had fumbled the governance issue it's time to focus on promoting good candidates with a strong record of growth. In that vein Kaine's predecessor Gov. Wagner might be a better choice.

Iraq is a mess caused by bad goverance, the wagon, not the horse. That's how to present Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TEDBOHNE, MD
Posted by: tedbohne on Jan 21, 2006 8:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh for Christ's sake!!, so pudgy, white, pasty Americans don't feel safe. FUCKEM!! first, doesn't it surprise ANYGODDAMNEDBODY that on 911, EVERY ASPECT OF A TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM FAILED!!, EVERY PART OF IT. second the US government is responsible at very least for knowing before hand and failing to let the American's know, and at best engineered the entire fiasco. Seven of the "hijackers" have been found alive and well wondering how their names found their ways to this Bushco list. Wake up you dick heads. PNAC by their own admission needed another "pearl Harbor."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TEDBOHNE, MD Posted by: gonzoskismet
» RE: TEDBOHNE, MD Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: TEDBOHNE, MD Posted by: cacky
» RE: TEDBOHNE, MD Posted by: cacky
Gore best choice
Posted by: jag585 on Jan 21, 2006 8:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore, although he has baggage, I feel would have, by far, the most articulate and informed rebuttal to anything bush might conjure up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jan 21, 2006 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is going to push National Security as long as he can keep the bin Ladin bogeyman scaring little kids as well as weak kneed oilmen. Bush,Cheney,Rummy,Rice and alll the other oilmen are licking their chops as well as fillling their pockets with present and future oil profits and already dreaming of the billions they will reap if they can start a "war" with Iran. That was what Bush had in mind after he crawled out from under the bed in Air Force 1 on 9-ll ranting about axes of evil. The Democrats get drowned out, the media is 98 % Republican owned and they are not going to give a Democrat a chance at the White House and risk losing their big tax breaks. They might have to tap their off shore accounts to meet the high cost of gasoline and heating oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sickofsleaze Posted by: gonzoskismet
Separate Issues
Posted by: anothername on Jan 22, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the posts here helped me clarify my own opinions. National security, Iraq, and the many problems of the Democratic Party are separate issues. Yes, they are linked to each other, but their solutions need to be approached individually, albeit consecutively.

The Democratic Party has lost its base because so many of the elected officials and advisors are concerned about academic liberalism, not street-level issues. Thus, we are told to worry about how the United States is funding military assault groups in other countries, but we are told any concerns we have about civil rights of (insert your group) in America are not that important.

The Democratic Party cannot find its way out of the mire of Iraq and national security because it no longer has a strong anchor in the day-to-day lives, needs, and concerns of Americans. Nevertheless, the party is trying to define Iraq in terms of Americans' personal interests. Iraq is a foreign policy issue and needs to be solved in that context. National security, or homeland security, is a matter of big government. (How many of you knew that when the Republicans talk about "big government" they mean the number of people employed by the government? For me, big government is a bureaucracy that pries into my personal life, demands increasingly amount of invasive and difficult to obtain documentation, and otherwise treats me as a threat just because I breathe.) Yes, we can have homeland security, just as Saddam Hussein kept Iraq safe by dictatorial control, just as Stalin kept the Soviet Union safe by killing his enemies, just as Mao Tse-Tung kept China safe by sending potential dissidents to the rural countryside where they could not cause so much trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Separate Issues Posted by: Mr. Pycroft
a comment for Arianna
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jan 22, 2006 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A---the Contagious Festival you are running, is being hosted by 'AOL,' the most reviled company in internet history. They, since the early days of Steve Case as Director, have been the foremost web service when it comes to recording customer activity and e-mails for turnover to warrantless search. This organization is opposed to anything you might even think of proposing. Please, lose these clowns ASAP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In A Nutshell
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Jan 22, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not trying to bump Ms. Huffingtons story here, folks, but this article by Molly Irvins says it all.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20250

Now, as much as I vehemently oppose the ideology of the current administration neither will I back the wussy, straddle the fence, won't take a stand that might offend the voters Democrats. Either get some backbone or get out of the way. Until then, unfortunately, those of us that would like to move forward in this nation are stalemated by having no choice at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In A Nutshell Posted by: drricklippin
Formalize a BACKBONE AWARD
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 22, 2006 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After I posted below as a response to gonzoskismet I realized it may be worthy enough as a new comment? Thanks AlterNet.As a Doc I have purchased small 5 inch anatomically correct plastic backbones that I have sent to a few RARE politicians over the past ten years as a BACKBONE AWARD. Could we formalize this? Maybe there is a backbone award already? Writers and Bloggers have backbone IF they put their personal $ and behaviors where their rhetoric is? :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BACKBONE AWARD......NOT Posted by: picket
» RE: BACKBONE AWARD......NOT Posted by: drricklippin
BACKBONE AWARD NOMINATION for 1/22/06
Posted by: picket on Jan 22, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd give the author of Sat 1/21/06. New York Times, article about the Republicans being " the party of pain". They let the DEA tell doctors how to treat pain.

I nominate John Tierney the writer of the above article. I'm hoping by the end of the day, maybe more nominations. If not, Monday is another day. Let us be generous and give out many BACKBONE AWARDS, not just to politicians[most are cowards] and they see which way the "wind is blowing" before choosing to do the RIGHT thing for the good of humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BACKBONE AWARD ....Politician Posted by: drricklippin
...keep us safe from??????....
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Jan 22, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow...this story hit a nerve!! I appologize if I repeat some
one elses point of view...I quickly scanned the responces but
I`d like to add my two cents.......
The arguement seems to me to be ...who is the best qualified person to keep us safe!...
My question is simply this.....WHO....was ultimately responsible....for a handful of Middle eastern men...who caused alot of destruction and loss of life on 9/11 ???
Was it our own? And IF....thats the case...then it doesn`t
matter who the democrats or republicans send in to represent
their respected parties.....they`re one in the same! Has there been any reserch on the "terrorist" families since 9/11? How are the wives and children of these guys doing since?? It would be intresting to know if perhaps they have moved up in social status and are being well taken care of?? Has the Saudi
government taken care of them on behalf of an inner circle from the USA??
WHO...ARE...THE ....REAL...TERRORIST?????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

refute this!
Posted by: rockpicker on Jan 22, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt, Prescott Bush, Adolph Hitler, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Carl Rove, Samuel Alito, etc.

This is how it happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: refute this! Posted by: Downinnc
Vilsack's Our Ten Words
Posted by: anothername on Jan 22, 2006 2:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Vilsack's new creation: www.ourtenwords.com is an example of why the Democrats cannot offer a strong voice in opposition. Vilsack is Iowa's governor and one of the people mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. Instead of leadership, he is just offering yadda yadda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »]