Anti-war on the verge of victory. Savvy. Real Savvy. The Same DNC that Lost the Mid-term Election Urges Party to Back Daschle The source is the Washington Times , but the news is unlikely to be bogus.
I think you're right...if this is the way the leadership goes..particularly given the early signs of success with this war...this will be big political trouble for democrats. I saw yesterday that Sheila Jackson Lee was having some meeting to sorta protest the war...or something like that. And some moderate Dem came in and said, "stop it. now is not the time. we have troops in the line of fire. now is not the time." Sheila complained citing the First Amendment and how important the debate is. And all I can see is deep division...do we support this deal? or do we not support this deal? do we play to the cries of the mobs in SF? or do we play the middle a bit more? The democratic party is still trying to decide what they want to be when they grow up.
how about because we live in a two-party system...that makes up 50% of the major political parties that seek election for positions of authority in our country...
As a student of political science, I hate boring elections. A election in which Bush wins more than 60% is boring. Seriously, though, I firmly believe that unchecked power leads to unchecked corruption. I do not trust the personal virtues of any one in power, least of those who are in the Administration. The Dems need to put their acts together and start being a competent party again.
but i don't remember the dems condemning the war in the midst of the war back then...and it certainly wasn't in the wake of midterm elections like we just saw.
Cool, then. Here's another history refresher for you: What happened after the last GOP sweep of 1994? Hilarious you would remind us we have a two-party system while advocating a one-party response to the most controversial American military action since Nam.
I don't think anyone thought we would lose the war, as a matter of fact, if we win overwhelmingly, it proves the point that Iraq wasn't a threat. The real test of this war isn't whether or not it results in victory, what will become of the middle east after Saddam is removed. And just because the war has started, if you're against why should you stop protesting now?
Well, as a fellow student of Poli Sci, you can understand why I'd disagree with your thread title, "The Historic Democratic Political Suicide," when your source is the only one to report this. Further, how can a few emails spell the end of the Democratic Party. That's what suicide is, self demise.
batman -- come on, man...stop trying to play mr. gotcha...yes, we're at war. yes, i support this war to the extent it removes saddam from power and neutralizes a perceived threat. but i absolutely value the two party system...you have seen me argue against republicans here on issues, despite my conservative leanings. i know exactly what happened after 1994..i'm not saying there's a declaration of victory for bush even if he meets success in this war...but i'm saying that if the dems come out and say, "hey..this war sucks..give peace a chance" at this point, they'll pay some political cost for it...they're less likely to retake the White House than they would be otherwise.
ok..now we'll argue semantics...suicide means blah blah blah...democrat means blah blah blah...you're being too extreme in your meanings blah blah blah. worthless...but i did get one more post out of it.
The DNC are the people who raise and DISTRIBUTE campaign funds. This incident shows tremendous immaturity and lack of direction in that organization and therefore the entire national Democratic machine. At this rate, Bush IS going to win over 60% of popular votes and pretty much all fifty states except California (aka the state the size of Iraq ). You are right though. The thread title does tread on Trader_Jorge terrritory. However, this is a suicidal political position to take. The dems are throwing '04 away without much of a challenge.
You're the one arguing semantics, I pointed out that no one else has even sniffed this story. I'd also like to point out that the Senate passed a resolution supporting the president 99-0. The only dem who didn't vote was absent on a personal family matter. Daschle has already calmed down. Here's some stuff from CNN
Max, I'm not trying to play Mr. Anything. You brought up the midterms, I brought up the last time we had midterms like those to prove the point that the 02 midterms mean nothing to this particular question. In fact, far too much has been made of the 02 midterms. While I agree they were a historically bad loss for the party out of power, virtually all the important races were won by very small margins. If anything, they proved that even when the Democratic Party does an amazingly lousy job, the country remains pretty evenly split. 1994 was much worse, with the GOP winning by large margins all around the country and ending the careers of such bright lights as M. Cuomo and Ann Richards. And Clinton still won easily in 96. And, yes, I know you as a fair poster who supports (at least) a two-party system. I was reacting to the notion that in a two-party system both parties should behave the same way at a time of war -- most especially such a controversial war. Paul Wellstone never lost an election by defying popular opinion because it was well known to his constituents that he did so due to strongly held principles. If the Dems objecting to this war are sincere and principled in their objections, I trust the American people to reward them for favoring conviction over politics.
yeah..it's one big, happy family, Oski: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1828908 Fellow Dem halts caucus organized by Jackson Lee By KAREN MASTERSON Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee convened a somber gathering Thursday of peace-minded Democrats concerned that alternatives to war were not properly vetted before the U.S. began invading Iraq. But as the liberal lawmakers spoke, an uninvited Democrat showed up and asked them to pipe down. "I certainly agree there's a constitutional right to speak, to protest, to differ in our society," began Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia, but "my personal view is now's not the time to do it." The incident was one of many this week in which lawmakers with deeply-felt convictions clashed over U.S foreign policy, and whether the world's only remaining superpower should trump the wishes of the United Nations and engage Iraq in war. Marshall, a newly elected Democrat, further stunned the room by announcing he had used an obscure House rule to cancel a Democratic caucus meeting that Jackson Lee, with the support of 50 other members, had organized to discuss alternatives to war. "It's our right to discuss and to give members options to think about," Jackson Lee said. "I think what we have to do is develop a sense of courage and respect for each other's disparate views." Moderate Democrats unwilling to criticize Bush now that U.S. troops are at war do not want to hear from an increasingly vocal group of liberals who oppose war without the backing of the United Nations. "There are members who feel, once hostilities started, we ought not talk about opposition," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston. "We don't want to make the troops feel like there's any dissension about the job they're expected to do." Jackson Lee and other antiwar Democrats, however, say diplomacy is still possible, despite U.S. bombs falling on Baghdad. "The debate must continue," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "Will it intimidate people who don't want to be considered unpatriotic? Probably. But if you support the troops and want to keep them alive, why don't you send them home?" He and others support a resolution drafted by Jackson Lee that calls on the president to re-engage in diplomacy; bring home all but 50,000 U.S. troops, who would remain in Iraq to back U.N. weapons inspectors and force disarmament; work with allies to bring Saddam Hussein before an international war crimes tribunal where he would be tried, convicted and removed from office; increase humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people; restart the stalled Mideast peace process, and restate support for the U.N. Security Council. Jackson Lee, who had called the caucus meeting Thursday to discuss her resolution, said the meeting has been rescheduled for next Wednesday. But that won't be in time to influence caucus members currently locked in debate over whether the party should back a resolution expressing congressional support not only for U.S. troops, but also for the president. Senate Democrats voted to resolve the matter by inserting the words "as commander in chief." In doing so, they gave support to Bush in his role as head of U.S. forces, but not as architect of the policies that led to war. The Senate vote was 99-0. The House was locked in disagreement Thursday night. Holdouts include Rep. John Lewis, a civil-rights hero from Georgia, who has vowed to oppose Bush's emergency funding request to pay for the war.
I also want to add that the stuff I just posted above is my response to the "deep division" and the quip about the Dems being Toys R' Us kids, based on Sheila Jackson Lee and some unnamed Dem who broke up some meeting... or something or other.
my point is simply that the democratic party can't figure out what it wants to be...a point i think you actually made here long before i did.
Well, here's the whole cnn article. That last post was supposed to be meant before you posted the chronicle article. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ending hours of debate, the House early Friday joined the Senate in approving a resolution expressing support for U.S. forces fighting in Iraq, but not without some partisan debate over its wording. The House resolution, approved on a 392-11 vote, "expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation" to the members of the U.S. armed forces and their families. And it also commends the president for "his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism," a line that generated anger among some Democrats. The Senate resolution was similar, but its language on the president was not as strong, and it did not tie explicitly the unfolding war to the battle against terrorism. The Senate measure, passed on a 99-0 vote, also singles out British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- an outspoken supporter of the military strike against Iraq -- for his government's "courageous and steadfast support." The only senator who didn't vote was Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia, who was absent on a family matter. In a display of unity, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, stood with Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, as the resolution was introduced on the Senate floor. "As one senator, I'm very proud that differences have been reconciled and that this resolution bears both of your distinguished names," said Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Daschle infuriated many Republicans Tuesday when he blasted what he called Bush's "failed" diplomacy, saying it had moved the country toward war. Thursday, Daschle sounded a different note. "We may have had differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the president is commander-in-chief, and today we unite behind him as well," Daschle said. Things were not as harmonious on the House side even though the resolution passed by an overwhelming margin. While Democrats were eager to indicate their support for U.S. troops, some did not want to appear to endorse Bush. Others questioned the Bush administration's portrayal of the strike against Iraq as part of the broader battle against terrorism. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the House majority was trying "to force members of Congress to vote in favor of the president's unjustified war by wrapping it in sentiments supporting the troops." He said it's possible to oppose the mission and support the troops at the same time. "Many leading Republicans voted to cut off funds for the military action while the troops were deployed" to Bosnia Herzegovina in 1995, he said in a statement, citing one example. Kucinich is a Democratic contender for the 2004 presidential nomination and has been an outspoken critic of the war. Throughout the day, lawmakers took to the House and Senate floors, offering words of praise for men and women in uniform. Most offices also released written statements. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, compared the start of hostilities with the June 6, 1944, invasion of Normandy, France, saying this action by American forces is a "noble mission to free the Iraqi people from an evil tyrant." In stark contrast, Kucinich, called the start of the war "a sad day for America, the world community and the people of Iraq." But most lawmakers did not criticize Bush in their statements. Instead, they focused their comments on the men and women in uniform. "We are awed by their sacrifice and their bravery, and we want them and their families to know that they have the profound respect and gratitude of every American," Daschle said. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said Congress must ensure that the armed forces have all the resources they need. "This war will be fought with the greatest resources, intelligence and manpower we can muster." Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, focused his comments on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "There is no negotiating with a man like this," DeLay said. "There is no safe path to accommodate his ambitions. Our only responsible option was to confront this threat before more Americans die. He must be removed from power." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, who has been one of the staunchest Democratic supporters of a war on Iraq, said the strike "is a task of high justice and necessity." Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, another presidential contender, said he was struck by Bush's address to the nation Wednesday night. "What I found most notable about President Bush's remarks was that he began to prepare the people for the potential long-term consequence of this action, including the possibility of a protracted military engagement, the hopefully limited collateral damage to Iraqi civilians, and the role that the United States will play after the hostilities cease," Graham said. -- Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Capitol Hill Producer Ted Barrett contributed to this report. 11 people sure are a lot. Again, my point is that this thread title is too dramatic. Sino agreed. If the Dems lose 2004, it will be because of more than this.
You're absolutely right about this. But this pre-emptive war is unprecedented in our country's history and, as such, will certainly elicit a dissonant chorus of voices from the opposition party. I will grant you this: The Democrats really, really, REALLY blew it on this one. They got played and they let themselves get played. They laid down when it was time to debate. They stuck their heads in the ground and let our allies do the debating for them. It was the most ashamed I've ever been to be a Democrat. Bafflingly, virtually the ONLY Democrat who spoke out against the party's pathetic impotence was ex-KKK guy Robert Byrd. And he was amazing. More than anything he was amazing in chastising the party for ducking what was arguably the most important debate of their careers. I mean, there was NO debate. Blows my mind that it takes an ex-KKK guy to make noise about saving the lives of brown people in the Middle East. If that's not redemption, I don't know what is.
