| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Democrats for National Security formed. |
| 2003-05-21 |
| [snipped. Re-run from last week...] |
| Posted by:liberalhawk |
| #24 ha ha, I guess I should have said, "not saying that they're smart". heh heh. |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-05-21 23:18:46 |
| #23 after watching TV news coverage tonight of the democrats stumping, it's clear that they finally got smart and decided just to IGNORE the whole security issue all together. HEALTHCARE, DEFICITS, and issues near and dear to RUAL VOTERS....yeaaah...that's the ticket. Not saying their smart, just saying they are smart enough to realize that bashing Bush is backfiring like their support of gun control. As my mother used to say..if you haven't got anything nice to say.... |
| Posted by: Becky 2003-05-21 23:11:52 |
| #22 The problem with American liberalism is that it has no boundary on its left. Conservatism does have a boundary on its right: Nazis and fascists are not only excluded from the fold, they are utter enemies. Even Pat Buchanan, or so its seems to me, is is largely beyond the pale (am I right here?). I also think that the righthand wing of conservatism -- be it the authoritarianism of Ashcroft or the theocratic tendencies of the evangelicals -- remains essentially liberal (in the traditional sense). I don't think that they (Ashcroft or Falwell) fundamentally want to destroy liberty and democracy (although this last assertion makes my liberal family members question my sanity). Liberalism, on the other hand, merges seemlessly into social democracy, then socialsm, then marxism, deep ecology, radical feminism, radical postmodernism, queer theory, and everything else lefty extreme. Ironically, in its ultimate destination leftward it can become indistinguishable from nazism. Ideological infections radiates outward, destroying American liberalism -- making it an enemy of liberty, hence deeply anti-liberal. I know that many of my leftist colleagues would like nothing more than to destroy American liberty and democracy. I have undergone a political transformation during the Iraq War, from being a left-liberal critic of the radical left (the ultimate thankless position!)to becoming a militant centrist (by "militant" meaning that I am in utter awe of the US armed forces -- an organization that I was raised to disdain)and a radical anti-radical. There are quite a few others like me, or so I suspect. We have always voted for Democrats. Not this time. |
| Posted by: closet neo-con 2003-05-21 23:00:48 |
| #21 oops - well anyway its on their website, under "news" |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-21 14:01:33 |
| #20 heres a link to the article, entitled "what would Scoop do?" |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-21 14:00:31 |
| #19 apparently the founders of this site had a column in todays WSJ via Drezner "Mr. Clinton's victory in 1992 convinced many Democrats that the Republican advantage on national security was no longer consequential. But the 1992 campaign was an exception--Mr. Clinton's election took place in the context of post-Cold War euphoria over the "end of history," with politicians salivating over the prospects of a "peace dividend." Democrats have yet to fully comprehend the new reality of the post-Sept. 11 world. While most Americans viewed the war in Iraq through the prism of the Twin Towers attacks, many prominent Democrats still seem not to grasp the profound sense of insecurity that so many people feel in our country. This unease is especially pronounced among women, who have been a cornerstone of our party's strength and without whom we cannot hope to win back the White House or Congress." Per Drezner, they particularly take on Dukakis in the column. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-21 13:56:31 |
| #18 i do sometimes post as anon by mistake - just as i put a post like this under "india - pakistan"!!!! |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-21 13:43:42 |
| #17 I'm suspicious that "Anonymous" is "Liberalhawk's" alter ego. I doubt it. LH is a good man, and a brave one to keep posting in here! He owns up to his own words. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-05-21 12:45:00 |
| #16 not in this case, no |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-21 12:41:50 |
| #15 I'm suspicious that "Anonymous" is "Liberalhawk's" alter ego. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-21 12:30:24 |
| #14 Dan : certainly not, but it is just that I'd prefer reading about WOT (preferably with jihadi being ridiculized as the bloodthirty, dangerous fascists they are), instead of getting people saying how they hated clinton & co. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-21 11:58:23 |
| #13 Anonymous you sound like the US is the only country with partisan politics. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-05-21 10:43:18 |
| #12 An ad! Good on ya, Fred. With the right rig, you could edit this thing from beach in St. Croix. But no rest for the weary. Get your lamp, Diogenes, head over to the ME and tell us what is REALLY happening. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-21 10:22:33 |
| #11 I would prefer a Democrat who stands strong on national defense - folks like the late Scoop Jackson or the present Senator Dorgan - rather than a Republican who waffles on their position. |
| Posted by: MusicMan 2003-05-21 10:02:25 |
| #10 We saw this a week ago. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-05-21 10:00:56 |
| #9 Yawn. Same tired stuff, LH. Wet the finger, check the winds, and move to the center. For a while. The Dems have made themselves irrelevant. The ones to watch out for are the Repubs. GB1 was a poser. Reagan was not all that to conservatives. And Newt was a premature ejaculator. During the 'republican revolution' the Fed got larger (and not just the debt) and we got lip-service from Washington. Don't get too caught up with Dem vs. Rep. We'll get NAFTA'd no matter who's in the seat. |
| Posted by: Scott 2003-05-21 10:00:15 |
| #8 Maybe I am naive about the political maneuverings that this organization represents, but it greatly encourages me that our nation's oldest political party has a faction that takes our national security seriously. Rather than debating from the poles, we can have a discourse in the middle and the end product will result in a sound policy to defend this great nation. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-21 09:59:47 |
| #7 Talk is cheap -- and if you expect to get anything more from the Democrats than that, you're kidding yourself. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-05-21 09:56:54 |
| #6 As I've implied before, just as the Republicans seem to have successfully dumped their Buchanan-Falwell baggage, the Dems seriously need to distance themselves from the Moore-Sarandon moonbats if they want to have any chance in 2004. It goes both ways, pandering to the party extremists is a sure path to defeat. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-05-21 09:55:39 |
| #5 Articulating a strong defense as a talking point isn't enough to help the Dems. They need to have it as a guiding principle, and this is totally opposite the platform their base believes in. They, faced with a fiscal choice between new inner-city social programs and a strong defense, will ALWAYS choose the social oprograms - that's what gets them votes from their constituency. All their blather and criticism on homeland security was exposed as power politics when they opposed non-unionized screners at the airports - and they haven't changed. Talking points won't cut it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-05-21 09:28:47 |
| #4 More "liberal hawks", or actually plain "real liberals", would be much needed, and not only in the USA. OT : Again, a wholy republican Rantburg would not be an improvement, especially for foreign readers who don't care much about US "partisan politics". Dems-Reps arguments, except if directly WOT-related, may be 'fought' elsewhere. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-21 09:22:49 |
| #3 Good news! I'm all for watching the Dems fragment, and especially if every fragment keeps claiming allegiance to the "Spirit of Bill"! |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-05-21 09:18:00 |
| #2 and – yes – Bill Clinton, bold leaders who understood that only by confronting threats abroad Bill Clinton confronting threats abroad? You mean like accepting Osama's arrest when offered by the Sudan, or refusing to cowtow to and appease North Korea? Oh, wait...... Bill Clinton - "bold leader" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2003-05-21 09:12:24 |
| #1 should be under homefront |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-21 09:07:55 |