Do you believe Dems HAVE to back a big war budget to hold the White House?

[Ken Burch]

That is to say...do you believe that Dems have to commit, essentially permanently, to accepting that so many federal resources will have to be pledged to spreading death through the world that we can do nothing that matters to improve life(which is what committing to the existing levels of war spending in perpetuity means)?

If so, why?

9 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	0 (0%)
	No
	9 (100%)
	No opinion
	0 (0%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[limpyhobbler]

1. I'm not sure if someone could win the nomination if they seriously raised the issue you just raised.

I think maybe the mainstream media would immediately label them non-serious, politically impossible, and turn them into a punchline.

Well maybe. I'm not sure.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. To back a big war budget, they would fist have to back a big war...

and lots of people have run on that.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Well, I'm sure. "Public overwhelmingly supports large defense spending cuts"

To trim the deficit, Americans favor much deeper reductions at the Pentagon than their leaders do

Key findings:

Americans want to cut the defense budget deeply to help deal with the deficit, more than they want to cut other programs or raise taxes.
There is broad consensus on this goal, including large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, young, old, males and females.
Around three-quarters of Americans think spending should be cut for air power, ground forces, and naval forces.
Nuclear arms were given the biggest proportional hit, while ground forces took the biggest dollar hit; special forces had the most support.
More than eighty percent of Americans are convinced “there is a lot of waste in the national defense budget.”

While politicians, insiders and experts may be divided over how much the government should spend on the nation’s defense, there’s a surprising consensus among the public about what should be done: They want to cut spending far more deeply than either the Obama administration or the Republicans.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/05/10/8856/public-overwhelmingly-supports-large-defense-spending-cuts

Defense cuts - it's a winner!

[brooklynite]

3. No, but...

...I believe they have to avoid a campaign built explicitly on "the military is bad", and "military should be cut XX%" themes.

[Ken Burch]

5. Agreed...NOT "the military is bad", but "the military isn't MORE IMPORTANT than everything else".

And "We should find means BESIDES war to solve world problems", which is something NO U.S. president since 1945 has made any serious effort at trying to do, even though war has solved almost no problems at all since then.

We need to be saying that Wall Street and the Pentagon are simply PARTS of this country...not the only things that matter.

McGovern didn't lose because he questioned militarism...he lost because his campaign was sabotaged by the party regulars(including, IMHO, Eagleton himself, who probably took the VP slot just for the chance to force McGovern to fire him, and thereby destroy whatever chances he had, over the mental health issues). If McGovern had had full party backing and a coherent strategy in the fall of '72, he COULD have been competitive-this is also illustrated by the fact that Dems gained dozens of seats in the '74 Congressional elections by nominating candidates with McGovernite views on foreign policy and war spending.

The fact that Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy were both polling strongly against Nixon during the '68 primaries, while Humphrey was generally polling weakly, puts the lie to the idea that Dems have to be unquestioning lackeys of the MIC to win.

[pscot]

4. What difference does it make if I believe it?

They believe it, and that's all that matters.

[Ken Burch]

8. It matters because you are part of the party, and we should value ALL Dem and progressive views. n/t

[ElboRuum]

7. The question is immaterial.

It is not a question of belief. I know that the usual suspects, the GOP and their dutiful dittoheads, will vote for the Republican, and Democrats in the large general sense understand that our military can be trimmed significantly without affecting our ability to defend ourselves, so they will vote for the Democrat. Besides, electoral polarization makes many issues moot.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. The public is finally tired of war

The republicans barely even talk about it anymore. They sure talk about keeping the budget for it but don't actually talk about the wars at all anymore. I think now would be a good time to go after the defense budget. The only problem with that is we have to have more programs to help educate and employ our soldiers once they receive their pink slips. I don't think we should have a military industrial complex just simply to employ soldiers but we will have to help these soldiers once they are unemployed.

[Ken Burch]

10. We need to re-read Seymour Melman's work on economic conversion.

He was showing that you could create far MORE jobs by spending the money you spent on war on peacetime production instead, and on converting military installations to non-military uses.

[stultusporcos]

12. The question that needs to really be asked is who is the Democratic Party today?

Do they represent people or corporations? You can't serve 2 masters.

The last 2 Democratic Presidents came from the Corporate, Moderate, Centrist side.

The Democratic Party is well no longer the Democratic Party I grew up with and we are seeing the results today with the continued erosion of the middle class in America.

People or Corporations which do you support and which should your party support?

Sadly corporations are winning.