The New "National Security Democrats" Faction: Led By Bums

[Itsthetruth]

The Dems: Bums
By Matt Taibbi
New York Press
March 29, 2005.

Matt Taibbi lives in New York. He covers politics for Rolling Stone and the New York Press.

With the majority of the public against the war, Democrats have the perfect opportunity to differentiate themselves; so why are they embracing Reaganomics and pre-emptive war? In the United States, a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on March 16 showed that 53 percent of Americans think the Iraq war was not worth fighting, 57 percent disagreed with President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and 70 percent said that the number of U.S. casualties incurred in the war was unacceptable.

In the midst of all of this, the Democratic Party is preparing its shiny new 2008 position on Iraq and terror. Described in Goldberg's New Yorker article, the political plan is centered around a new faction that calls itself the "National Security Democrats" (a term coined by that famous liberal, Richard Holbrooke) and is led by revolting hair-plug survivor Joe Biden. The position of the "National Security Democrats" is that the party should be "more open to the idea of military action, and even preemption" and that the Democrats should "try to distance themselves from the Party's Post-Vietnam ambivalence about the projection of American power." Additionally, the Democrats ought to reconsider their traditional stance as an opposition party and learn to embrace Republican heroes like Ronald Reagan.

It would be easy to dismiss the Biden revival as a cheap stunt by a discredited party hack with all the national appeal of the streptococcus virus, except for one thing. Biden's "national security" camp includes all four of the expected main contenders for the Democratic nomination – Biden himself, Hillary Clinton, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and John Edwards. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, another outside contender, is also a member of this camp. We are going to be hearing a lot about "National Security Democrats" in the next three years.

.... the Democratic leaders .... tell 53 percent of the country that they are mistaken, and throw their chips in with the other 47 percent, who incidentally support the other party and are not likely to ever budge. They then go further and try to argue that fighting the war on terror requires abandoning health care, education and Social Security – an idea that, let's face it, makes no fucking sense at all.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/21608/

[Clark2008]

1. Oh, Tabibi's just on a tear because Wesley Clark is advising "these bums"

and for some unknown reason Tabibi has a hard-on to discredit Clark.
I just ignore him.


On edit: I thought he was talking about Pelosi and the other Dems Clark was advising last week. My bad because I didn't read the article (like I said, I ignore him).
In any case, Tabibi's opinions are not mine. And that's all I'll say.

[ixion]

2. National Security Democrats = neodems

And they are just as culpable as BushCo for the mess we're in, IMO.

[Brotherjohn]

3. Aren't we ALL National Security Dems? We just happen to think that...

... bombing the hell out of every majority Islamic country we can find actually makes our country LESS secure, not MORE!

[Tamyrlin79]

5. Amen, Brother John.

They are playing into Republican framing, saying "We are the 'strong' Democrats... you can elect us and not worry about it!" The implication is that they are different from "all those other Dems".

Not the position I'd want to be in when the next primary comes around. Nor, I'd imagine, the position I'd want to be in running for President.

All of these "main contenders" will have to deal with a better organized Dean-esque movement in '08, that can pick anybody it wants as president, and NOT the dumbass "National Security Democrats".

[UTUSN]

4. So What's Different about Them from the Neo-Cons

The Neo-Cons are erstwhile Democrats, most of whom started out under the wing of Senator Scoop JACKSON.

[charlie]

7. They'll get Rose Garden pics

commemorating the Iran War Resolution, suitable for framing. Perle and Wolfowitz should be so lucky.

[thethinker]

6. The Democrats have a big tent

. . . too big a tent. This tent needs a good house cleaning. It is really beginning to stink.

We have congressmen calling themselves Democrats that are helping to pass legislation like the bankruptcy bill. They can't even stay united on things that are as important as social security.

I am more angry with this bunch of NEW Democrats (rather than REAL Democrats) than I am with the republicans. When people voted for republicans they knew, or should have known, what they were getting. When we voted for Democrats we didn't expect them to vote with the republicans. I think some of these republican-lite critters calling themselves Democrats should have hell to pay at the polls.

[Itsthetruth]

8. Who Does The Democratic Party Leadership Body Represent?

"I am more angry with this bunch of NEW Democrats (rather than REAL Democrats) than I am with the republicans."

Does the Democratic Party National Committee represent "real Democrats"? If it does, why is the National Committee silent on this and almost every Bush appointment and legislative issues? If the National Committee does not represent "real Democrats" what's it good for?