Political Reality: whoever we nominate, we'll LOSE if we fudge on the war(s)

[Ken Burch]

There IS no middle ground between staying in Iraq&Afghanistan/going into Iran and not staying in/going it.

If we have ANOTHER convention and campaign where antiwar sentiment and signs are banned and no attacks on the wars from the podium are permitted, we are doomed to defeat. We can't keep the peace movement out in the cold and still ask peace supporters to vote for us.

There IS no safe halfway point. We just have to say "It's wrong, it's failed, and we're going to stop the madness!"

Is that so hard to accept?

The delegates of BOTH major candidates have a moral obligation to defy any attempts to make them water the war position down to nothing. 2004 proves that can never work again.

A clear antiwar stance on the Middle East is the way to victory.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I agree, but it has to be framed right. It can't look like an "anti-war" peacenik

stance--has to be framed in the true context that it hurts our interests and anti-terror efforts abroad, and our military readiness.

[Ken Burch]

2. I think you can do both things:

We can argue that the wars are themselves damaging to national security, and we can make the case that the antiwar movement is a legitimate part of American political discourse, and reflects the views of millions of people from all walks of life, not just the "old hippie" stereotype.

We can win by defending our values. And it's time our candidates tried that. Not defending them always means defeat.

[Straight Shooter]

3. Then Obama should have voted no on Kyl/Lieberman and made a firm commitment.

Instead, he didn't even vote at all. McCain did not vote on Kyl/Lieberman.

Hillary voted yes.

Sabers are rattling with Iran again. Have you seen the news on Iran lately? The Economist cover page: "Has Iran Won?" shows a bomb with its fuse lit. The Economist is not an alarmist magazine by any means.

I think the bush administration ratcheted up the rhetoric with Iran because they thought tough-guy Rudy would be the nominee. Now what will they do with McCain, who didn't even vote on Kyl/Lieberman?

It's going to be 2004 redux, with the economy pushed aside and war/terror pushed to the top. The media wants to keep Americans focused on anything other than domestic issues. Since the K/L vote is a wash, McCain with his experience and his overall voting record will look tougher on terror (I gag when I use that phrase) than Obama, especially with Obama's anti-war rhetoric.

Anti-war platform is what drew me to Howard Dean, but his anti-war position is one reason the media destroyed his campaign, along with his anti-corporate stance.

[GOPBasher]

4. They won't be able to keep the domestic issues off the table this time.

Trust me, there are far too many problems with our economy to keep all the focus on war.

[Ken Burch]

6. But you will agree, I assume, that we can't win on a "we can do it better" war plank.

There can't be a good reason to submit to what Bush and talk radio want.

[Straight Shooter]

8. Definitely agree on that one. Dems should never boast that "we do war better than they do."

We should boast that we handle conflict better. The plain truth is, Dems do handle international conflict better.

[Straight Shooter]

7. They've managed to keep it off the table for over eight years.

Ever since bush entered the national scene. The media does control the message, and the GOP controls the media. The Dean scream played almost 700 times on television kind of convinced me of that.

For everyone's sake, I hope you're right that domestic issues are front and center. We need debates amongst all the candidates that focus on domestic issues, and domestic issues only, including how the Iraq Occupation is draining the lifeblood of our treasury along with the lifeblood of Americans and Iraqis.

However, I'm seeing a monstrous Iran conflict raising its ugly head. The Economist issue, frankly, caused me concern. I haven't read it yet. I plan to do so later, to see why they would have such a provocative cover.

[Ken Burch]

14. The wars and economic issues, as always, are tied together.

Any Democrat that stays in the wars(or, God help us, adds senseless new ones like in Pakistan)will be giving up the ability to do anything progressive or pro-working class at home.

Running as a "Scoop Jackson Dem" is a false choice. You can't be a hawk abroad and have the means to be a Democrat at home. The second half of the Johnson Administration proves this. It was worth sacrificing domestic progressivism at home temporarily in World War II, but it never was in Korea or Vietnam.

[Ken Burch]

5. I agree that Obama should have voted no on Kyl/Lieberman

Still, our chances of victory hinge on making it clear that we have a real difference with the McCain/neocon view on foreign policy. HRC is going to go all-out to fudge that, even though she knows that fudging can only cost us votes.

We need to make the antiwar majority in public opinion believe that this race matters. We have nothing to gain by leaving them out in the cold again.

[Straight Shooter]

10. It's going to be very difficult to make Americans keep their eye on the ball.

I just don't know what's going to happen. I was in a state of shock as I watched the War on Iraq develop.

[Yossariant]

9. Dennis Kucinich agrees with you. The demise of his campaign suggests that most Democrats do not.

[Ken Burch]

11. The party is for peace. It's only the Beltway that fudges on it.

Nobody in the party OUTSIDE D.C. thinks there's a good reason to reduce ourselves to "we can do it better" again.

Nobody out there hates the peace movement as much as you evidently do.

And 2004 proves that YOUR way will never work again.

No more fudging. We can win on our principles.

[Yossariant]

13. Again, your suggestion that we can win on Kucinich's principles is nonsense.

We only have two candidates and they both have the same position vis a vis Iraq.

To say otherwise is to be blind and irrational.

[Ken Burch]

15. To be a hawk is to govern as a conservative and fail. Why can't you see that?

And how can anybody who takes their posting name from "Catch 22" be an apologist for the Scoop Jackson foreign policy tradition anyway?

[Yossariant]

16. I am realistic, rational and MY "feelings" about the war are not the issue.

I want the Democrats to win and I'm not pretending that there's a dime's worth of difference between the two on Iraq.

If you need to believe it, be my guest, but don't expect me not to call you out on it.

[Ken Burch]

17. But if there's no difference on Iraq, then the Dems can't do anything different on anything else.

Don't you see that?

Hawkishness dooms us to failure and conservatism. It's not WORTH electing a hawk as a Dem.

And the majority of the country wants the wars stopped, so there isn't even a pragmatic case for hawkishness.

The way of Scoop Jackson is the way of futility.

[Yossariant]

18. A significant majority of the country wanted military action against Iraq.

Fully 70% of Americans supported it at the time of the vote.

The same 70% supported the removal of Saddam Hussein.

The choice, in November, will be between the Party who wants to keep fighting in Iraq and the Party who wants to get the troops out.

The war is usually the third issue that voters are considering, following the economy and healthcare.

[Ken Burch]

19. Yes, they did want it. Then, they realized they'd been lied to and that the war was futile

Do you refuse to accept that the people have changed their minds?

[Yossariant]

20. I refuse to accept that telling 70% of the population how gullible they were is a winning strategy.

[Ken Burch]

21. It's not about saying "you people were gullible" It's about saying

"You've seen the truth, and we honor you for that. We will do what you want and end this insanity".

We certainly can't do any worse with that than with the last campaign's strategy. Saying nothing never works.

[Yossariant]

22. That's what the Democratic candidates are saying.

Are you SERIOUSLY proposing that the Democrats say that all the slaughter was for nothing?

Whether I think it was or you think it was, are you SERIOUSLY proposing this as a campaign strategy?

OOOOPS?!?

[Ken Burch]

23. I'm saying let's say "we'll end this, and soon".

There's no reason we should defend any part of the rush to war. Even the 'burbs want the war stopped now.

It's about honoring the people for getting it. Not about mocking anyone's losses. That's a big difference and you know it.

We have NOTHING to gain from ambiguity or hedging. There simply isn't a middle ground when it comes to keeping a failed war going or not.

[Yossariant]

24. You're creating problems we don't have. The opponent is McCain.

This circular discussion is complete: Kucinich is out of the race.

Unless he is the nominee, we are "being ambiguous and hedging" on the war, if you've been paying attention.

If you know a difference between the Democratic candidates' exit strategies for Iraq, then post it because I don't know about it.

[Ken Burch]

25. Peace didn't leave the race with Kucinich. His departure doesn't mean the party BACKS the war.

Why run to the right of the people? Why even try to hedge, when history shows hedging can't work? The answer is clarity.

It isn't possible to out-hawk the GOP anyway, so there's no point in trying.

Nobody who still thinks the war is a good idea is going to vote for any Democrat.

The answer is to make it clear that we're going to end this. Only people who want the war stopped are going to vote for us, and there's a majority if we get THOSE people.

We can win on a clear difference on the war. Don't fear the people, they're with the progressive peace side of the issue.

[Yossariant]

26. We WILL win on a clear difference on the war. Peace.

[Ken Burch]

28. OK. I guess I don't know what it is I'm saying that you're so paranoid about then.

Conviction and courage are the way to win. People will respect our party more if we fight back against the attacks and actually defend our core values. Conviction and free speech can't hurt us.

[Yossariant]

29. Some people just can't seem to take "Yes" for an answer.

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

30. I can. Yes is good.

Alrighty then.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. keep talking about what the futile war is costing us

people are osing their houses and jobs and they talk about funding the war for another 100 years.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Nixon's "Peace With Honor" got him elected...

And sadly that's more or less what our candidates are running on.

I don't blame them, I blame the American people for being such idiots. You and I can accept that failure in Iraq is not a big deal. It was a mistake to get in and we simply can't force the Iraqis to have a democracy, lets just get out and move on.

Unfortunately most Americans won't buy that. They refuse to believe that America isn't invincible. If we campaign on that, they will flock to McLame in droves. Because even if they don't like American soldiers dying they like the idea of "surrender" even less.
So we have no choice but to campaign on some middle ground.

[Ken Burch]

31. Actually, it was Nixon's "secret plan to end the war" that got him elected in '68

He used the "peace with honor" line, but the truth is Nixon won because of the China trip, because he was able to make it sound like the war was almost over(he was the "post-war" candidate more than the "pro-war" candidate")and because the Scoop Jackson types sabotaged McGovern for committing the horrible crime of beating them fair and square in the primaries.

Also, the organizational collapse of the McGovern campaign in the fall of '72(after a brilliant effort in the primaries)didn't help matters. Issues had almost nothing to do with that result.

Scoop Jackson would also likely have lost in a landslide.