Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dude, where did my party go???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:29 PM
Original message
Dude, where did my party go???
Edited on Thu Jul-29-04 07:43 PM by Dancing_Dave
Joe Lieberman sure sounds like he's speaking to the wrong convention. No doubt, this bogus rhetoric would go over a lot better with a hall full of Republicans!

This year, there seem to be a lot of speakers who got lost and ended up speaking to the wrong convention!:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Which speakers?
Everyone has sounded quite good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freetobegay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't know where yours went
I have been watching my all week long!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's a big tent. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dancing_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Barak Obama, Bill Clinton,Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton were cool
Edited on Thu Jul-29-04 07:42 PM by Dancing_Dave
But there has been a lot of false and dangerous military imperialist rhetoric which will alienate the party from it's activist base now, and lose millions of younger voters who seek a more real ALTERNATIVE.

Kerry learned from experience before, he went from serving in the Vietnam War to leading the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He better learn again and quickly, because he's staying on the so-called "War Against Terrorism" resource-driven imperialism path, and it can only lead us down into disaster.

No blood for oil!!!:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elsiesummers Donating Member (723 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yeah I'm annoyed by the military rhetoric
and it's why I supported Edwards in the primary - because he mostly focussed on domestic policy.

It's also why Kerry was not my first choice in the primary.

I don't know if this militaristic and nationalistic approach is the approach that must be taken to win - or if it's completely misguided.

I certainly didn't enjoy Edwards' speech as much as usual (and he didn't seem to enjoy giving it as much as usual), and although Clark gave a good speech, it left me cold.

Noticed that both Edwards and Clark spoke of "destroy" ing the terrorists. It's all scripted to reinforce the commander in chief message.

Overall - from the more prominent speakers there is a lack of red meat.

Sort of a bummer. Maybe because I'm a partisan Dem I just don't get it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doosh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. they were at there best during the primaries
perhaps they're saving the flight suit/rubber turkey stuff until when it can be most lethal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadHead67 Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Progressives and Activists : DON'T BOLT !!!!
This is the face the party is showing on national TV. We must be perceived as strong on defense: Kerry as Commander in Chief with a capital 'C'. DO NOT FORGET what the alternative is, and what the consequences will be if the unspeakable is re-elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigobusiness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. saxless violins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salonghorn70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. What Is Wrong With Destroying Terrorists?
They have vowed to try and destroy us. Sure, there is much that we can do to improve our image as a country in the Middle East thereby hopefully reducing the number of people in the future who hate us. But face it. There are some bad people in the world who want to do our country harm. I guess that you can put your tin hat on and believe that every terror act is masterminded by Bush. That simply is not the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Creates a conundrum ...
How is a Kerry Administration going to make us more respected in the world, re-unite us with allie, and forge 'moral authority' when our military will continue to march around the globe 'destroying' terrorists ?

Terror is a ghost-enemy, just like the 'war on drugs'. It's unwinnable. The US can continue to decimate countries and populations til the end of time and never eradicate terrorists.

Kerry knows this, or at least he should. To portray otherwise is either naive or disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophy77 Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. moral authority -- France leads the way
"How is a Kerry Administration going to make us more respected in the world, re-unite us with allie, and forge 'moral authority' when our military will continue to march around the globe 'destroying' terrorists ?"

This is another BS statement I am sick of hearing.

1. We don't need to be re-united with our allies. We had differences but there was no real split.

2. If you really want to talk about moral authority, let's look at our allies specifically Germany, Russia, and France. It is a given that all three opposed The US led war in Iraq and often made the so called "moral" argument against pre-emptive war and spread the rhetoric that the US was on an oil grab. The reality is all three allies had major oil contract deals with the Saddam Hussien regime. This is public knowledge and documented. France alone, stood to make $100 billion in just seven years, if the UN dropped economic sanctions against Iraq. No small motive here to prevent a war since it meant that all the deals would be null and void with Hussien out of the picture. I get tired of this "No war for oil" crap when there is no factual basis at all to support it. On the contrary, I think the truly immoral in this escapade are those that would profit on Oil from a brutal dictator and if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's had to continue to be put in mass graves, well, we will just look the other way because $100 billion dollars in seven years is a lot of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scoopie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Actually, Jordan leads the way
in fighting terrorism...
Their police foiled the Millineum plot and two other biggies since.


But, you know, they're ARABS... can't listen to them.

First post since Yick Day. Just came on to say "Yeah Wes!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-04 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. Moral authority aside, Bush* made us the sucker.
Our country gets to pay for it in so many ways (blood & money) and those foreign (to us, we're also foreign to Iraq) “allies” will eventually get their due whether * is elected or not. It's going to happen because it was wrong to do it on *'s schedule and judgment.

Point is, we didn't have to do this for national security. We didn't have to do it all. (We don't seem to unilaterally invade countries or topple dictators that don't have oil.)

On the other hand, if you want to support a greedy oil contract, it might as well be one from the fatherland even if we won't see a red cent from that revenue because they are operating from offshore accounts.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. The French might be bastards, but * made us suckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kellanved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-04 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. No, that is oversimlifying matters
Edited on Fri Jul-30-04 06:09 PM by Kellanved
1. true

2. Can't follow you there. More to the point: Do you have any material about Germany having major (or any) Oil Contracts with Iraq post GW1?



Edit: changed title.

Explaining opposition to the war with economic interests is a popular theory. I've never been able to understand how not going to war because of economic interests is worse than going to war because of economic interests. Anyway, according to * there would have been a lot more money in joining the coalition. Even dropping the sanctions would have yielded more profit. While we're at it: don't forget that the US was Iraq's business partner #1, according to UN numbers.
Obviously a purely economic view is not able to explain the pre-war motivations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. What are you talking about?
How do you know this has anything to do with what Bush* did in attacking a country under false pretenses?

What are you saying we should let the terrorists do anything they want?

I can't believe the lengths people will go to to avoid looking anything like the Republicans at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
countmyvote4real Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Kerry didn't say our military power would be the only weapon against
Edited on Thu Jul-29-04 11:43 PM by countmyvote4real
terrorists.

He also sited our economic power and our values. I did not hear that as economic blackmail. It seemed more like a tool to use in the efforts to restore our good name in the rest of the world.

I think they have good ideas and God knows they have many more advisors on tap that I would trust compared to the current administration.

Of course, I discount that Nader guy. Not because he doesn't have any military experience. It's because he doesn't have a chance of being elected at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophy77 Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. "What Is Wrong With Destroying Terrorists?" - Nothing
I agree. They attacked us based on some perverted ideology. We can't not sit idly by and hope it doesn't happen again. Negotiation is not going to cut it with terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. And who is 'they' ? Where are 'they' headquartered ?
Is the US military going to reserve the right to invade any and every country across the planet simply because there's a cave somewhere with a pissed off group of 'insurgents' hiding in it this week ??

And what about the homegrown terrorists like McVeigh & Kaczynski ? Are we gonna bomb Oklahoma and Montana, too ?

Yea, that'll win us a whole lotta friends .... :freak:


THE WAR ON TERRA IS UNWINNABLE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. "Is the US military going to reserve the right to invade..."
Uh, where'd you get this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. So we should give up then
Why is it then whenever someone says they want to fight terrorism, we have people here who assume that means massive invasions of countries across the globe? Has it occurred to you that "fighting" terrorism involves more than just guns, or have you completely bought into the Bush methodology as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseba Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-30-04 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. They need to read
Wes Clark's article in the Washington Monthly to understand what fighting the war on terrorism could mean, aside from military action. There are lots of ways to fight this war... but, we have to continue to fight. It won't go away just because we pull our troops home.
====================================
EXCERPT

Broken Engagement
The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East-- if only the Bush hawks understood it.

By Gen. Wesley Clark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Red herring

The first thing to remember about American policy towards the Soviet Union is that we never directly invaded any nation under Soviet control. In the early 1950s, some in America saw the expansion of communism as an inevitability which must not only be resisted by force but also rolled back. And for a time during the Eisenhower administration, there was brave rhetoric about such an effort. Struggling resistance movements survived from year to year in the Baltics, Romania, and the Ukraine. And immigrant dissident groups in the United States kept up the political pressure on Washington to consider a more confrontational strategy. But any real prospect of rollback died as Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956.

Instead, the foreign policy consensus coalesced around containment, an idea which had been in the air since the early post-war period, when George Kennan, then a veteran American diplomat, published his seminal Foreign Affairs article "The Sources of Soviet Conduct." Kennan argued that the Soviet system contained within it "the seeds of its own decay." During the 1950s and 1960s, containment translated that observation into policy, holding the line against Soviet expansion with U.S. military buildups while quietly advancing a simultaneous program of cultural engagement with citizens and dissidents in countries under the Soviet thumb.

These subtler efforts mattered a great deal. The 1975 Helsinki Accords proved to be the crucial step in opening the way for the subsequent peaceful democratization of the Soviet bloc. The accords, signed by the Communist governments of the East, guaranteed individual human and political rights to all peoples and limited the authority of governments to act against their own citizens. However flimsy the human rights provisions seemed at the time, they provided a crucial platform for dissidents such as Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov. These dissidents, though often jailed and exiled, built organizations that publicized their governments' many violations of the accords, garnering Western attention and support and inspiring their countrymen with the knowledge that it was possible to stand up to the political powers that be.

With the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland in the 1980s, it became clear once more that it would be the demands of native peoples, not military intervention from the West, that would extend democracy's reach eastward. Step by step, the totalitarian governments and structures of the East lost legitimacy in the eyes of their own citizens and elites. The United States and Western Europe were engaged, of course, in assisting these indigenous political movements, both directly and indirectly. Western labor unions, encouraged by their governments, aided the emergence of a democratic trade union movement, especially in Poland. Western organizations provided training for a generation of human-rights workers. Western broadcast media pumped in culture and political thought, raising popular expectations and undercutting Communist state propaganda. And Western businesses and financial institutions entered the scene, too, ensnaring command economies in Western market pricing and credit practices. The Polish-born Pope John Paul II directed Catholic churches in Eastern Europe and around the world to encourage their congregants to lobby for democracy and liberal freedoms.

Such outreach had profound effects, but only over time. In his new book, Soft Power, the defense strategist Joseph Nye tells the story of the first batch of 50 elite exchange students the Soviet Union allowed to the United States in the 1950s. One was Aleksandr Yakovlev, who became a key advocate of glasnost under Gorbachev. Another, Oleg Kalugin, wound up as a top KGB official. Kalugin later said: "Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system...they kept infecting more and more people over the years."

Of course, military pressure played a vital role in making containment work. But we applied that pressure in concert with allies in Europe. In the 1980s, for instance, President Reagan began the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Europe as part of NATO. It was a political struggle in the West, but we engaged NATO and made it work.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.clark.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-29-04 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. Lieberman has always been like that. Who else did you have a prob with?
Did you see Obama? Clinton? Kerry???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC