"Pragmatic Democrats" -- Please don't repeat 2002 Iraq political mistake

[Armstead]

Much of the same political calculations were being made during the debate over the Iraq War in 2002 that are being made now about how far to go on the Alito nomination.

Well, here's a simple argument from a purely opportunistic, political standpoint. It boils down to -- Remember the Iraq War debate.

From a purely opportunistic political standpoint, there's an important point to remember. If Democrats had unified and stood their ground in 2002, the Democratic Party would be in a lot better position today.

Today, with a majority of the country admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake, the Democrats could have been capitalizing on being the smart and principled opposition. Even if they could not have stopped it ultimately, the Democratic Party would still have had a selling point. "See? We stood against this terrible mistake of a war when it mattered. We were right, ultimately."

But because too many Democrats waffled and gave into the GOP/Media spin of "inevitability," the Democrats today can't do that. They are seen as just as complicit in the Iraq Mistake as Bush and the GOP. And worse, the division within the party added to the stereotype of "ineffectual wafflers."

And, back then, the "go along to get along" path of least resistance strategy didn't do any good anyway. The GOP/media still attacked the Democrats as the "party against national security" and "indecisive" and made they made gains in 2002 and 2004.

This is a similar situation. Most Democrats (moderates included) KNOW that Alito is a bad choice who will do damage to America....But the "pragmatists" are once again buying into the same Aura of Inevitability as they did with the Iraq War. The "pragmatic" strategy is not being driven by Democrats, but by the GOP and the Presstitute Media.... "Obstructionists, lost cause,catering to the far left..." the whole ball of wax.

But if Alito gets on the court, a principled fight to the end can still have advantages for the Democrats. Once the "mainstream" sees what happens when Alito cements the power of the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts brand of ultra right-wing justice, the public will regret it. There will be a similar belated recognition of the awful results of Bush/GOP policies.

The question now that Democrats must ask -- from a purely strategic, pragmatic standpoint -- is do they want to be perceived at that point as having been strong and principled on Alito when it mattered? Or do we want to be stuck in the same no-win position we currently are on Iraq?

[Greeby]

1. Umm, as Democrats held control of the Senate

If they had stuck together, there might not have been a war at all

[Armstead]

3. That's part of it,, but my point is we should be "looking ahead" now

[Surya Gayatri]

2. Excellent essay, Armstead--

A principled stand, even in the face of almost sure defeat, creates long-term credibility. SG

K & R

[Armstead]

5. Especially when the "conventional wisdom" catches up

Right now the mainstream conventional wisdom is that we made a mistake by invading Iraq.

In a few years, the conventional wisdom with a RW court would be a collective "What were we thinking when we put these clowns on the court?"

All it'll take is one or two bad rulings that moderates realize is a bridge too far.

[0007]

4. Play this old George W. Bush video and listen to the lies

 http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

[Armstead]

6. The whole notion of "Judges who will stick with the Coinstitution" is lie

Every judge believes he is adhering to the Constitution. The real issue is how a judge interprets that.

When Bush and the right wing claim they don't want "activist judges" they are lying. They want activist judges who will stick to one narrow view of the Constitution.

[Totally Committed]

7. When we elect a Senator or Congressperson, we HIRE them...

to represent US. That is their JOB.

Do we hire them to pragmatically do whatever the Republicans want them to do in hopes they will not be targeted at re-election time?

Do we hire them to represent Corporate interests in hopes of huge corporate donations to help them get re-elected?

NO and NO.

We hire these people to represent us and OUR BEST INTERESTS. So, every stand they take should be a PRINCIPLED STAND, not a cynical calculation to aid their "viability" at election time. When they stand up to the Republicans at a time like this THEY ARE DOING THE JOB WE HIRED THEM TO DO. It only seems HEROIC because they don't do their jobs very often anymore.

Can we please start seeing our elected Democrats as what they are -- PUBLIC SERVANTS. They are not CORPORATE SERVANTS, or REPUBLICAN PARTY SERVANTS, they are PUBLIC SERVANTS. WE HIRED Them, and like the corporations they seem so fond of serving, we need to let them know WE WILL FIRE THEIR SORRY ASSES if they do not do THEIR JOBS to our satisfaction.

I am so sick and tired of this bullsh*t! We need to wise up and become stronger about getting rid of the DINO's who refuse to DO THE JOBS THEY WERE HIRED TO DO in our names and for the sake of the country and the Constitution!

TC

[Armstead]

8. I agree -- My point is that principle is also better politics

We keep losing by putting politics over principle. IMO if we recognize that they are one and the same, wee'll do a lot better with both.

[Armstead]

9. PS -- This is also a chance to kick the butt of the media Presstitutes

This is a chance to poke all thoise smug media commentators in the eye. They have written you off as irrelevant and foolish. (See Tweety's Sunday Show today.)

You going to keep letting those beltway Pundits kick sand in your faces? (Our faces?)

Give Rove and the Media Presstitutes a simultaneous kick in the butt. I guarantee at least half of America would be cheering you on.

[hvn_nbr_2]

10. Taking the right and principled stand then would have been...

in the long term the more politically astute stand too. Look where "Oh, we're just too afraid to oppose the president" got them. Back then, everyone really knew that Bush was lying but no one would say so and they all pretended to believe him. Now most of them are pretending to believe Scalito when he talks about judicial restraint and not having pre-formed opinions and all the other bullshit he's been shoveling. They all know he's lying, just like he lied when he said he wouldn't rule on Vanguard.

Meekly going along with dangerous liars and scumbags is a longterm plan for disaster, including your own political disaster.

[Armstead]

15. We should have learned that "going along" doesn't work politically

The GOP attack will opersatre as usual, They6'lkl just adopt their talking points accordingly.


The media will churn out their garbage no matter what too.

The only way to break that pattern if to stop playing a reactive game and start being pro-active. It also happens to be the right thing to do.

[sundancekid]

11. KUDOS to the OP. We gotta FIGHT LIKE IT'S 1776, not like it's 1984

the "pragmatists" above all should figure out that we are NOT fooled by DEMO doublespeak either!

[Drum]

12. Right on, Sundance! nt

[seabeyond]

13. i am so pragmatic. it serves me well. but i agree. let that go here.

good advice. cause your title felt respectful to the pragmatic, i am going to assmune, the rest of the post is too. (just dont feel well and dont want to read. i, pragmatic, let go)

i am sittin listening to the less pragmatic, though certainly reasonable turk. helping me a lot to be a part of

i have a dream, wink

[Armstead]

14. The Young Turk has been hitting the nail on the head

IMO this is a case of the pragmatic and the idealistic principled positions are intersected.