Hillary and Lieberman are weighing down the Democratic message.

[The Backlash Cometh]

That's the conclusion I reached from my discussion with a Republican soccer mom tonight. She has one daughter going into the Air Academy and a son in Iraq and after we said the pledge of allegiance she yelled out, "We got to get out of Iraq!" I told her sssshhhh, you don't want a Republican to hear you. They'll call you unpatriotic. She replied, "I AM a Republican and I don't care what they think." Then she thought a moment and she said, "No, I"m not a Republican. But I'm not a Democrat either. I must be an Independent." So I said, you realize that the Democrats are the strongest in favor of leaving Iraq? And she said, "Well they don't have a plan." I replied, yes they do, but we need to quiet Lieberman and Hillary down in order for you to hear their unified message. She said, "Yes, Hillary. Thank you. One minute she says one thing, the next she says another."

So there you have it.

[mopinko]

1. and the next minute she says

NOTHING! where are you hill?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. So One Conversation With A Soccer Mom Is All It Should Take To Forge

policy huh? LOL

I know you mean well, but it just made me laugh that last line "so there ya have it". "A republican soccer mom told me today that hillary says one thing and than another... ...So there ya have it"

:rofl: I don't know why, that just really tickled my funny bone.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Sweetheart, I live in a right-wing Stepford self-contained community.

I swear to you, everybody paints their houses in the same pukey khaki colors, they're like afraid to show any individuality. So when one of them blurts something like that after the pledge of allegiance before a school soccer game, it's mind blowing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. I hear ya. I didn't intend to be overly sarcastic either. I was just

being honest. For some reason after I read it, it made me really laugh. Forgive me though. I'm loopy today. Up all last night vomiting and all day weak as can be, so I'm a bit, shall we say, not firmly ground in reality right now...

[wyldwolf]

3. just out of curiosity...

What exactly is the Democrat's unified message?

[LSdemocrat]

7. Exactly. Even excepting Hillary and Joe there is no Dem "plan"

[blm]

22. You're wrong. Both Murtha and Kerry put up withdrawal plans.

.

[Clark2008]

53. And Clark's had one up for a year.

But - ssshhhh... we can't talk about Democrats who could actually FLIP a red state or two or three. :eyes:

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. That's what I'm saying.

Here on DU I would say that the unified message is to Get Out as soon as it's practical. But she hasn't heard anything like that. She's not a DUer.

[LSdemocrat]

12. Even on DU there is disagreement

Some want to get out now, others want to get out within a year, and fewer want to get out at a slower pace than that. Also, Hillary and Joe do not have the same position on this. Joe is 100% behind Bush on this one, while Hillary thinks that a successful Iraq can still be salvaged. Neither of those positions have much, if any, sway at DU, but I still think it is wrong to say, but for Hillary and Lieberman there would be a unified Democratic message on Iraq.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Okay, then the message for the Dems:

Get your shit together before the 2006 elections.

[blm]

19. There are 3 withdrawal plans on the table now - Murtha, Kerry's and Korb's

Murtha feels his plan may possibly be done in 6months. Kerry's withdrawal plan has a 12-13month timeframe. And Korb (R) has a 2yr plan on the table.

More Democrats support versions of these withdrawal plans than the media will discuss. For instance, you won't see media booking Tom Hayden or Gary Hart since they both support Kerry's plan. However, if both had lined up AGAINST Kerry's plan, they would be booked on every show.

[AntiCoup2K4]

11. Read my signature.

That pretty much sums it up.

[wyldwolf]

14. uh... so?

What relevance does your sig have on this thread?

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Two Republican lites were discussed on this thread.

Referring to Lieberman's and Hillary's right-leaning opinion regarding Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

16. no. Two DEMOCRATS were discussed on this thread

..unless Dennis Kucinich is a Republican for having right-leaning views on flag burning, abortion, , the Iraq Liberation Act, and Bill Clinton's impeachment.

...unless Paul Wellstone is a Republican for having right-leaning views on marriage.

... shall I continue?

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. What were their positions on the Iraq War, since that is the topic

of this thread?

[wyldwolf]

23. but it isn't the topic of the discussion I'm having...

... which is that the Democrats in question are Republicans for having less than pacifist views on the war.

When you can show ANYWHERE OFFICIALLY that the Iraq war is a litmus test for party inclusion, let me know.

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. We WILL leave Iraq at some point.

Those who spearhead the movement will get votes in 2006. Those who don't, are just going to drag the Dems, once again.

That's what this issue is about.

[wyldwolf]

25. yes we will

Those who spearhead the movement will get votes in 2006.

Sure they will. But so will those that voted for the IWR. Do you really think Clinton/Lieberman/Biden/Kerry, etc., are going to lose?

Those who don't, are just going to drag the Dems, once again

I can guarantee you that the DLC members up for re-election will get more votes and win by larger margins than those who who are "spearheading" the movement.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Well, there's where we'll disagree.

I'll just have to remember you as a pro-DLC Dem.

[wyldwolf]

29. I'll take that as a compliment

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. You really shouldn't.

Maybe you all could branch off and start your own party?

[wyldwolf]

31. sure I should

DLC Democrats and their idealogical forerunners have always had the party. But the far left have been like little chihuahuas nipping at the heels.

... you abandoned Harry Truman not once but twice because he wouldn't play nice with the Communists.
... you protested the nomination of JFK in 1960, demanding Adlai Stevenson instead.
... you protested the 1968 Democratic convention because you preferred Gene McCarthy over Humphrey and continued to not support the Democratic nominee... Richard Nixon won that year, by the way.
... you abandoned Jimmy Carter in 1980 and hiched your horse to Ted Kennedy - bringing your "fight" to the convention floor that year. Ronald Reagan won that year, by the way.
... you bought into Ralph Nader's BS and voted third party - abandoning Al Gore..

... you constantly snipe at Democrats for not being idealogically pure...


..I'd say you all should branch off and form your own party. It isn't like you've really ever been a part of the Democratic party, anyway.

[The Backlash Cometh]

37. You're going far left, to your far right. I'm in the middle.

[wyldwolf]

38. you, obviously, are not in the "middle."

If you were, you'd recognize that Democrats like Clinton and Lieberman and Edwards and the DLC are part of the centrists/moderates of the party.

[The Backlash Cometh]

39. Edwards is no Lieberman.

Thank God. Lieberman & Clinton are far more involved with Israel than Edwards is. I believe Edwards even stated that his vote was a mistake. But Bill Clinton said he would die for Israel. I certainly am not opposed to someone dying for what he believes in, but I do have a problem with someone sending other people's kids to die for something they haven't justified.

Sorry, but next time don't give me examples that are easily picked apart by playing, "One of these things is not like the others."

[wyldwolf]

40. easily picked apart?

Based on your perception of their support for Israel?

Show me link where Bill Clinton said "I would Die For Israel."

Here's what he said, ""The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."

And I would hope the US would intervene.

But still, your basing your beliefs on support for Israel.

[The Backlash Cometh]

41. Okay, and that's different how?

Clinton would die for Israel. 'nuff said. I personally don't think those kinds of statements should be made by our leaders until we sort out exactly who has been spying on who and what they did with the information once they got it. But going back to the original point, Clinton has every right to die for Israel, as I pointed out to you before. But he doesn't have the right to send other people's kid's out to die for it. Yet, that seems to be what we're doing, indirectly.

What does Israel have to do with Iraq? You pointed it out in the quote. Iraq is obviously an enemy of Israel, and destabilizing both Iraq and Iran right now, certainly makes it less likely that they'll attack Israel later. Pretty convenient how that worked.

By the way, full disclosure time. What is your religious affiliation?

[wyldwolf]

42. It's a blanket statement your saying he made

His statement actually set a condition. I know nuance is a difficult concept for the extremes of both parties.

I personally don't think those kinds of statements ...

Exactly.

he doesn't have the right to send other people's kid's out to die for it.

Actually, he does. Constitutionally he does.

But back to basics - you've used Israel as a determinant of what is moderate and progressive.

(Agnostic)

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Constitutionally, Clinton has zippo right to send anyone to war.

He's not the acting president. Small, bitsy oversight on your part.

And, yes, Israel has become a determinant of right-wing extremism and moderation.

[wyldwolf]

46. when he was president , he did...

..but, of course he didn't say he would send anyone's kids off to die, now did he?

Israel has become a determinant of right-wing extremism and moderation.

Or leftwing extremism and moderation.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. Not even then. Only Congress can declare war.

They yielded that right this go around like a bunch of pussy DLCers.

(heh, heh, heh)

BTW, I know where you prayed last summer...

[wyldwolf]

49. we weren't discussing formal declarations of war

Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war grant letters of marque and reprisal." But Article II, Section 2 provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act. Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. This, in effect, granted the President permission from Congress (who is constitutionally bound to declare war) to wage war without congressional approval - though for 90 days.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. cart before the horse on that one, pally.

Once Congress declares war, it's a given that the boys are going to war.

Very cowardly not declaring your religious affiliation, btw. You're like a financial consultant recommending stocks that are in his personal portfolio.

[wyldwolf]

51. as of 1973, you can

As I put in my last reply.

Very cowardly of you to ignore my non-religious affiliation that I did put in prior reply.

So, back to the topic. You judge who is liberal or moderate based on the stance on Israel. Are you going to stick to that?

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. For now, yes. I will judge who is liberal/moderate or conservative based

based on their loyalty to Israel, because liberals push the envelope and won't be afraid to ask the hard questions and find out what Israel's involvement is with our current misfortunates before they blindly follow a plan that happens to coincide with the PNAC.

How stupid are we not to thoroughly investigate every country's involvement with 9/11 or to blindly trust a country which has in fact spied on us and which harbors Abramoff's partners and won't extradite them to us for criminal prosecution?

I seem to recall that we have tons of Irish-Americans in the U.S.A., and I don't remember once that the U.S. sent in troops to Ireland, even when they were getting slaughtered.

[ima_sinnic]

54. and I call BS to DLC="centrists/moderates"

first of all, when I see "centrists/moderates" I see WISHY-WASHY, noncommittal, take a stand on nothing--esp. nothing *gasp* "controversial," nothing they would actually have to defend. yes, this does fit Clinton, Lieberman, and a bunch of other sell-outs.

because that's what DLC is--corporatist sell-outs who come up with "electable" gems like Kerry, when The People had been making it clear they preferred Dean (& don't give me this BS about "New Hampshire" and "Iowa"--Dean was not the DLC's man--in fact, he was a threat to everything DLC stands for, like more of the same corporate plundering--so he had to go, simple as that).

So what does "centrist/moderate" mean, anyway? as far as I can see it is an empty phrase that is SUPPOSED to sound "reasonable" but is in fact a nice convenient subtle put-down of "far leftists" (and what in hell does THAT mean? you mean--*gasp*--people who have PROGRESSIVE ideas like universal health care, fair wages and safe working conditions, diplomatic and friendly international relations, personal freedoms, etc. etc.?). so let's not hide behind "centrist/moderate" like it actually MEANS anything. all it means is "don't rock the boat."

War is Good For Business and I'm sure the occupation of Iraq has had beneficial effects, one way or another, direct or indirect, on the personal fortunes of Hillary, Joe, and a bunch of other noncommittal, corporate butt-kissing sell-outs who are "safe" for the status quo.

[wisteria]

4. It does appear the dem message has been muted. And people

wonder why we are in the minority. If we don't speak up now then when?

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Those moderate Republicans are so ripe for the picking and we

are losing the momentum.

[blm]

21. Media CHOSE who to play up and what plan to play down.

.

[salib]

5. Remember, they represent us, not the other way around

It is interesting to me how everyone comments on how Clinton and Lieberman are not part of the democratic party, or are not consistent with the Democratic message. And then there is the immediate reaction that we, as Democrats, need to support ALL Democratic candidates, not snipe and complain.

Well, seems to me that it is a great deal easier for our elected officials to "tow the party line" than it is for all the members of the Democratic Party. Also, when did it become a requirement that I, as a member of the Democratic Party, support every candidate's actions and values, when some of those candidates are not supporting me and my actions/values?

I think we have the cart leading the horses. ENOUGH.

[Guaranteed]

17. That's a really good way of putting it. nt

[Loonman]

18. Lieberman is just deadweight, Hillary only cares about Hillary

You can't boil it down any simpler than that.

[LaPera]

26. Add Joe fucking Biden to the list!!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. I agree and they both need to STFU.

And any other DLCer who doesn't want to be on the same page as the Democratic Party. Lieberman needs to be relegated to the cloak room and muzzled and Hillary needs to spend more time with Bill.....keep her MOUTH occupied....talking (to Bill), that is.;)

[KG]

32. what is this democratic message? the dem party is wholeheartedly

pro-occupation and pro imperialism. it's right there in the party platform.

[sandnsea]

43. Oh Backlash, here please

It isn't just Hillary and Joe obscuring the Dem message of a phased withdrawal and Iraq sovereignty.

[KG]

52. you can stop that now - there is no such message.

[leesa]

33. As intended.

[DemonFighterLives]

34. These supposed leaders should be setting a course

for the opposition. Either whole heartedly or at least halfway -draw a line in the sand. There is so much that the kn*clehead in chief has done wrong, that the way is set for a leader.
Lieberman and Hillary have enough dubby rope to hang themselves.

[MrBenchley]

35. Wow, now I'm convinced

that if you suggest Democrats to hate for a Republican to condemn, they'll take the bait.

"I replied, yes they do, but we need to quiet Lieberman and Hillary down"Hard to get more convincing than that. Imagine, somebody who hates Democrats agrees with you about hating two of the most well known Democrats.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. I agree with you BC. That is why we need a clear speaking

candidate, spokesman, who speaks straight from their heart. Who doesn't waver, who knew and knows this war was an atrocity.

GO Clark!!!!!!!!!!

[mitchum]

44. They're just being good little Fifth Columnists

[me b zola]

48. Looks like Mr.Crusty needed a breather so the other $$DLCer came to bat

I agree with the premise that there are those in the Democratic Party who continually sabotage any chance for party unity because they insist upon representing "moderate republicans" & corporate interest rather than their base (the Democratic Party).

Counting to down....10,9,8,7,6....