Have Democrats conceded 2004 in the name of the War on Terrorism?

[Q]

- I get the impression that (a majority) of the Democratic leadership has given up on hopes of beating Bush* in 2004. The most obvious indication of this is their concessions after 9-11 and their blind effort to support the 'war' on terrorism. They were so afraid of looking unpatriotic and losing their jobs that they quickly jumped on a flag-draped bandwagon headed in Bush's* direction.

- Democrats shouldn't have allowed Bush* to get the upper hand, control the debate about the 'war' on terrorism and use it to his own political advantage. Some Democratic pundits had insisted that Democrats who opposed Bush's* war on terrorism would appear as 'traitors' if another terrorist event happened. Others agreed with the Bushies that Americans had to give up some or all of their freedom for the sake of national security.

- The United States is in a declared state of national emergency...just a small step away from martial law. Although you don't hear about it in the American media...Bush* has already (taken) 'war powers' that protect him from both scrutiny and prosecution. Many Democrats don't seem to understand that THIS is why he's able to get away with unprecedented secrecy, outing CIA agents and lies about war.

- Bush* has become the dreaded 'Constitutional Dictator' during a 'time of war'. That he had to invent a reason for war means nothing after the fact. It's a done deal. Democrats have been pushed to the back of the political bus and that's where they'll stay until this 'war' ends or is exposed as a fraud and political opportunism.

- How can Democrats defeat a 'popular wartime president' who has declared perpetual war on a faceless enemy? They can't...unless they're able to redefine the war in logical terms and give a face to the enemy. The problem is that Democrats have undermined their own efforts in this regard by allowing Bush* to pretend he's protecting America and fighting terrorism.

- Democrats won't have a chance in hell to win in 2004 unless they can show Bush's* war on terrorism is a sham and ruthless political opportunism. They must show that his war is actually creating more terrorists wanting to strike back in revenge for his continuing blunders and arrogant foreign policy. They must demonstrate that this 'popular wartime president' is nothing more than a blustering figurehead who works for corporate America and not for the American people. And yes...they must prove to the people that the Bush* administration didn't do all they could to prevent 9-11.

- We'll win in 2004 if we can muster the courage to show once and for all that the man behind the curtain is a charlatan and a fraud. Can we find this type of courage in time to make a difference?

[Skidmore]

1. Nope, the Democrats have conceded 2004 in the name of

special interests and supporting a corrupt corporate system. This party is as corrupt as the Rs and I want us to clean house.

[Selwynn]

29. I agree Skidmore

[Redleg]

32. I disagree that Dems are as corrupt as Repubs.

Dems have had to cozy up to big business in order to raise money for campaigns but they haven't sold this country down the river to the extent of the Repubs and this current (mis)administration.

[Q]

39. Certainly Dems aren't as corrupt...

...but could they also be selling us 'down the river' by not doing their best to expose Bush* corruption and war profiteering?

- The people are getting mixed signals from the Democratic party. Some Dems are for the war and others think it's wrong and little more than political opportunism. There is no organized effort to confront Bush* on the many lies he's told about so many things.

- WAR remains the ace up Bush's* sleeve. Nothing else matters as long as the Bushies have the cooperation of the media to raise the alert level simply to scare the people and opposition into submission.

- Many believe that Bush* is going to ride this war right back into the White House. And there's a good chance he can do it without an organized opposition by the Democrats.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I feel the Democratic leadership

conceded everything to Bush long ago. That's why the Congress rubber stamped acts like the Patriot Act and the measure that gave Bush carte blanch to go to war. The Rethugs in Congress are now treating the Dems with contempt, not even allowing them to help craft legislation, etc, because they see the Dems as paper tigers, soon to be swept away by a massive Rethug victory that locks the Senate and House into filibuster-proof majorities. The 'leadership' that hasn't led the party is now being threatened by outsiders like Dean and Clark, and they have fought back-not against Rethugs but against other Dems. That is why it is imperative that we the people take back our party and take back our country. We must have a party that works for the people and not special interests, or we are doomed.

[Q]

4. So...how do you take back the party AND win elections?

- Somewhere along the way we HAVE to confront Bush* and his perpetual war. Is this something we'll have to do AFTER eight years...or can we begin today?

[Skidmore]

6. Grassroots politics--the good, old-fashioned kind

PEOPLE vote. Corporations are not people no matter how hard they try to be. We need people, not money. Knock on doors, stand on street corners, do the work.

[Q]

13. I agree about 'grassroots' politics...

...but I'm not so sure you have the full picture about what the Bushies will and can do to 'win' in 2004. They have almost unlimited power during a 'national emergency' to coverup their blunders and criminality in the name of 'national security'. This gives them and their press the ability to label themselves a success on many fronts...even if it's not true.

- Yes...people vote...but will their votes be counted? Beyond voting...we saw how easy it was to manipulate the electoral vote in 2000. Voting will NOT be enough to beat Bush* in 2004. We must concurrently expose the corruption and malfeasance of the Bush* warmongers and war profiteers.

[J B]

3. Democrats are ruled by fear.

Bush isn't afraid; he enjoys this. But Democrats are afraid. That's why there's the big push for Clark, why the party wants a Stop Dean candidate... because of fear. Such is the fright that grips them that they're willing to lose the election out of it rather than lose by not being afraid enough.

[Q]

5. This isn't about Democratic candidates...

- We're talking about the direction of the party in general and the need to confront Bush* on the important issues: war and peace.

[J B]

7. Confrontation takes guts.

And sorry about the candidate thing, but I've watched silently in great dismay after seeing time and time again, this fear being played upon by someone with a 'CLARK' tag under his name... the fear pandering could use a little toning down. Because what it leads to is, if we're THAT afraid, why change Presidents mid-course? Bush becomes FDR.

[Q]

8. The confontation must come from the PARTY...

...and not just the candidates. Candidates for president can be too easily dismissed as 'partisan' as they run for political office.

- This has to be a 'face to face' confrontation...party to party. We must call Bush* a liar to his face and then go about proving it in a public forum.

- We could begin by labeling the 9-11 commission as a sham and attempt to coverup and obstruct investigations into a horrible crime. Next we could point out and PROVE the relationship between Bush* and the Saudi Royal /bin Laden families.

- In other words...we need to stop being defensive and go on the attack. We have literally nothing to lose.

[J B]

9. Now that's silly.

Sure you have something to lose - electoral credibility.

But whatever, I'm getting tired of partisan politics anyway, because Democrats seem unable to deal with the Republicans becoming what the Republicans always accused the Democrats of being. Maybe it's inherent with being in power.

[Q]

11. Credibility? Surely you jest?

- It's not about 'partisan politics'. It's about the future of the United States of America. Stop thinking like a politician...think like an American instead.

- 'Electoral credibility' means nothing in a rigged system. Did you learn nothing from the 2000 election? Do you think Bush* will simply change and play fair in 2004?

- We're on the edge of poliical oblivion...and you're worried about 'credibility'? We come together to fight our common enemy...or look forward to another four years of Bush*.

[Kolesar]

10. I concur with both of your points

I like to think that this "run and hide under brave General Clark's wing phenomenon" is just a function of the DU. I don't get that from my other activist buddies or at my water-cooler conversations.

[edzontar]

26. You are right--I have a whole thread on this in GD Primary

I wonder how many more of these "Doomed with Dean" threads we sall see by the end of today?

[Kolesar]

12. We have 10 months, a big campaign budget, and thousands of activists

Your sixth message is very well written. We have nothing to do but pound that message (and other messages of bush corruption) at the public with any resource we can muster. We will be buying radio, tv, and print ads.

[xchrom]

14. this is where i have to agree with dr fate

but with a twist.
it seems to me that small groups of leftist democrats and assorted liberals have to come together face to face in the communities where they live and create community power bases that challenge the local dem establishment.
shake 'em up -- get them to pay attention with small pacs or activist organizations.
i like volunteering occaisionally for act up or answer, etc.
let 'em know you're out there and pissed.

[Q]

20. These are great long term goals...

...but the Bushies plan on 'winning' in 2004 by touting their 'success' in the war on terrorism. The very fact that they can point to the capture of Saddam as part of their success means that they've also been successful in framing the debate.

- The problem is that 'liberals' are being marginalized by both the Right and 'conservative left'. The right calls them outright traitors for opposing Bush's* phony war and conservative Dems call them irrelevent for trying to 'relive' the Vietnam war.

- I'm afraid 2004 will be Bush* versus Conservative Democrats. Either way...we lose.

[Iverson]

15. no, the problem is different

I agree with your analysis, Q, but to the initial question, no. The party is pursuing counterproductive strategies in the mistaken belief that they are sensible, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. That indicates ideological rigidity or delusion, not a desire to concede.

The days are getting longer now.

[Q]

16. The 'desire' may not be there...but it's concession nonetheless...

- Dems have simply been left out of the debate on the war on terrorism. They're considered 'weak' by the Right and they're not afraid to campaign on a phony war on terrorism...knowing that Dems will offer little resistance or fight back with the truth.

- Why does the Dem party seem so afraid to expose the truth about 9-11 or take the Bushies to task on their obvious incompetence/complicity?

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. Why even refer to it as a "War on Terrorism?"

Start referring to it as "bush's War" or "bush's Crusade" (or even "bush's Vendetta" if you want to kick it up a notch) -- link the man (?) to the folly, as surely as Tweedledum is linked to Tweedledee.

[sandnsea]

18. Deny terrorism

What a winning strategy! :eyes:

We are so fucked.

[Q]

19. No...deny Bush's* 'war on terrorism'...

- Certainly YOU don't believe that Bush* invaded and occupied Iraq in an effort to fight terrorism?

- The whole rationale for the war on terrorism is 9-11. Did Saddam have ANYTHING to do with 9-11? Or was Bush* simply using 9-11 as an excuse to attack a country the neocons have wanted to attack for a very long time?

- We're 'fucked' only if we continue to allow Bush* to escape accountability and get away with lying to the American people.

[sandnsea]

24. Iraq? Saddam?

Didn't see either mentioned in the post. Just another "there's no terrorists" post. Boggles my mind that anybody thinks this is the way to win the presidency.

[RBHam]

25. terrorism exists everywhere

History shows that the US has much more to fear from home grown terrorism. OKC, for one. And remember, if McVeigh hadn't screwed up and been caught, the media were ramping up the "osama bin Laden" angle even then.

The mere idea of fighting a never ending war on an abstract noun is ludicrous. Especially considering the Bush Doctrine Of Pre-Emption. Logically stretching it out, the US' stated goal of "defeating terrorism anywhere in the world it exists" is folly on a grand order. With every military action against terrorism, you create more terrorism. Cause and effect.

In a debate with Bush on this subject, logically attacking his rhetoric would be a snap.

But does any Dem have the courage to speak truth to power? To thereby show the American public just how outrageously unattainable the stated goal is? That the Doctrine Of Pre-emption is assured to bankrupt the nation, both financially and morally?

[sandnsea]

35. All the time

I hear it. I don't know why nobody else hears it. I think people just don't want to hear it because bitching is more fun.

[Q]

40. What are you 'hearing'? You're not being very clear...

- Perhaps I misunderstand your point...but I'm not suggesting terrorism doesn't exist. I HAVE suggested that Bush* may be doing a lot of things...but he's NOT fighting a war on terrorism.

- This shouldn't have been a 'war' at all. Bush* had the option of framing the 9-11 attack as a 'crime' against humanity and worked with other nations to track down the responsible parties and prosecute them. But it should be obvious that he was searching for an EXCUSE to attack certain countries in the ME. 9-11 gave him that excuse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. You're absolutely right.

The only small difference that I have with your excellent analysis is that I'm a bit more optimistic.

Because of Bush, the Democratic Party is changing. There is now a vital and dynamic left wing emerging. Dean is just the symbol of that movement. The "power" of the movement is brought about by any particular "leader" but by the movement itself.

The "leaders", the politicians, are now more than aware that if they ignore the left, they do so at great risk. Note the collapse of the 4 candidates who moved to the right in the wake of 9/11.

The tide has turned. The left is more united than it has been since the war in Vietnam. In order to win the Democratic party will have to move left in order to get their candidates elected.

We are becoming a force to be reckoned with rather than a fragmented group of voices crying in the dark that can be relied on to vote Democratic since we have no other place to go.

We have been, and will be, heard.

[Q]

22. Goldberg is on CSPAN right now...

...and in response to a caller asking how Bush* could defend the Iraq war...she said that he doesn't have to defend himself...that 'this is something that has to be done or they'll blow us all up'.

- This is the type of irrational fear-mongering we can expect in 2004. This is the type of thinking we MUST confront and defeat.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

23. A different approach?

For the sake of election strategy the nominee should be capable of pulling
off an elaborate hoax, something on the order of a common sting operation.
A carefully scripted event that looks as lethal as hell,but has no ill effect.

Let * and crew place the blame on their current target set.
Let 'em spin and trumpet about who did what.

Then show them the error of their ways.

[Q]

27. The Democrats are conceding the 'war' to Bush*....

....which means they're giving the election winning issues to the enemy of the Democratic party and America.

- The war on terrorism is NOT being fought in Iraq. Why is this so difficult for anyone in the leadership to admit?

[Cocoa]

28. only if you ignore all counterevidence

To me, this seems ridiculous, given the very vigorous presidential campaign being waged.

I've been paying close attention to it, and it's clear to me that the inter-party stuff is being way overstated. Ironically, this is even worse here at DU than in the mainstream media. But it's clear to me that every candidate's basic message is that Bush has to go, and they're saying it loud.

The things that you say are conceding the debate seem to me to be positioning to better beat Bush. The Iraq vote, for example, could be seen as taking that issue away from Bush. Not commenting on whether this is right or wrong, foolish or wise, but if that's true then it's exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

Basically, common sense tells me that there's no doubt the dems are intent on beating Bush, and that only radical spin would lead to the conclusion that they're conceding.

The question is, why would anyone want to spin it that way?

[Tellurian]

30. For starters... maybe we should start thinking outside of the box...

We are not using all of our available resources. Former Ambassador Wilson, being one of them. Do not think for a moment, the CiA isn't still miffed at the swipe taken at Wilson's wife in retribution for Wilson telling the TRUTH "there was no purchase of uranium from Niger by Hussein for the manufacture of WMD", correcting Bush's SOU Address which he used as a catalyst reinforcing the urgency for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

The people who have the dirt on Bush and Bush Sr are the criminals they've employed over the last 40-50 yrs.. The last I've heard, Noriega is in a Fla prison and Saddam is a guest of the US govt.

It's worth a try, if we value our freedom.

[Redleg]

31. Tell that to the nine Democratic presidential candidates.

I'm sure they would like to know to stop spending money on campaigns that won't get them anywhere. Sarcasm.

[Q]

36. I'm saying that the party leadership has given up...

...not the candidates.

- The candidates (all of them) need the support of the entire party. But the leadership is presented with a problem: some support Bush's* war and some don't. This leads to conflicting points of view and messages. This pits one faction of the party against the other.

- While Dems are bickering over whether the war is just or even necessary...Bush* can count on a solid base of RWing voters and lovers of war to show up for him.

[MrPrax]

33. They conceded...but for none of these reasons

The favored leadership candidates won't run until 2008--and so they certainly don't want a democratic candidate winning in 2004.

If a democrat won in 2004 (say Dean or Clark) he would be the incumbent nominee for 2008 and that would make a long long stretch for someone like Hillary to run in 2012...

The 'shakers and movers' don't really give a shit about the small details, imho

--never have and never will

[Q]

38. If what you say is true...

...then the party is in even more trouble than some believe. Allowing Bush* another four years will do so much damage to the party that they may never recover. There just may be a mass exodus to third parties if the Dems are perceived as not trying their best to get Bush* out of there.

- The 2004 won't be about the economy or mad cow disease. It will be about war and national security. This is exactly why some Dems support the war despite all the evidence that Bush* got us there using lies and deceptions.

[The Undertaker]

34. What the Dems need to do is...

confront the American people about the lies of Bush Co., how they've been misled for the past three years, and how Dubya is taking away the Constitution for the sake of security. I think that once people realize all of this, they'll start to hate his sorry ass. Maybe I'm living in a dream world.....? :shrug:

[Q]

37. Some Dems have tried to inform the people...

...but they're cut off by the RWingers in control of both houses, Bush* political operatives in the media and Dems who support the war. What kind of chance does any Dem have of getting out the kind of message you suggest?

- For one: Sen. Byrd has been saying since the beginning that the war is a sham and that congress has relinquished their Constitutional responsibilities. Kennedy has stated the same and added that Bush* is using 9-11 and war for unfair political advantage. Gore has given several speeches on the subject.

- But do you see a common theme here? All the Dems who have warned us about 9-11 and war have been discounted because they're 'too liberal'. The conservatives in the party have joined in chorus with Republicans to denounce those against the war.

[4dsc]

41. The "HATE BUSH" factor will play into 20041

I heard it from O'reilly last night while he was interviewing Katheryn Harris of FL. Someone mention the fact that a certain segment of the voting population "hates bush" so much that a landslide by AWOLbush is impossible!!

This will be a close election, but only if DEMOCRAT's get OUT and VOTE!!! No matter who is our nominee!!

[Q]

42. This nation is split in half...

...so a 'close' election is probably a good bet. Many that 'lean' to the right will vote for Bush* simply because he's the CIC during a 'time of war'. The Bushies are counting on this...which is why they're fighting a perpetual war against a faceless enemy.

- This wil make the 2004 election close enough to steal (again). The Bushies won't depend on voting alone to stay in office. They'll have many backup plans...including using terrorism to keep people from voting or some other method to distract Americans from the truth.

[libview]

43. I couldn't disagree more...

The majority of voters do not agree with the points you've made. If you were a campain manager, your candidate would poll below John Kerry.

"We'll win in 2004 if we can muster the courage to show once and for all that the man behind the curtain is a charlatan and a fraud."

No, we will win if we give the voters something to vote for, not something to vote against. Your post have lots of angry words that arn't going to do shit to elect a Democrat.
IMHO

[Q]

44. I'd be interested in knowing how YOU know what a 'majority of voters'...

...think? Do you have some kind of special knowledge you'd like to share?

- I'm not a 'campaign manager'...just a US citizen tired of watching Bush* get a free ride while Democrats get trashed in the media.

- You're mistaken if you think Dems can depend on voting and the election system to beat Bush* in 2004. I guess you haven't heard about the 2000 election fraud and voter purges.

- Democrats simply can't afford to sit back and wait for the media to do their job of informing the people about the current occupant of the White House. If the media won't tell the truth about George* then it's left to the Democrats to do it.

- I don't understand this reluctance by Democrats to tell the truth about Bush* and his horrible domestic and foreign policies. You call it 'angry words'...but I call it responding to the dangers facing our party and country.

[libview]

45. No, I don't have any special knowledge.

I just think the majority of your posts say a whole lot of nothing.
Your angry rants accomplish nothing, there is no real solutions in what you offer, and frankly, I don't know why I bother reading them.
I am new here, so you will probably accuse me of being a freeper, but I assure you, I am just a concerned Democrat looking for some real solutions to the problems we face, not just angry words meant to entice angry conversations.
Have a nice day.

[Q]

46. I have no intention of calling you a FReeper...

...but neither would I say that your posts 'say a whole lot of nothing'.

- Your search for 'solutions' means little in the context of our country being governed like a Banana Republic. The rules have changed...which means that we either change in response or go down in flames.

- The 'solution' I offer is to stop acting like victims and take action against those who oppress and lie to us. The solution you seem to be offering is keep turning the other cheek until they knock our heads off.

- Bush* is not simply a 'bad' president. He's a lying, corrupt scumbag who has led this nation to the edge of oblivion. The question becomes: why the hell aren't YOU angry about it?