Swing Voters Trouble Antiwar Dems

[babylonsister]

I want to know who the "Democratic strategist with close ties to the national party" is. Why isn't this person identified?


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070525/25swing.htm

Swing Voters Trouble Antiwar Dems
By Kenneth T. Walsh
Posted 5/25/07

Swing voters are exhibiting a nuanced view of the situation in Iraq — and that isn't good news for antiwar Democrats.

They want the United States to get out, but they don't want a hasty retreat — and they want American involvement there not to have been in vain, according to focus groups and other survey research conducted for the Democrats.

"Swing voters are torn," says a Democratic strategist with close ties to the national party. "They aren't sure immediate withdrawal is a good idea" — and, as President Bush says, they don't want the sacrifices of U.S. troops to go to waste.

Even so, many Americans recognize how complex the situation in Iraq is, and they want their political leaders to make their positions clear, even if those positions are controversial. On the day after the congressional vote to fund the war and not impose timetables for removing U.S. troops, party insiders are very worried about the political effect of it all.

"It works into a negative narrative that the Democrats are not standing up and fighting for what they believe in," says the strategist. And many voters are linking that perception to their longtime concern that the Democrats are weak on national security. "A lot of people think, if you won't stand up and fight for what you believe in" — pulling out the troops — "then you won't stand up and defend us."

[texastoast]

1. Well, here it is

"A lot of people think, if you won't stand up and fight for what you believe in" — pulling out the troops — "then you won't stand up and defend us."

Yeah, it would have been nice if our new Congress had stood up and fought for what they believed in. I have to agree--it certainly sends a weakness message.

[liberaldemocrat7]

4. haha weak on national security. who served as president when the planes hit the towers? Bush

Republicans held the White house when the 9-11 attacks happened. Republicans appear weak on national security and defense.

[pingzing58]

2. Sounds like a Repug in sheep's clothing trying to create dissent among our ranks.

Don't fall for it.  You can see right through his manipulation
when he writes: "and, as President Bush says...,"
what, since when is a Democratic strategist agreeing with
Bush?  And, when he writes: "It works into a negative
narrative...." It's the tired and over used Repug
inflammatory accusation of the Democrats that we are
"weak on national security."  Divide and conquer. 
Stand together Dems there's power in our numbers!

[babylonsister]

3. pingzing58, welcome to DU! if you're new. Can't rightly tell other than

your post count. :hi: And you're right, the division strategery could be at work here.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. BULLSHIT. The people who aren't being courted by either party are the people AGAINST the Iraq war.

The people against the drug war. The people against government interference in people's end-of-life choices. The people in favor of legal gay marriage. The people who want a Single Payer Health Care System.

The "middle" is waiting for someone to speak to them- but the "middle" isn't anywhere close to where these DLC peanut-heads think it is.