Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats, DO NOT be Moderates. It doesn't work. Proof . . .

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
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:46 PM
Original message
Democrats, DO NOT be Moderates. It doesn't work. Proof . . .
Who, I ask you WHO, could be more moderate than Dennis Moore of Kansas?

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/columnists/e_thomas_mcclanahan/

He is attacked here even for not backing off of his vote on the War Resolution, HR 114 I believe it was. This prooves Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don't. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. Case of "Danged if you do, Danged if you don't..."
There's just no pleasing 'em... (never should've tried; compromise is overrated when the otherside won't negotiate).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. When only one party makes all the concessions, is it compromise,
or is it simply capitulation? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. That's right...
if two parties are in competition and supposed to negotiate, and one side will not but the other tries the irrational negotiating tactic of making one-sided compromises--better known as concessions anyway... could there be a more applicable word than capitulation? I think not.

Never to sure of my history, but it seems to me that we're behaving with them the way Britain did with Hitler prior to WWII--just giving concession after concession in the hopes Germany would "play nice"? Fat lot of good it did them in the end (and I'd bet there were some Brits who felt as though they were compromising their pride/honor and acting out of weakness--certainly that was Churchill's opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's doing something right, he's been reelected repeatedly
This is a right-wing extremist attacking him, for them only extremists are good enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:03 PM
Original message
I personally trust his rationalism, though I hear some pretty
strong stuff against him amongst some Democrats, and I *was* purely disappointed in his vote on HR 114!! I know what the religio-fascist political realities are in our district. These are the folks to follow the likes of T. McClanahan and are likely to cash in their chits on Moore and try to replace him with someone who agrees with McClanahan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. He keeps winning because of who runs against him
It'd been one right wing extremist after another. One of them is now in prison. If the repukes could come up with a decent (more moderate) candidate, they could probably defeat Moore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. My views are mine own. They're not changing because of political winds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. It's fine to be a moderate in Kansas
Republicans have tried four times to knock him off and Moore has won every time. What is not excusable is for Democrats to be like Joe Lieberman in solid blue states like Connecticut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. He votes like a neocon
It isn't just his voting on the war, but he also voted for the Sensennbrenner bill. That is hardly moderate.

I will have to hold my nose to vote for him. I refuse to put his yard sign in my yard and I am not giviing him any money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Exactly.
I feel like a broken record with this argument, but we only enable the Right in their hijacking of the language when we use the term "moderate" to describe conservatives.

Dennis Moore is not a moderate. He is conservative. He's nowhere near as bad as the nutjobs the GOP runs against him, but that doesn't make him any less a conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Here's the response I sent to McClanahan:
Tom McClanahan’s Moore’s Thoughts on Iraq Ignore Reality, in this morning’s K.C. Star, is a perfect example of how, for partisan extremists, Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Because McClanahan ignores so much reality himself, while people suffer and die, he demonstrates how everything is really much more about ridicule than it is about solutions.

McClanahan's first criticisms of Moore’s responses to the Star Editorial board have to do with Moore’s moderate statement “We can’t be expected to stay there forever.” Since this statement is problematic to McClanahan, we can assume that he’d prefer that we either, a. stay there forever, or b. leave, and since he characterizes redeployment as running away, we must conclude that McClanahan would prefer that we stay there forever. All of the rest of his criticisms of Moore should be taken in light of that extreme fact.

McClanahan goes on to criticize Moore for not having a political solution to their/Iraqi problems. While I’m pretty sure McClanahan would defend the rights of all humans to self-determination, I fail to understand why Iraqis are not included in that right. The U.S. meddling in other country’s politics causes blind anger and, hence, Terrorism. Terrorism does not come solely from the mindless hate that some people are promoting. Whether we agree with them or not, people have reasons for being angry with the U.S.

By the way, we’ve had political solutions for Iraqi problems before, they were named Saddam Hussein and the Baathists. How well did that work out? It only shows that enabling dysfunction by supporting it does not produce functional politics. The Iraqis must do it on their own.

Then McClanahan, having demonstrated that he understands nothing about being a Democrat, proceeds to characterize the Democratic mind, by repeating a Republican talking point, a mass produced sound-bite handed to extremist partisans for brainwashing those who do not know the facts. He wants you to believe that all Democrats are lying to you when they say we should redeploy in Iraq and that we really want to “run away”. I would suggest to you that everything McClanahan says in this piece demonstrates that he understands nothing about a legitimately moderate position on this issue and is, therefore, not qualified to characterize what Moore or any other moderate thinks. I would further suggest that if you begin by defining people as liars, you treat them as such, they react to being treated as liars in insecure confused manners that you then assume confirm your assumption that they are liars. Both sides do it. It’s called self-fulfilling prophecy Mr. McClanahan, look it up.

McClanahan then proceeds to tell us that, because the U.S. government couldn’t keep a secret redeployment time-frame secret, there can be no such time-frame, further confirming our suspicions that he does, in fact, prefer that we stay there forever. He goes on to tell us that if we leave Iraq will be divided up amongst the political factions in the region. I ask you, what business is that of ours – unless our oil royalty has invested in the loosers? And how might we invest in the winners instead?

McClanahan then goes on to treat us to more right wing brainwashing with: redeployment equals defeat and a free Iraq means “America would face a much more dangerous world”, as though all of the terrorists are now, and always will be, in Iraq so we must stay there to threaten them, because they are scared of being killed by U.S. troops, not, in fact, motivated by it.

Within the authoritarian mindset, McClanahan’s speculations are intended as facts. He tells you that redeployment will result in a stronger Iran, but He does not mention the fact that Iran has nothing to fear under the status quo in its drive to acquire nuclear weapons, because we are bogged down in Iraq and we are supplying political fodder for Iranian solidarity with Iraqi Shia. He also neglects to mention that due to our absolutely blind support of Israel, Hezbollah, through Iran’s client state Lebanon, is becoming stronger in the region and, because we have ourselves over a barrel in Iraq, we cannot afford to step back, from Israel, our only support in the region. And that’s all just fine with Israel, because we are protecting their only source of fresh water in the region. This brings American politics under the control of Israel. I ask Mr. McClanahan, if this is about Democracy, what about our own Democracy? What if the people of this country don’t want to be an army-for-hire for Israel?

McClanahan ends his editorial with what I suspected from his first objection to Moore’s statement “We can’t be expected to stay there forever.” McClanahan would have us believe that we can and should stay there forever. The “retirement home” he alludes to in his quote from a Marine Lt. General is being built in the permanent bases, fortified for nuclear war, that are being built in Iraq at this moment.

I would agree with McClanahan’s statement that you win wars by convincing your adversary that their victory is impossible, but it is apparent from this piece that McClanahan’s definition of “war” is al Qaeda’s definition of war and by accepting it, we loose our options to respond in the ways supported by George Will in a recent column: close international alliances that work through each country’s law enforcement and banking interdictions, all of which are lost to us at present, because of our delusional behavior.

Those delusions extend themselves into a deadly game that McClanahan wants us to play. “The terrorists believe they can win by continuing to blow things up.” He proposes that our troops sit in the middle of this (in Iraq or elsewhere) forever, doing this or that, but continuing to get blown up, until the moment when Washington realizes that, because terrorists are motivated by all of the death and destruction, and our armed forces are weakened to the point of no return, there is nothing left to do but blow up “all” of them with nuclear war. What is truly frightening about this is that I know McClanahan and many other Americans wonder why anyone sees this very distinct possibility as a problem. This underscores the fact that the only real solution, in terms of how solutions are being defined presently in Washington, is Genocide. I’m afraid that that is indeed where the present course leads with the support of delusional extremists like Tom McClanahan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. Dems, DO NOT Listen to any unqualified advise. Every case is different.
Any political combination can work somewhere, and the best political startegy can bomb somewhere. There is no cookbook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Dems aren't the problem.
I would venture to say, MOST people DO listen to unqualified advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Your use of the word "unqualified" here makes me think.
Could it not be that part of the problem is all of these "qualified", i.e. professional political scientists, who are in-between the people and their elected representatives?

People who make a living off of tweaking this or that about candidates to keep them in office enable others who jerk the candidates' chains by letting their pit-bulls, people such as Hannity, Limbaugh, McClanahan et al, loose just far enough to create pressure that drives our representatives and senators away from certain kinds of solutions for whatever's on the table at a given moment. Thus, professionals, the qualified ones, have a vested interest in the likes of McClanahan (and I'm sorry I can't think of one on the Left or I'd include him/her), so why should we listen to their advice about how to respond to them.

I'm sorry, I want to believe that rationalism is the best answer, but I just don't know anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. dems are always (in this era) attacked - smeared - ridiculed by the Right
can't vote to appease/avoid - it will still happen. Vote one's conscience (even if I don't always agree), and prepare for being attacked regardless of how one votes. Just don't "vote/legislate" on the basis of fear of attack. As you show, it doesn't work. They ALWAYS attack. Better to plan/strategize for that reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentWar Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. When the spine grows....
I'll bet alot of the attacks will cease. The only time I have issues with the Democrats is when they are whimps, and refuse to stand as a viable opposition party to the GOP authoritarians. I just don't see any excuse for it.
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 Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:27 PM
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