Great Article! do the Dems want America to succeed in Iraq?

[cmh6476 1,011]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...g_except_a.html

 

 

June 12, 2006

Democrats Are Winning... Except at the Polls

By Michael Barone

 

"This is just to cover Bush's (rear) so he doesn't have to answer questions" about things in Iraq, said Rep. Pete Stark, second ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This insurgency is such a confused mess that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant today," said Rep. Jim McDermott, formerly the lead Democrat on the House ethics committee. The deceased, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004 presidential nomination, was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency." He said the United States should get out of Iraq. "We're there for all the wrong reasons."

 

Such was the reaction of the left wing of the Democratic Party to the killing of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Masab Zarqawi in Iraq. It was not the dominant note sounded by Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry all hailed the death of Zarqawi in unequivocal terms. And if Democrats also made the point that his death probably won't end the violence in Iraq, they were only echoing what George W. Bush said.

 

Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.

 

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.

 

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.

 

In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.

 

We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.

 

All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.

 

The angry Democratic left set the tone for the 2003-04 campaign for the party's presidential nomination, and John Kerry hoped that it would produce a surge in turnout in November 2004. It did: Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore. But George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes in 2004 than in 2000.

 

In California's 50th, both parties made mammoth turnout efforts, but the balance of turnout and of opinion seems to have remained the same, even though Democrats had a seriously contested primary for governor and Republicans didn't. The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're doing just the opposite.

 

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

[Dick Cheney 1]

Pretty sad that the Dems hate the Admin that much that they would want their country to not be successful.

[GobbleDog 985]

Polititians or voters?

 

I can believe a few Democratic polititians might want the Iraq occupation to fail, but I seriously doubt many Democratic voters feel that way.

[torridjoe 48]

pretty sad someone would call an article that can't even back up its central claim, "great."

 

pretty sad that someone would call an article that blames a close Democratic loss in one of the most Republican districts in the country, on an issue that barely even came up during the race, great.

 

pretty said that a pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians, are called "one or two instances of misconduct."

[GobbleDog 985]

pretty said that a pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians, are called "one or two instances of misconduct."

 

One man's "instances of misconduct" = another man's "pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians"

 

 

I'm more of an "instances of misconduct" kinda guy. USA USA USA!

[Strike 5,243]

pretty sad someone would call an article that can't even back up its central claim, "great."

 

pretty sad that someone would call an article that blames a close Democratic loss in one of the most Republican districts in the country, on an issue that barely even came up during the race, great.

 

pretty said that a pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians, are called "one or two instances of misconduct."

 

Yeah, the two issues that did come up in that race were corruption and immigration. It seems that the voters care more about illegal immigration than they do about corruption. And it's sad that you keep bringing up that this district is so heavily republican. As noted in the article above Kerry got 44% of the vote in that district. And, the representative replaced in the special election last week is in prison for being corrupt. I would think all bets are off as to the traditional outcome of that district when the incumbent leaves on such terms, but you just spin the situation as you always do

[Electric Mayhem 35]

Honestly, I don't think Democratic voters blame Republicans for where we are, they blame GWB.

 

It's sad that Dems are treating the war like simply an event to turn the voting tide rather than an issue that needs to be addressed and dealt with. Any democrat candidate will need an exit strategy other than "we're leaving" that I'm sure would closely resemble what the current administration has in place, but that seems to be glossed over by grandstanding about the events that have led up to where we are now.

 

I'm so freaking sick of our two party all-or-nothing political corners. We should be voting for candidates, not parties.

[torridjoe 48]

Yeah, the two issues that did come up in that race were corruption and immigration. It seems that the voters care more about illegal immigration than they do about corruption. And it's sad that you keep bringing up that this district is so heavily republican. As noted in the article above Kerry got 44% of the vote in that district. And, the representative replaced in the special election last week is in prison for being corrupt. I would think all bets are off as to the traditional outcome of that district when the incumbent leaves on such terms, but you just spin the situation as you always do

 

44% for Kerry means the district is heavily Republican, you dolt.

[MDC 7,160]

It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq...

 

Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II.

 

I think you could say the opposite about Bush. For most of the war, the White House assessment of the situation in Iraq has been rosy to the point of being delusional. I'd also say that his inability to acknowledge the scope of the problem is one reason the public has soured on the war and puts our troops in a lot more danger than a handful of cynical politicians. Generally I agree with what Gobbledog said.

[Strike 5,243]

44% for Kerry means the district is heavily Republican, you dolt.

 

Yeah, and with a republican stepping down amid a massive corruption scandal, you'd think a democrat might get more than 1% more of the vote, but no.......LOL. Keep spinning Oh spinmeister, keep spinning.....

[wiffleball 4,788]

I blame it on that damn Frog of War.

 

 

I dunno what kind of f'ed up frog it is, but that damn Frog of War has been blamed for more screw-ups than any other amphibian I know.

[kpbuckeye 3]

pretty sad someone would call an article that can't even back up its central claim, "great."

 

pretty sad that someone would call an article that blames a close Democratic loss in one of the most Republican districts in the country, on an issue that barely even came up during the race, great.

 

pretty said that a pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians, are called "one or two instances of misconduct."

 

pretty sad that you come to a FF bored every day to cry like my little sister.

do your family a favor and end it already.

 

 

O yea, MDC is a homo

[MDC 7,160]

pretty sad that you come to a FF bored every day to cry like my little sister.

do your family a favor and end it already.

O yea, MDC is a homo

 

Great point.

[parrot 789]

pretty sad that you come to a FF bored every day to cry like my little sister.

do your family a favor and end it already.

O yea, MDC is a homo

As opposed to coming to a ff bored every day to cry about people crying like your little sister.

[gratefulted 14]

I think they allready succeeded by taking out Saddam, they're not trained for this other sh1t.

Bring them home!

[cmh6476 1,011]

I think they allready succeeded by taking out Saddam, they're not trained for this other sh1t.

Bring them home!

they're trained, its the Iraqi police and military that is not trained. It will be a great day once we are able to completely turn the country over to its own people, where they are able to govern and police themselves from militant insurgents.

[wiffleball 4,788]

Ya know, I'm sure the Toby Keith lovers out there will hate this, but I personally was a little disappointed and thought it was a little chicken-shiot that we had to drop 2 500 lb bombs to kill this one jackaxx. Whatever happened to our so-called elite special forces that were supposedly the best in the world at doing this crap?

 

These fockers don't deserve a fair fight, but it'd be damn nice if we could've shot this focker up close rather then dropping bombs from 3 miles up. From all accounts, this wasn't exactly a focking well protected fortress surrounded by hundreds of armed guards.

[davebg 0]

Polititians or voters?

 

I can believe a few Democratic polititians might want the Iraq occupation to fail, but I seriously doubt many Democratic voters feel that way.

Sadly, I think that there really is a group of ultra-left Dems who do.

 

In fact, I think you could probably find one of two of them right here on the Geek Club.

[MDC 7,160]

Sadly, I think that there really is a group of ultra-left Dems who do.

 

In fact, I think you could probably find one of two of them right here on the Geek Club.

 

I think you could find more than a few right wingers who'd justify anything the White House does, including mistakes that have put our troops in greater danger than they need to be, just to defend George W. Bush.

 

Neither side has the moral high ground on this one.

[davebg 0]

I think you could find more than a few right wingers who'd justify anything the White House does, including mistakes that have put our troops in greater danger than they need to be, just to defend George W. Bush.

 

Neither side has the moral high ground on this one.

Agreed.

 

However, I think there is a difference between putting troops at risk to support GWB and for someone to rejoice when our troops are injured to hurt GWB.

[MDC 7,160]

Agreed.

 

However, I think there is a difference between putting troops at risk to support GWB and for someone to rejoice when our troops are injured to hurt GWB.

 

In all honesty, I think some people on the fringe left might take an "I told you so" kind of satisfaction at the bad news, but I don't think anyone is really rejoicing when our troops are injured or killed. And the right-wing pundits who repeatedly imply that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq never seem to complain about the lack of a battle plan, insufficient troop strength, or anything else that really puts our troops at risk.

 

I'm not defending either attitude. Honestly, I don't have much stake in this debate. I'm hoping we secure Iraq and save some face when we pull our troops out. In my mind, that would be a successful conclusion but it wouldn't come close to justifying the expense or the loss of life.

[kpbuckeye 3]

As opposed to coming to a ff bored every day to cry about people crying like your little sister.

 

 

speaking of little girls whose panties get in a bunch...........

[torridjoe 48]

Yeah, and with a republican stepping down amid a massive corruption scandal, you'd think a democrat might get more than 1% more of the vote, but no.......LOL. Keep spinning Oh spinmeister, keep spinning.....

 

You can't compare a general and a special election. Primaries and specials are total base elections. The registration edge means far, far more in a primary/special.

[wiffleball 4,788]

speaking of little girls whose panties get in a bunch...........

 

 

Did anybody else get turned on by that or is it just me.....?

[Strike 5,243]

You can't compare a general and a special election. Primaries and specials are total base elections. The registration edge means far, far more in a primary/special.

 

I don't know about that, but I do know that you can't compare an election in a primarily republican district with an election in the same district where the incumbent is removed due to conviction of corruption, yet you've been doing that about this election since it happened.

[torridjoe 48]

I don't know about that, but I do know that you can't compare an election in a primarily republican district with an election in the same district where the incumbent is removed due to conviction of corruption, yet you've been doing that about this election since it happened.

 

why can't you?

[parrot 789]

speaking of little girls whose panties get in a bunch...........

Yes, we were talking about you and your permabunched panties. All you ever do around here is focking whine. Get a focking life.

[Strike 5,243]

why can't you?

 

Never mind. Not worth the trouble.

[torridjoe 48]

Never mind. Not worth the trouble.

 

Thought so. You don't have any idea why.

The simple truth is that there's no way a district with a 15-point registration edge should result in a 4-point victory, without a majority. Especially after pouring millions into the race.

[Strike 5,243]

Thought so. You don't have any idea why.

The simple truth is that there's no way a district with a 15-point registration edge should result in a 4-point victory, without a majority. Especially after pouring millions into the race.

 

No, I have a great idea why. I see no reason to explain it to you. You're not worth the trouble. If it was such a lost cause why did the democrats spend millions trying to win it and why was it considered a bellweather race? Don't bother answering that because the answer is everyone thought the dems had a good chance there except you, or you're full of crap and just being argumentative. Take your choice on that one but either way I'm not going to argue this issue with you. I've whipped you with it enough over the last two weeks.

[drobeski 3,061]

pretty sad someone would call an article that can't even back up its central claim, "great."

 

pretty sad that someone would call an article that blames a close Democratic loss in one of the most Republican districts in the country, on an issue that barely even came up during the race, great.

 

pretty said that a pattern of blessed torture, and a bloody massacre of civilians, are called "one or two instances of misconduct."

great job proving the article right with your typical stab at the troops at the end of your rebuttal.

[kpbuckeye 3]

All I ever do around here is focking whine. I need to get a focking life.

 

 

I would offer you a tissue to dry your tears, but puzzays like you need the attention.

 

parrot< joey budaffaco

[parrot 789]

I would offer you a tissue to dry your tears, but puzzays like you need the attention.

 

parrot< joey budaffaco

You are a big fag. HTH.

[torridjoe 48]

No, I have a great idea why. I see no reason to explain it to you. You're not worth the trouble. If it was such a lost cause why did the democrats spend millions trying to win it and why was it considered a bellweather race? Don't bother answering that because the answer is everyone thought the dems had a good chance there except you, or you're full of crap and just being argumentative. Take your choice on that one but either way I'm not going to argue this issue with you. I've whipped you with it enough over the last two weeks.

 

I'm not worth the trouble to explain the reason, but I AM worth the trouble for you to flap your gums about nothing, above?

 

When did I say it was a lost cause? I said it was a golden opportunity.

What that has to do with the race being structurally set up against a Busby victory, I have no idea.

[Ravens 03 0]

Polititians or voters?

 

I can believe a few Democratic polititians might want the Iraq occupation to fail, but I seriously doubt many Democratic voters feel that way.

 

Why wouldn't 'Democratic voters' vote for 'Democrats' who feel that way?

They do it every year, every election.

 

Kinda the same thing I think!