When thousands of people donate no more than $100 per person per election, we can build a campaign without money from special interests. _______________________ But it's about more than money. We need your energy and your enthusiasm, too. Sign up to volunteer on Jim Hansen's campaign for Congress.
 _______________________ 
|
|
You must Register and Login before you can correspond with this community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
These community forums are intended solely as a tool for people to express their views. As long as everyone in the forums acts in a respectful manner, the discussions will remain unmoderated by campaign staff.
The campaign is not responsible for forum content. Views expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect Jim Hansen's views, nor the views of his campaign.
Take them for what they are, an informal conversation about issues that matter to all Idahoans. And by all means, participate!
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Steven Csik
Posts:6
 |
| 26 Jun 2006 5:22 |
 Alert
|
The Republicans are clobbering the Democrats as the party that wants to
"cut and run" in Iraq. The Democrats have no response other than
the rather lame one of, "Well we can't just continue this failed
course." But what the alternative course might be the Democrats
haven't made clear.
Maybe making it clear would require more honesty and leadership than
exist in either political party. A discussion about a new course
might go something like this:
1. The current course in Iraq is a mess.
2. We change course by either a) pulling out as quickly as
possible but no later than , or b) we flood Iraq with enough American troops
to make sure everybody in Iraq, Americans and Iraqis, are safe and
secure for the indefinite future. We'll probably need 100s of
thousands of troops more than we currently have there in order to do
this alternative.
3. If alternative b is not possible for whatever reason -- lack of
political will, lack of money or troops -- then someone has to have the
courage to say that alternative a, "cut and run" is the only sensible
thing to do.
So far only a couple of Democratic politicians, Kerry, Murtha,
have been willing to embrace alternative a, "cut and run." Good for
them, but that's not good enough.
What those politicians haven't done is make clear that sending in
massively more troops is the only other alternative to the current
"stay the course" policy of American and Iraqi forces slowly bleeding
to death, if you don't like "cut and run."
The Democrats should be flinging the "cut and run" argument back in the
faces of Republicans, making clear that the reasonable alternative to
"cut and run" is not "stay the course" but putting enough US strength
into Iraq to stablize the country for reconstruction, something the
Republicans are not willing to do. The Democrats should be making
clear that Republicans are sticking with a policy that has led and will
lead to failure and more death, and the Democrats need to have the
courage to present clear alternatives to that failed policy and then
choose among those alternatives, and then defend that choice.
In short, either immediate withdrawal or massive troop increases is
better than "stay the course" and Democrats need to make that clear and
pick one of those alternatives as the best course.
|
|
|
|
|
Ted Vanegas
Posts:15
|
| 05 Jul 2006 21:47 |
Alert
|
| I agree with everything you say. Unfortunately there are a number of Democrats, including Hilary Clinton and Lieberman, who seem to want to stay the course. The Democrats aren't united at all on what to do with Iraq, but their constituency is. Most Democratic voters, including myself, want the U.S. out of Iraq and they want someone to be held accountable for getting us into that mess in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Steven Csik
Posts:6
|
| 10 Jul 2006 20:52 |
Alert
|
Hilary Clinton exemplifies everthing that's wrong with the Democratic
party. When she and Bill were in power, they didn't come through
for their constituencies, and out of power, she can't figure out how to
amass a constituency.
The Republicans know how to take care of their constituencies.
Under Bush, rich Republicans get tax breaks to get richer, and poor
Republicans get a lot of blather about family values, God's chosen few,
and patriotism -- blather that seems to delight those poor Republicans,
even as their financial situations worsen. Bush knows how to make
Republicans, rich and poor, happy.
When Hilary and Bill were in power and had the chance to do some good
for their constituencies (working and middle classes) in the form of
universal healthcare, they blew it, because they were too concerned
about how to make it palatable for the people who would oppose them,
namely insurance companies. The result was the Democratic
constituencies got nothing and the insurance companies got just what
they wanted -- no change in healthcare financing.
With the Democrats out of power, Hilary isn't looking at what her
constituents might want; she's concerned about making nice with
conservatives: The Iraqi war is ok; a flag burning amendment is a great
idea; religion should play a bigger role in Democratic politics, she
tells us.
Whether in or out of power, Hilary Clinton has nothing to offer the
natural constituencies of the Democratic party -- the working and
middle classes. The fact that she still has any credibility as a
Democratic presidential candidate reveals how bankrupt the Democratic
party is in terms of conviction and relevance for the working and
middle classes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|