The Netroots:Why We Fight

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:06:27 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

On this bleak day, I want to remind folks in the Netroots of one of the main rallying cries that has been at the center of that movement:

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?
. . . I don't think we can win the White House if we vote for the President's unilateral attack on Iraq in Washington and then come to California and say we are against the war.
. . . I have never lost an election, but my career has never been about winning elections. My career -- and this campaign -- is about changing the Democratic Party.

. . . We are not going to beat George Bush by voting with the President 85 percent of the time. The only way that we're going to beat George Bush is to say what we mean, to stand up for who we are, to lift up a Democratic agenda against the Republican agenda because if you do that, the Democratic agenda wins every time. I want my country back! We want our country back!. . . . Stand up for America, Stand up for America, Stand up for America!!

Remember why we got so involved in the first place? Think about it now. Think about it today.

< Tomasky on Dems and Iraq: Clap Louder | White House Ressurects Bin Laden >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Netroots:Why We Fight | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

So, I got involved after Dean fizzled (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:18:40 AM EST

but damn, that speech is some red meat.

I'd never seen the "guys in picup trucks" quote in context before, and I still don't agree with it. We need to isolate, marginalize, and fight the confederate flag culture and mentality IMHO.

Anyway, yes, I'm calling my Congressman tomorrow and asking him to let the supplemental pass with Republican votes.

Back when public opinion favored the war (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by jerry on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:36:40 AM EST

A vote against Bush might be seen as the right thing to do, but political suicide. I just don't understand what is going on today, when the right thing and the easy thing are all the same.

It's this sort of crap that gives people legitimate pause when considering how well Democrats can provide security. It also leads right to the argument that there is no difference between the parties.

The right thing to do in every dimension is to oppose the war and defund it. And in doing so, we would actually show the public that they can trust our word and our spine.

And if you get upset (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 12:41:33 AM EST

yopu just hate the dems, as per bowers, or you want John Yoo on the SCOTUS, as per a recommende dkos diary.

Thinking has obviously been banned in the Netroots.


some Dems seem to care more about (none / 0) (#6)
by annefrank on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:02:13 AM EST

keeping their seats than ending the war. Perhaps those in military districts where the MIC is central to the local economy and Fux News does its part by maintaining the fearmongering and bogeymen that justifies manufacturing MORE bombs and military equipment. Some Dems already have (R) challengers because of their "liberal" votes this year.
OTOH - some Dems who opposed the war were unseated by Repubs.


: With soldiers and their families as (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:43:54 AM EST

unhappy as they are I just can't see how you can lose on this in military districts right now if you played the cards dealt you properly.

This is ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by chemoelectric on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:12:45 AM EST

This is oddly grotesque, that we are into 'ending the post-war occupation' as an electoral winner and political party transformation. You know what? I think the US should pull out and then end up paying painfully massive reparations; is that also an electoral winner? I would like to see the Democrats introduce that, if they really mean it.

Well, maybe they shouldn't do that, but it's something I'd think of ahead of campaign strategy.

Not good enough... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by dkmich on Wed May 23, 2007 at 05:28:00 AM EST

This isn't about beating George W. Bush or Republicans. It is about beating the Democratic Party. Until we can make them pay and change, it doesn't matter who the hell is in office. The only difference between the two parties is religiosity.

clinton convinced me (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by pyrrho on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:22:43 PM EST

as much as I hated him at first, I came to appreciate Clinton and especially that there was competency among the cabinet, and that does help me overlook ideological differences...

the blogosphere has convinced me the ideology of Democrats is the ideology of the fig leaf, they are scared to death of the olive branch, but they like to put a fig leaf over the real program... and that makes it better.

With Republicans: we're screwed, with Democrats: we're scr*wed.

NOBODY in politics is reality based, just a few citizens marginalized before they arise.
Why do Democrats think it's OK to hate Greens more than Republicans, but are shocked and frankly, offended, gasp, that Greens have learned to hate them more than Republicans?

Activist Progressives HAVE SHARED what they have, ideas, sexy ideas that grow whole blogospheres... but the Democrats never share what they have, actual power, actual votes in congress, the power to get on TV any day of the week if they can get a plan together that can appeal.

well, I'm done sorting it... the Elise's of the party are on the inside, I'm on the out, and she says you are either a Democrat or NOT.

Not.

Democrats are the poison pill to me, they exist to wrap the conservatives in sweet sugar substitute.

It's also like two guys break into my house every week, and I'm supposed to like the guy that only robs me and doesn't break my windows.

I, and the rest of the public that thinks politics is ugly and stupid, hate both parties, end of story, your "logic" notwithstanding.

If this seem incomprehensible to some readers, my insincere apologies for that. If it's good enough for Democratic politicians...

These two parties are certainly not opposites nor even antipodes, really, they are partners.

They are both in power, at all times... and they BUILT this mess.

on purpose.

But why? why build a mess? check the bank ledger and see if IT'S messy.

Unilateral? (none / 0) (#7)
by jarober on Wed May 23, 2007 at 06:43:14 AM EST

"What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?"

Hmm - you may not like the list of allies in Iraq, but it does exist. You may not like the fact that Congress authorized the mission, but it did.

You might have more success if you stopped trying to change the meaning of words...

Fair point (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 23, 2007 at 08:24:30 AM EST

However, it was clearly an American Project.

As for the Congress authorizing the misison, well I thik Dean was asking why the democrats in Congress were, in fact, authorizing the mission.

Sort of the point. Sort of the point today.


: At the time (none / 0) (#11)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:24:19 AM EST

'unilateral' was the term being used by many, not just Dean, to describe the fact that the war went ahead without UN approval.

Good point (none / 0) (#10)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:04:33 AM EST

I would have used the word 'illegal' in place of 'unilateral'.


Illegal? (none / 0) (#12)
by jarober on Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:41:35 AM EST

Have a look at the Constitution, and then explain how a war duly authorized by the Congress could possibly be illegal. This is exactly the kind of talk that makes people dismiss you as much as they dismiss nuts like Ron Paul and the 9/11 "Truthers".

Opposition to the war is something you can explain without going to crazy-town.

: The war was clearly illegal (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:01:03 AM EST

under international law. But you being a Bush supporter, I'm not surprised you never thought of that before.

: Congress was dead wrong (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Dadler on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:03:48 AM EST

And the entire country was taken on a ride of lies and deception. Come on, man, be honest. Nothing about this war has been good or right or proper. If you want to say it's legal, fine, but just remember where that "legality" came from: a pile of steaming bullsh*t that disgraced freedom with its hatred of reason.

"International Law" (none / 0) (#14)
by jarober on Wed May 23, 2007 at 10:40:15 AM EST

Hmm - care to tell me where the body is that determines what international law is? If you say "The UN", I'll have to answer that any group that gives a nation like Zimbabwe the time of day is simply not fit to be taken seriously.

What an ignorant (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Warren Terrer on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:02:15 AM EST

comment. You claim there is no such thing as international law? It's just a figment of my imagination is it? Away with you.


: It's always encouraging when the trolls (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:05:20 PM EST

come out in swarms. They wouldn't if the didn't fear the effect of ideas.

Intl Law (none / 0) (#18)
by jarober on Wed May 23, 2007 at 03:14:52 PM EST

International Law is what the "Great Powers" say it is - always has been that way, always will be that way.

At this point in time, that mostly means the US, China, India, and Russia. Whether you or anyone else likes it, what the UN or the smaller nations have to say just doesn't matter that much.