Our next round of candidates needs to be uniquely pro military

[Blue Dog Dem]

This will allow us to stop being painted as soft on terror, and our military leaders create an emotional response much like religion does.

Kerry had to much baggage to be elected, granted we found this out AFTER he was nominated, but if he had not made that testimony before congress, he would have been the incoming President.

[mike_c]

1. no way....

Dems need candidates who do not pander to the pro-military right. The military is a tool for America's defense, not a political cause. We need candidates who can articulate this position.

[Catch22Dem]

2. I consider myself pro-military LEFT

8 yrs. USAF

[mike_c]

10. I'm a leftist who's very much opposed to the influence...

...of the MIC in U.S. politics. I'm not specifically "anti-military." I do strongly oppose the notion that the military can do no wrong, and frankly, the misuse of the military as instruments of foreign policy-- a corrupt and greed-based foreign policy at that-- does little to give me confidence that military leadership is anything but a willing servant of the dark side.

on edit: I forgot to thank you for your service. My apologies. Thank you very much.

[Catch22Dem]

24. You're correct, I wasn't disagreeing with you.

Apologies if I implied as such.

[Blue Dog Dem]

11. We need 2% more than we got

We will never get the right wing, para-military folks, but were it not for Kerry's testimony before the senate, there would have been no SBV, a Kerry would be president.

At some point we must become realist, if we refuse work with ALL Americans, we will not get the chance to lead any of them.

[sandnsea]

15. Would have been something else

That's what Republicans do. Smear and fear. That's all they do. Until people in this country engage their memories and being to think again, it'll be the same thing, on and on and on. Kerry's fighting the war didn't have anything to do with it anyway, it was lies told by the Scum Boat Vets and perpetuated by the Scum Media.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

35. Well said! n/t

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

34. We had one

and the good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, Wes Clark will run in 2008.

Too bad the DNC had already decided who the nominee would be or we might not be having these conversations.

[Peter Frank]

3. It wasn't the baggage...

The swiftvets and others told brazen lies. Remember how McCain was smeared in 2000?

[rwheeler31]

6. No,

the thugs are not supporting the troops just getting richer off war.

[Desertrose]

4. totally wrong direction

in four more years folks are gonna be mighty damn tired of bush's never ending wars.


on edit: Kerry ain't president because of the voting fiasco and bush & co helping themselves to American votes.

PEACE
DR

[chaska]

5. I agree. NO way in hell I'm goin' pug lite next time....

It's the dem way or no way for me.

[Fovea]

7. As the primary miltary power in the world right now

I am pained to think that we need more of the same.

Our future would be far better served to spend the money on free scholarships for anyone who wanted to learn 2 or more foreign languages. We don't need smarter bombs. We need smarter strategists.

[Darranar]

8. What does that mean?

How does one be "pro military"?

What is wrong with speaking the truth about a murderous, unjust, imperial war of aggression?

[noamnety]

9. Kerry's not incoming president because of vote fraud

eom

[Gyre]

12. Don't be an idiot

This is the Democratic Underground. Democrats hang here. Not fascists, unless they're skulking around. You don't appear to be either.

Young Blue Dog's got to learn some manners and something about the culture or get booted the fuck outta here. We generally don't suffer fools gladly.

Gyre

[Blue Dog Dem]

17. So exactly what culture do you promote?

Sounds to me your idea of culture is giving the right wing whacko all the ammo needed to make real democrats look like the anti-Christ.

Tell me then, is it traditional democratic political ideas you promote? Or some new social ones?

Maybe this is a good place to ask the question, did the middle class leave the democrats, or did the democrats leave the middle class. What does the Democratic Party now stand for? Do we have a coherent list of ideas and objectives we embrace, and ones we reject? Somehow our whole message got buried under some social issues mainstream America is not ready for.

For the record, I have been a registered and voting Democrat for almost 25 years, and my political views have changed very, very little. I also carried a union electrician card for 5 years, and was in the Navy 8. I think I have a pretty good idea of what the middle wants, and THAT is where elections are won.


You are probably right, I should not have posted here, my ideas are apparently way to extreme for this discussion.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

36. Gee

Sounds a lot like the DNC...you ain't been here long enough to open your mouth...gotta earn your stipes before you open your mouth.

Come to think of it, it actually sounds more like the Right Wingnuts...toe the line or shut the f up.

Have we really sunk that low?

[BillZBubb]

13. Why don't we just nominate a "moderate" Repug then?

The Repugs will paint us as soft on the military and soft on terror no matter who we nominate. And with the idiotic, mindless voters in this country it will work.

We should stand up for Democratic principles for a change. Then we might just win.

[laheina]

14. Kerry's testimony was honorable.

He told the truth. Nobody should ever be punished for telling the truth, but John O'neill was a Nixon flunky used to neutralize that truth, and quite frankly, Kerry made him look stupid on several occasions. He was a man with a vendetta.

However, voter fraud is what actually took the election from Kerry. It's what took the election from Gore. What we need to do is to keep that from happening again.

[madrchsod]

16. hmmmm kerry

a bunch of purple hearts,a bronze,and a SILVER STAR..bush-coward. what fuck`n baggage did he have?

[Blue Dog Dem]

18. His sound bites fro mhis senate testominy were brutal

You have to admit, the right did a very good job of taking the ammo we gave them and using it against us.

Would Dean have been a better messenger? What about Clark? As a vetran I really liked Clark.

[nostalgicaboutmyfutr]

19. Our next round of presidential candidates need to know

how to run a presidential campaign...

[Old and In the Way]

20. What baggage didn't you know about?

Kerry's heroic service in Nam, then returning to help lead the opposition to end the war? He should have got more medals for saving 1000's more Americans and 100s of thousands of SE Asians from senseless deaths in continuing a war we couldn't win.

Maybe if the chickenhawk/war-profiteers who are creating the a new VietNam in Iraq had served their obligation like the John Kerry, perhaps they may have had a whole different perspective on using American blood to line their pockets and further their corporate/political agenda.

I love how people are so quick to say we are soft on terror when it was Bush and Co. who were totally clueless on 9/11/01. Your dog don't hunt Blue Dem.....

[Blue Dog Dem]

21. No one said we ARE soft on terror, but we APPEAR that way

Look, we have the same political agenda, so let us not make this personal....

This is not about Kerry, it is about our IDEAS, and they lost this round, and I believe it is because we allowed the right winders to define us in a way that made being elected impossible.

Remember, we needed to flip 2%, and I believe the SBV guys were responsible for that many. I could be wrong, but I would really like to prevent this from happening again. Having the idea we will be high and mighty and stick to some noble standard that is consistently voted down is a fools game. It is time we moved to a position we cac WIN elections and move our agenda forward.

[Old and In the Way]

27. All we have to do is make sure our votes count.

Then our ideas win. Period. We will always lose by 2% if they control how the votes are counted. There is nothing we have to do to change our message, certainly not become more like them.

[madfloridian]

22. And don't forget they must be uniquely religious .....

I am kidding of course. But we need to run good candidates with character and intelligence and stand up for our own values.

[Donna Zen]

23. Blue Dog Welcome to DU

...while these posts do not surprise me, they do offend my liberal love of inclusion. We do need a candidate who is not challenged by the reich on their appreciation of the military. Actually, Kerry was quite hawkish.

There are 56 million Americans in some way connected with the military. That's a lot of votes. Equating "pro-military" with "pro-endless" wars is a leap that some never fear to make. Do they intend to disband the army?

I supported General Clark because aside from Kucinich he was the one candidate who wanted to cut the military budget; however, he was the only candidate that could. Why? Because he knows how much waste there is in the military budget, and even better, he knew where it was buried. He called it the "make want" budget.

Only a military person will ever be able to reclaim that money and convince the American public that he would never do such a thing to weaken our defense. Only Nixon could go to China; only Ike could call out the military industrial complex.

It's all a matter of psychology.

Clinton's greatest weakness was the distrust he raised in the military. It made him vulnerable to attack by the right.

I am truly sorry for my party that so many do not "get" that. I honor people of great intellect and honor like General Shali, and Zinni. Are there others whom we should distrust? Yes, Myers, Sheldon and there ilk.

But the military is a military of families, and I weep for what is happening to them now that they are being transformed into a military of empire.

[BrewerJohn]

25. Look, we have to stand for what is right

not just what is calculated to win the spin sweepstakes.

The Vietnam war was wrong. Period. John Kerry served with honor and heroism in that war, then displayed far more heroism by coming back and standing with his brother vets who had been hurt by that unjust war, demanding an end to that war before any more would die for nothing.

If anyone still doesn't get that, then they need to be educated, not have the issue finessed for them so their prejudices can be affirmed.

Kerry was only about my third choice for the nomination, and in retrospect I think he could have handled the campaign much better, but once he got the nom I supported him wholeheartedly, in part because his story clearly shines the spotlight on what went wrong with our military policy in the '60s, and by extension what's wrong with it today.

And that swift boat crap about his Senate testimony was nothing but a cheap smear, simply designed to push the buttons of those who still don't get it. You don't suppose the Rove machine didn't have something of the like ready to deploy against any of the other possible nominees, do you?

That's what they do. There is no candidate who can't have a lie made up against them. What we need, and what Kerry unfortunately failed to be, is a candidate who would call them on their lies and punch back without mercy with the truth about what they are.

[Bridget Burke]

26. Bullshit.

Kerry served in the military & his testimony was honorable.

You prefer the little AWOL chickenhawk, strutting around with his "mission accomplished" hardon. The fool who ignored terror warnings & sat at a photo op while our country was under attack.

[Blue Dog Dem]

40. Can you see our own faults?

THis had nothing to do with anyone but ourselves, we nominated kerry, and everyone I know called him unelectable. He lost, we are the fools, and this had NOTHING to do with Bush, Bush was a weak canidate, but we nominated an extremist, we have to nominate and govern frm the middle.

[G_j]

41. No Way!

and you can count me and most of the people I know OUT if that happens.

**edit: this was supposed to be a response to the original post.

[brentspeak]

42. er, Kerry was an "extremist"?

An extremist in what sense? I'd be interested to know what you consider a "moderate".

[Julien Sorel]

28. Part of what you say is correct, but there are people

here who equate the word "military" with facism, and are intellectually unable to break out of the loop. Unfortunately for the rest of us, most Americans know this, and so will not trust Democrats with national security.


Oddly enough, this is a recent development in history.
Carter was a hawk. Hubert Humphrey, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR, Wilson -- hawks all. Historically, in fact, it was the Republicans who were doves. Yet you have people-- some have posted in this thread -- who assume the Democratic Party stands for some kind of kneee jerk anti-militarism, and anyone who thinks otherwise is advocating "Republican-lite."

There's a reason people laugh at the far left of this party.

[Q]

32. Such stereotypical BS...

...The 'far left'...as you put it...is no different than any other political ideology pushing their ideas. But perhaps they're a bit more honest when they say that there is a difference between a 'just' and 'unjust' war?

- The Right loves to equate being against a particular war with being against all wars. It seems you've fallen into the same trap. The Iraq invasion was based on a lie...as was the Vietnam 'police action'. Certainly you're not suggesting that people of conscience should support any and all wars simply because the opposition suggests it's UnAmerican to do otherwise?

[Julien Sorel]

37. Unfortunately,

"the far left," (as I put it) has been against pretty much every war, and is innately hostile to the military as an institution. Your own rather foolish post below this one, in which you talk about "two pro-military parties" and imply that would be a bad thing, is emblamatic of the kind of thinking that alienates the general public. The general public likes and respects the military, and is suspicious of those who don't. With good reason, I might add.

[arewenotdemo]

47. Uh, Carter was such a hawk, in fact

that he allowed his popularity at home to circle the shitter rather than take his frustration out on the Iranians, as even Rosalyn suggested.

[JSJ]

29. you mean become... fascists!?

[baltodemvet]

30. Kerry didn't have too much baggage

but he sure didn't handle it well. I agree that some basic credibility on national security is important but certainly not the only consideration. And the thugs will try to paint any democratic nominee as soft.

[Q]

31. If you have TWO 'pro-military' parties...

...is the only choice left to vote for the most militant? The most pro-war?

- The Republians aren't better at national security and military issues. The media has helped create that illusion. Giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors doesn't equate with a strong stance on national security. Neither does attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 or refusing to protect our country's ports and other security weak spots.

- Your idea offers Americans LESS choice. America doesn't need another GOP.

[Lerkfish]

33. strongly disagree...

Kerry served honorably, but was trashed by AWOL George.

methinks you have been drinking a lot of koolaid recently.

Kerry's testimony before congress was courageous, truthful, and what the country needed to hear. Unless, of course, you're suggesting Vietnam was a GOOD war, and that atrocities were never committed?

geez, you should try harder to blend in next time.

[Politicub]

38. Unlike Vietnam war hero Kerry?

The GOP is going to smear any dem who runs. I think we need someone who connects -- whatever that means. Hopefully we'll get someone as charasmatic and plain spoken as Clinton to run in 2008.

[arewenotdemo]

49. They will smear any and all opponents

They did such a job on McCain that one has to wonder whether he grew to like it or was in it for the twins.

The only way Pukes would have been happy with Kerry's service is if he had returned in a box, then they'd have no complaints.

Maybe Clark will have learned from Kerry's hesitance to counter-attack and will be ready in 2008. We can only hope.

[Politicub]

51. McCain is a piece of work

Shilling for Bush for 2004 after he got roved in 2000. McCain has no dignity in my opinion.

[mrgorth]

39. How about Darth Vader?

Maybe Sauron? Should we clone Rommel? How much more "pro-military" can we be than we were this year?

[johnaries]

43. Hey! I'm a Taoist (even though I'm Anglo), and no one is

more pacifist than Taoists. Well, except for TRUE Christians who actually "turn the other cheek," but obviously those don't exist anymore. Anyway, one of the great Taoist writings is the Art of War. Bottom line, there are some who "glory" in battle - these are not true warriors. A True Warrior sees the pain and agony that War brings. No one appreciates Peace more than a True Warrior. A True Warrior will avoid the devastion of war whenever possible because of the horror it brings, he does not rush to War, but he understands that sometimes the horror of the results of not fighting is greater than the horror of the fighting.

Personally, I think Powell was a True Warrior. Too bad George II already has his agenda set and was too stupid to listen to him!

[LiberteToujours]

44. What we really need to do

Is stop appealing to the right-wing by trying to come up with candidates that please them. They're going to find some way to smear WHOEVER we send up there. Seriously, it doesn't matter who. No one is immune. If they have nothing, they'll make stuff up.

What we need is to send someone who WE LIKE. When we like the candidate, everything else will fall into place.

[IndianaGreen]

45. What do you think this is, Prussia?

Should we have military bands march down the street to attract candidates? Perhaps we need an American Hermann Goering? Goering was a war hero during WWI. Goering replaced the Red Baron when he was shot down.

Enough of this militarism and love of the war machine!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

48. You mean like all our candidates ever? Clinton was the least apparently

pro-military candidate, but didn't have a problem using the military, wasn't soft on defense, and won twice. Kerry and Gore were veterans. Carter went to the Naval Academy. McGovern was a war hero. Kennedy was a war hero. LBJ was a hawk.

When have Democrats ever been relentlessly or even mildly anti-military?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KansDem]

52. I don't understand your thesis...

Kerry went to Vietnam;
Kerry earned five medals;
Kerry received three Purple Hearts;
Kerry served honorably...

Compare that with:

Bush used daddy to get him in the TANG;
Bush refused orders to get a physical;
Bush went AWOL and deserted;
Bush's "honorable discharge" is a product of what can be done if your daddy is a former Congressman; present head of the RNC and US Ambassador to the UN; and your granddaddy was a US Senator...

Bush "won" because of a complacent media willing to do the bidding of BushCo, and Diebold (not to mention a few ignorant Christians who voted based on a single issue).

How the hell can any other Democrat strike a greater contrast to aWol and the anti-military GOP???

[The Zug]

53. And maybe . . .

. . . they should be anti-abortion, bigoted, intolerant, and for the dismantling of Social Security. That way we're a shoo-in!

NO.

Read this:

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html