How can the Democrats win if the party is scared of its own shadow?

[papau]

Afraid of the populist rhetoric of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, and Al Gore, afraid of being associated with Michael Moore, afraid of looking soft? Kerry afraid of the shadow of his anti-war activity, of being too strident, thereby making a hero look wimpy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070973/site/newsweek/
Fear of Failing
How can the Democrats win if the party is scared of its own shadow?
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Michael Hirsh Newsweek

Updated: 6:52 p.m. ET May 31, 2006
May 31, 2006 - <snip>Talk to any responsible official or officer in the military, intelligence or diplomatic community. Most will tell you that Bush got most of the war on terror wrong (at least after the Taliban fell), that he invented a war of choice in Iraq and failed to finish the war of necessity against Al Qaeda. The toughest hombres in the country—not least some recently retired generals—are saying the “war president” has no clothes, that he has been, in effect, a disastrous war president. This is what I hear every week now as a reporter, from officials who identify themselves as Republican, Democrat or independent. It is what the facts, sadly, bear out: look at where the precipitous war in Iraq has brought us, and the new violence that is arising out of the unfinished business against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet the vast majority of Democratic leaders cannot bring themselves to say this—Hillary most prominently of all.<snip>

To oversimplify, its tenets are: Stand up for democracy and freedom, yes, but keep the international system on your side. Make use of the United Nations whenever you can, though not necessarily, bending it to your needs when possible. Create as many allies as you can. Listen. Accommodate. Be magnanimous. Above all, make sure you have more guys on your side than your adversaries have on theirs. It is the policy that Bush, chastened and weakened by Iraq, has followed on Libya and North Korea, and it is the policy he now appears to be pursuing on Iran, having agreed to talk to Tehran. And it is largely Democratic in origins and practice.

But to get to the point where they can hark back to this simple program, and confidently embrace it without protesting too much about how tough they are, Democrats must first have the courage to strip bare the GOP’s failures. They must believe they're every bit as good on national security as their rivals. This courage is frankly not in evidence. Five and half years on we see the Republicans, as brazen and full of self-confidence as ever about their national-security credentials, and the Democrats, as timid and full of self-doubt as they ever have been over the same issue. Hence, the need for a good therapist, one with a very large office.

No one looks like a wimp when he or she tells the truth. And the public is crying, pleading for someone to tell the truth. The Democratic hawks seem to think that if they confront Bush over the fundamentals of his foreign policy, they will be forced to admit it was wrong to go into Iraq at the moment and in the way we did. And if they have to admit that, then they must back immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Nonsense. Most Americans now know, without being told, that American prestige is on the line in Iraq. And that any withdrawal will be slow and painful. This is now settled U.S. policy, and it will be followed by whoever the next president is, Democrat or Republican.<snip>


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070973/site/newsweek/

[Virginia Dare]

1. They aren't scared of their own shadow...

But most of them, in large part, are beholden to the same big money corporate interests that the Republicans are.

[blm]

2. Did Hirsh SHOW UP with w/notebook when Kerry announced an Iraq withdrawal

plan? When he made his speech about the importance of dissent in Boston?

HIRSH DIDN'T SHOW UP - and he WON'T SHOW UP whenever a Democrat like Kerry or Murtha speaks up against the war and submit solid plans to get out of Iraq.

Piss-poor journalism - a MANUFACTURED perception to create the storyline that Dems have no plans.

[skipos]

3. Look at the polls. Democrats are winning.

We will have to wait and see how much they win come Nov. Could the party be better, absolutely. But I find the frequent "dems suck" threads to be strange at a time when everything indicates we will make gains in November.

[blm]

6. GOP apologists do this every time the polls are against them - generate

articles saying how much worse the Dems are and provide NO FACTS To back it up. The writer never bothered to show up with his notebook at any of the events where Dems offered solid withdrawal plans for Iraq or countered Bush and urged dissent for his policies, while outlining solid policies of their own.

[emulatorloo]

4. I call bullshit on your article. If Newsweek would cover Dems, we could

hear what they have to say.

So to hell w Hirsh and his pro-REpug lies and spin.

[papau]

5. Amen, brother, amen. n/t

n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

7. He makes some good points, but it's still a lazy piece

First off, plenty of Democrats ARE speaking out and a consensus is slowly emerging that we need to withdraw - the difference of opinion is over when.

Secondly, he AGAIN goes for the silly, overused meme of "Democrats in disarray." Then he has the nerve to say that the GOP is acting efficient and mature when it's obvious to everyone that they're imploding right now! Hirsh says they at least have intellectual debate - what party is he looking at? The present-day GOP is totally divorced from policymaking? Their entire record is composed of cynical power grabs!