Nathan Newman wrote:
>But you want to highlight tactical differences in approach to ending the
>war, rather than emphasizing unity. Of course, the New York Times has the
>same goal, so they choose to play up relatively minor differences in
>tactics
>on the resolution.
Doug wrote -Oh please. What unity? They're stymied. The Times is reporting -differences that are far from minor:
quoting the New York times
>While some 70 liberal Democrats who support ending American military
>involvement in Iraq have praised Mr. Murtha's plan, many of his
>other party colleagues appeared to harbor doubts.
Doug again: -They're paralyzed, like Locke's donkey (appropriately enough) that -was doomed to starve because it was equidistant between to bales of -hay.
So why not push those who "harbor doubts" (i.e. don't support the war but not sure about how to best get out) to join their strong antiwar colleagues. Yes, they have doubts-- Max Cleland who had three limbs blown off his body was successfully portrayed as a traitor and thrown out of office. Kerry was "swift boated" as a traitor despite multiple medals in Vietnam.
You act like there is no tactical danger of voting for the wrong resolution and end up electing an even more rightwing, pro-war Congress. The refusal of folks to acknowledge real tactical dillemmas and choices boggles my mind sometimes.
Hell yeah, folks in marginal districts have reasongable doubts about voting for a symbolic vote to end the war that doesn't have the votes to be successful, yet might be used to throw them out of office. There wasn't a majority in Congress for the Murtha resolution-- and the Dems can't even force a vote on it given GOP control -- so it's hardly unreasonable to try to build towards a resolution that could actually get a majority vote in Congress.
-Where do you think the 2008 frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, stands?
I'm not voting for her, but Feingold is emerging as a strong contender to rally antiwar forces in the 2008 primary and we'll see who else jumps in by then.
But I would prefer tactics that might lead in 2006 to enough success in Congressional races to force withdrawal long before then. And I think Pelosi has a better handle on how to get there than you do. It's not that I don't criticize Democratic wimpishness at points, but given the choice between their tactical sense of reality and the total disconnect out on the antiwar left fringe, the Dems unfortunately win.
I wish there was a strong antiwar movement that actually had some tactical sense outside the Democratic leadership, but it unfortunately doesn't exist, except among some of the blogs and folks like Feingold.
-How is pointing to the political paralysis of the Dems making the war -party's talking points?
Because your bellyaching tries to highlight continued support for the war, rather than the emergence this week of more significant opposition to the war then was thought.
Do you want the headline this week to be-- Opposition Democrats still Support Bush's War
Or would you rather have the headline be--- Even 37-Year Veteran Marine Thinks Bush's War a Piece of Crap.
The whole point of the GOP vote was to try to engineer the first headline and draw attention from the second.
But basically, my sense is that if you can have a headline attacking the Democratic leadership, you'd rather have that than one attacking Bush's war.
Nathan