How High Senator?
I don't think so!
Posted on 05/09/2006 4:58:39 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Tough-on-terrorism Democrats urged their party on Tuesday to put foreign policy ahead of political retribution in the fall elections, underscoring a divide between the party's hawks and doves that could frame the 2008 presidential campaign.
"Simply lashing out in anger at the current administration doesn't accomplish what we want," said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a likely candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Bayh and another potential White House hopeful, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, spoke at an event sponsored by the moderate Progressive Policy Institute to promote its book, "With All Our Might," a Democratic blueprint for fighting the war on terror.
Several party chiefs, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, have all but promised investigations - and perhaps impeachment proceedings - against President Bush should Democrats gain control of Congress this fall.
As party leaders struggle to develop a concise, consistent message for the congressional campaigns, Democratic rank-and-file voters are motivated largely by their opposition to the Iraq war and their desire to see Congress investigate Bush.
Moderate Democrats want the focus on the party's foreign policies and plans for the future.
"The message of this book is that it's time for Democrats to stop reacting to President Bush and say what we're for on national security," said Will Marshall, editor of the book and president of the institute.
Barely under way, the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination will likely increase friction between the party's anti-war base and hawkish leaders such as Bayh, Warner and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
In a recent CNN poll, 85 percent of self-identified Democrats said they disapprove of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Polls also show that terrorism is a leading concern among all voters, forcing Democrats to try to avoid looking weak.
Faced with those cross-pressures, Warner and Bayh took tough stands against both terrorism and Bush at the news conference.
Bayh accused the president of mishandling Iran and North Korea while weakening U.S. alliances and the nation's armed forces. He said the war in Iraq has been "tragically, tragically" mismanaged.
Warner leveled the same charges, and noted that terrorist leader Osama bin Laden remains free nearly five years after the Sept. 11 attacks. He chastised Bush strategist Karl Rove for accusing Democrats of clinging to a pre-Sept. 11 mind-set.
"I was the first person elected in this country after 9/11," said Warner, who was elected governor in November 2001. "I don't need to be lectured by Karl Rove ... about what is needed to keep this country safe."
Warner said the key for Democrats is to represent a muscular foreign policy that respects and supports U.S. troops; deploys diplomatic, economic, and when necessary, military assets against U.S. enemies; rises to the challenge of global competition; and unites friends and divides enemies - "not the reverse," which he complained Bush has done.
Yet, there seemed to be limits to how far Warner would go. He told reporters afterward that while he hopes the Iraq war is successful, he would consider pulling U.S. troops out if the country did not make progress in coming months on democracy and security.
"I think you don't take that off the table," he said when asked about troop withdrawal.
Bayh said Democrats must be viewed as the party that reaches out to allies, improves intelligence, cuts funding to terrorists and make the United States less dependent on oil.
He said Democrats lost elections in 2004 because voters considered the party weak on foreign policy.
Despite poor approval ratings for Bush and his party, Democrats "still have a hurdle to cross with the American people in convincing them that we can be both tough and smart," Bayh said.
While voters favor Democrats on most domestic policies, "they are not going to trust us with those things if they first don't trust us with their lives," the Indiana senator said.
"Tough and smart"? I don't think so...
There's a first time for everything, I suppose. :)
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
DemocRATS are weird.
Not that the RAT Party needs to BE the party that reaches out to allies, improves intelligence, cuts funding to terrorists, etc.....they must be VIEWED as such.
Weird.
That being said, they are going to be eviscerated by the left.
How High Senator?
I don't think so!
No, they are I swear. Very tough on first bite and they smart when we "tendorize" them.
Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the U.S... I can't stand the guy, but after 8 years of GOP control, they'll be a huge appetite for change. He portrays himself as a moderate, and most Americans will buy what he's selling... Indiana sure did, he and his father, many many times.
So could the Republicans, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for either to happen.
I listened to him this morning for about 10 minutes. He was sounding apologetic to his own followers about how weak the Democrats have sounded on defense in the past.
But his attempts to sound strong on defense came off flat, uninspired, and somewhat Kerry-esque. I kind of wanted to like Bayh as a new Democrat but he was weaving a weak version of Bill Clinton with John Kerry--not trustworthy or sincere.
Where did I put my 2x4......this rock needs an intense attention getting step.
un-freakin'-believable.
However, if the Dems blow it this year, I think Waner and Bayh are a lock in 08.
They would be a hell of alot better than Hitlery.
Well, they are running rings around Lott and Hastert.
Well, they are running rings around Frist and Hastert.
Whew! That was close.
'Rats are tough on Bush though.
I've lived through 8 years of Bayh as a governor and 8 more of his coat tails.....The mans a liar, a fraud and he'll smile as he sells your soul.
The Dem plan for waging war is to maximize the use of single syllable words, preferably anglosaxon in origin. "Tough", "smart" are good. "Robust" is good, although its getting close to the multisyllabic slope.
Its unnecessary to propose any kind of detailed plan, the DNC constituency doesn't have the attention span for it, and specifics will tend to split the base. Its enough to simply point at whatever the current administration is doing, and affirm that you would have been "tougher" or "smarter" about it, or (for full effect) "tougher and smarter" about it.
And, when cornered and forced to explain your plans, promise a "robust" response.
Assumptions can be misleading.
"Moderate" Progressive?
I don't think so! There is nothing moderate about them. They may not be as radical as other Democrat groups, but moderate is hardly an accurate description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.