Skip to main content

View Diary: DCCC post-mortem ignores Hackett war stance (312 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From below (none)
    the idea that hackett's candidacy is an indicator that the voters are crying out for anti-war candidates is not based on reality.  it is based on ideology.

    How do you know this?

    •  because (none)
      i know the ideology of the person making such a claim, and i sincerely doubt a significant number of repugs now think they were wrong to support the invasion of iraq.

      because i don't confuse anti-iraq war sentiment with anti-war sentiment.

       

      (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

      by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 05:41:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you have no data (none)
        except your sincere beliefs and your magical acquaintance of "ideology"...as if opposing the Iraq war was a mindless robot like exercise. The opposite, of course, is true.

        The Iraq war is based on a mountain of lies and neocon trickery (as in Dougie Feith's OSP,  Judith Miller's reporting, and Democratic fear of AIPAC). These lies and this trickery is the factual basis of being against the Iraq war, not, as you so quaitly and self servingly believe, ideology.

        This war is not going to be swept under the rug. And the people who pushed for this war, who lied and tricked for this blood stained misadventure, are not going to be forgotten.

        •  no one has any data (none)
          as far as i can tell pertaining to the district in ohio where hackett ran.

          but i do know david sirota's ideology.

          i do know sirota is not above taking a guy who has clearly said he was against the war, but thinks liberals want america to fail to gloss over the second statement and focus on the first.

          cause that's what his ideology would dictate.

          (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

          by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:01:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK (none)
            I don't really follow your syntax, but fine. Meanwhile, here's some data for you.

            Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.

            Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public. They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

            Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.
            http://tinyurl.com/aczuc

            •  like i said (none)
              i don't confuse anti-iraq war sentiment with anti-war sentiment.

              i know the tide has turned on this war.  i'm not disputing that.  that doesn't mean all the people who supported this war have decided they were or are wrong to support wars.  it just means they've gotten fed up with this war.

              i don't think it means we can just start running anti-war candidates and all is good.  it means we can start polarizing the repug incumbent against the failed policies of this administration.  and for hackett it helped if you actually fought in the war when you make those criticisms.

              you can criticize this war now, but i would still not have much hope for a dem candidate who maintained an anti-war stance in the general sense of that position.  most especially in a red district.

              if you ask the question in a poll:  are you against the war in iraq, was it a mistake?  the tide has turned.  america now says yes.

              but if you ask this question:  are you now against pre-emptive strikes as a way to prevent terrorism??  that's a different question.  and i'm sorry if i think america will still, even after iraq, have a different response to that kind of question.

              (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

              by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:26:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and this (none)
                are you now against pre-emptive strikes as a way to prevent terrorism??

                has what to do with the Iraq war?

                The situation is fluid. A majority of Americans now believe that Bush lied about Iraq. And I wouldn't presume to know what the position of the electorate will be on the Iraq war a year or three from now.

                That you conflate terrorism with the Iraq war is telling, of course, and essentially an example of bad faith position on this issue. Typical

                Who is against war, against defence, even against pre emptive strikes based on sound intelligence, not Judith Miller fantasies sold to the American people (and I'm being generous to her) or dougies little shop of lies. Straw man bs, eh?

                See ya.

                •  because the reason why people supported (none)
                  the iraq war is because they thought (erroneously) that it was a pre-emptive strike against terrorism.

                  people will say this war was a mistake cause they now see it wasn't a pre-emptive strike against terrorism.

                  it would be a mistake, i think, on the part of democrats if they concluded that meant america was suddenly against pre-emptive strikes against terrorism.

                  it would be a mistake to think cause america now sees the lies behind iraq that america is now predominantly anti-war.

                  i know you don't like this.  but calling it a strawman won't make it go away.

                  (OPTIMISM IS THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE! THE HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE STINKS! LONG LIVE TROTSKY!)

                  by BiminiCat on Fri Aug 05, 2005 at 07:44:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  projecting ideology (none)
        How do you know you're not projecting your ideology on the situation?

        Did you support the invasion? Do you support continuing the occupation?

        Rrrrrringgg... Time to change the government.

        by Carl Nyberg on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:08:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (65)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (40)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Climate Change (33)
  • Environment (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Science (26)
  • Republicans (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Education (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Congress (17)
  • Labor (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site