Skip to main content

View Diary: PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in '08 (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A lot of the "neocons" (6+ / 0-)
    used to be or still are registered democrats.   The seeds of their ideas grew in the offices of Democratic Senators like Scoop Jackson.

    And the original seed ideas were not bad, as they were based on the old democratic principles of confronting aggressively those that oppress the weak.  

    It wasn't until the democratic party took a turn for the pacifist that these guys were forced into the orbit of the GOP and their neurologically retarding radiation which mutated their ideas into something appropriately Vaderian.

    There used to be a time in this country, not that long ago since it is in the span of my living memory, that the democrats were considered to be the more aggressive of the two parties; as in when they talked about kicking somebody' ass they really meant it.  And the GOP was considered to be the more cautious and demurring of the two.

    Hence the old saw about the difference between democrats and republicans being that the GOP wants a big military that they send nowhere and the Dems want a small military that they would send EVERYWHERE.

    There are probably a whole lot of what would be called "Reagan" Democrats out there that would come back to the party of their youth if it started to sound a bit more like the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy then it presently does or has for a couple of decades or more.

    And if the party sounded like that the Rethugs would not have dared to make the kind of slurs about democrats that they have the last 6 years!  They would have known that to do so would end up with them getting their skulls bashed in.  A skill the modern party seems to have forgotten the usefulness of.

    •  This would be a good thing? (6+ / 0-)

      To return to Scoop Jackson days, Vietnam and endless war, Democrats style?

      No thanks.

      •  Actually? (0+ / 0-)

        Yeah it would be nice to see the Democratic party remember that it used to be a party of FIGHTERS.  

        There was nothing that dictated endless war about Scoops stance.  It called for the occasional war to aid the downtrodden out from under the shit covered heel standing on their throats.

        You know actually giving a damn about the good guys and not propping up the thugs and butchers this country was notorious for during the cold war.  Why not just SUPPORT the progressives in other countries with force if need be to topple those thugs?

        It is a good idea in principle, and it would have been a good policy given that part of the reason that so many people in dark and dusty places hate our stinking guts is that we talk a good game, but when push comes to shove and it might involve out spilling some of our precious blood?

        We will back away from our ideals and install a despot to brutally crush those people.

        How many times instead of supporting democratic leaning groups in countries did we instead install governments such as Pinochet, or prop up scum like Somoza, Saddam... the list is lengthy.  How many times have we plunged a nation into a political twilight of repression, reprisal and torture because to do otherwise would involve US armed involvement to prop up a fledgling democracy; how many times have we not only provided the whip hand but the whip itself that kissed the backs of those people.

        How many times have we NOT done what France did for a small group of democratically minded traitors to the English crown?

        That was the point of Jackson' policy:  Support freedom for ALL men even if you have to fight for it for someone else.

        But that in noway makes the war in Iraq THAT war.  No, it is close to the opposite of what Scoop would have intended.

    •  I aggree with some points (0+ / 0-)

      Except that of the Reagan Democrats coming back to the Democratic Party if it returned to it's 'kick ass stand' policies, I think this Iraqi invasion/occupation --the economy--has even them returning in some measure, I know many of their children aren't taking into automatic 'republican party' identification.

      Those other Reagan Democrats are the ones that the GOP are going to pander to in the summer--those 'anti's" same sex marriage, flag burners, those are the ones the GOP wants will pander to.

      •  yeah... (0+ / 0-)

        Some of them would come back and stay but I agree that there is probably a percentage that are lost for good and that may not be a totally bad thing.

        I think I have been nibbling along the edges of an idea that is half formed in my head and it got expressed a little in the post.

        I think part of the reason that the Democrats have not been putting up the kind of fight against the GOP that we would like in a lot of cases is that the party' emotional and psychological mindset has shifted away from being more confrontational.  And I still don't have a really good way of expressing fully what I am thinking on this....

    •  I really HATE this 'centrist' meme (0+ / 0-)

      dammit, these guys are right wing HAWKS. Just a cursory examination of current polls about Iraq indicate the majority of the electorate is NOT in favor of this war.

      That makes the center somewhere left of the right wing war enablers. I like to think that, for example, Democracy for America is pretty much the mid center, despite all the name calling from the right wing.

      We MUST seize this term from these pretenders.

      Continuing the national debate---People for Change --*help us TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK*

      by MikeHickerson on Mon May 29, 2006 at 01:29:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site