My last diary got a visit from a fairly recent commentator here:
bounkey
I was pretty sure, since his rapid-fire stream of comments here on dkos didn't seem to flow from someone green to blog-posting, that he would have some other work out there in the blogosphere.
googlegooglegoogle
Lo and behold.....unless there are two bounkey's with the same views and rhetorical techniques...he does. Now, what I want to do with this, however, is start a discussion...
not of bounkey personally....(you can make up your own mind about his participation here...but, fwiw, please, leave vitriol and personal attacks out of this diary.) I'd like to have a discussion about what his words below, what I take to be his real thoughts, mean to us. How do we deal with them, understand them, and how do we counteract them.....
and how do we broaden from that discussion into questions on the Democratic Party and national security?
part i:
Below is a sample of bounkey's thoughts when he's not on dKos:
I don't know if my unit is atypical of Reserve units but I can tell you Kerry has near zero support in my Seabee unit. GI's know who stabs us in the back each and every time they get the chance. The left hates us, they hate our mission, they hate what we stand for and I believe they are not upset at all when a GI dies in the line of duty. Ever since the animals took over the Donkeycrat party they have tried to disarm us and leave us at the mercy of the Soviets and now the Islamofascists. Their motivation is a profound and disturbing hatred of Western Civilization in general and America in particular. I wear the uniform in spite of these animals. However, you, the voters had better not stab us in the back on election day. Putting Kerry in office would be a clear statement from you to us of only two words:
F___ you.
Right now the military is not having a problem enlisting and re-enlisting troops. Put Kerry in and you will see the line at the door dissipate and those of us in waiting to get out. Early in World War II Winston Churchill told the British people "Deserve Victory!" Keep us in the field, keep us armed and prepared, we'll fight the Islamofascists in Baghdad. If you fail and put Kerry in the White House the NYPD will fight the Islamofasicsts in the streets of Manhattan. Your choice. Deserve Victory!
Posted by: bounkey at September 23, 2004 07:38 PM
from blogs for Bush
This attitude is what we are up against. And it's not uncommon. Obviously we don't win over folks like this.
But neither can we sit back and pretend that they don't exist and that they don't spread this rhetoric on AM radio, in private conversations, and on the other side of the blogosphere.
I admit, this is garden variety freeper stuff. And it's not that uncommon, even if this is a particularly acute example. But the difference here is that bounkey came and found us. I don't know why...and I don't know if he intends to stay or comment here. But since he took time out from his life to come here and drop forty or so comments on us....
maybe it's worth us dropping forty or so comments below about how to counteract this way of thinking. Not as the work of trollish, faceless blog opponents...that's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm asking is what is our response as fellow Americans. As folks who found the SBVT attacks on John Kerry to be sickening and unpatriotic. Who respect Senator Kerry and all veterans' service to our nation, but who also would have joined John Kerry in protesting the Viet Nam war. Who understand that the Democratic party needs to be ready to formulate why we can be "stronger and smarter"....(or the phrase of your choice)... on national security than the GOP...and how, perhaps, we failed to do so this election year.
part ii.
I'm not going to take apart bounkey's attitudes. Maybe someone else can. They are pretty transparent and angry....enough said. But I would like to ask my fellow Kossacks some questions that these words inspire for me...(and I sure hope Armando sees these):
- Given that John Kerry won the majority of voters who listed Iraq as their "main concern"....why did we still lose this election? Why did we lose, overwhelmingly, those who chose the "war on terror" as their main concern?
- How does the Democratic Party deal with the fact that we are in a post-post Viet Nam era? (ie. an era where GOP dominance of the membership of the armed forces...and the GOP shaping of our recent armed conflicts...Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq..is well established.)
- How do we take stock of the fact that we failed to elect a man who served valiantly in Viet Nam...who would have been the first Viet Nam veteran to win the Presidency? How do we take stock of the fact that he was so mercilessly attacked, not simply for protesting that war, but for his service itself?
- How do the Democrats deal with the fact the we are further and further removed from the era where combat veterans were just as likely Democrats? Where service to our nation was unquestionably non-partisan?
- What role does the left's post-Viet Nam "protest stance" about foreign wars play in public perception of the Democrat's national security credentials? What role did Kerry's protesting play in his appeal? What role did his war votes? Were the GOP attacks on Kerry successful?
- Is oppposition to national service a block to the Democrats winning back national security credentials? ie. What does it mean when "service to our nation" is defined as service in the all volunteer armed forces...and those forces tend to be perceived as pro-GOP?
- What should "national service" mean?
- Would you oppose a voluntary national service program that included non-military options?
- Would you oppose across-the-board, involuntary national service if it included non-military options?
- What role will Iraq and national security play in the 2006 elections..and the 2005 Congressional battles that lead up to them?
- Will "the War on Terror" still be defined as a GOP issue, period, end of sentence?
- What does the "War on Terror" mean? To us? To Americans?
- Do the Democrats need to be a party of national security? Should national security be bi-partisan...like some say it used to be? How is it different now? Do our values make for policy differences here? And did we fail to articluate those values and policy differences?
- Did 9/11 change everything? What did it change? What didn't it?
- How should "fighting Democrats" take up national security issues? What was behind the "kill the terrorists" formulations of the Kerry/Edwards campaign?
I'm interested in what you think of these questions and in what you take from this message from bounkey. Please...discuss. In my view, working through these issues in a clear minded way
is our best response to this kind of challenge.
{As an aside, if you feel the need to vent.....please don't go personal here....we've done that enough..it's just stupid. Rant if you will....but the point of this diary is to talk about stuff without flaming..and, if we put our heads together, maybe even elevate the level of discourse...and break new ground.}