Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

couldn't have said it better (or faster) myself, S-2.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

...there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

So, in essence, the most politically advantageous report - as far as the Democrats are concerned - would be a negative report.

I'm guessing a negative report would include a measurable drop in the amount of progress being made to rebuild the country and suppress the insurgency and a measurable increase in the number of dead American soldiers.

So, I'd say the next most logical question would be: "Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?"

Or was that question already asked?

I feel like I'm back in high school and woefully unprepared for class...

How negative does that report have to be for you to take political advantage of it?

With American men and women fighting and dying over there, why aren't the Democrats hoping for positive news from Iraq?

Originally Posted by S-2

What kind of case would it be against the 47 "blue dog" caucus members that Clyburn's so worried about? Is good news for Petraeus good news for them? Seems so.

Better question: Why are you so casually brushing aside the fact that a high-ranking Democratic Party LEADER is worried about a positive report?

tophatter,

the reason why clyburn views this as a "problem" is because there are moderate and conservative democrats who view a positive report as good news.

in other words, as S-2 mentioned, this says more about clyburn (and his way of thinking) than anything else.

in short, that would also seem to explode the original premise that just about every last democrat either hates america, or is a traitor, or seeks nothing more than political advantage at the cost of country.

"couldn't have said it better (or faster) myself", Astralis.

Originally Posted by astralis

tophatter,

the reason why clyburn views this as a "problem" is because there are moderate and conservative democrats who view a positive report as good news.

in other words, as S-2 mentioned, this says more about clyburn (and his way of thinking) than anything else.

in short, that would also seem to explode the original premise that just about every last democrat either hates america, or is a traitor, or seeks nothing more than political advantage at the cost of country.

Perhaps you'd care to tell us all just how the party mainstream views those blue dogs, and their fellows in the Senate. Perhaps Joe Lieberman can fill us all in a bit on HIS experiences. Do you think that would that be uplifting and educational?

astralis, how invested are you really in this defense of the defenseless? Would you consider it a personal loss, some kind of public humiliation if you were to have to face example after citation after proof of me being right, you being wrong?

Because I'm trying to deal with your intellectual dishonesty and stubborn refusal to face up to what has become perfectly obvious, and if you're just hanging on out of simple pride, well then, I guess we're all done here.

Originally Posted by astralis

in other words, as S-2 mentioned, this says more about clyburn (and his way of thinking) than anything else.

I'll say it again. Clyburn isn't some just-elected wet-behind-the-ears Congressman shooting his mouth off about his own private observations.

He's the Democratic Whip.

"In politics, a whip is a member of a political party in a legislature whose task is to ensure that members of the party attend and vote as the party leadership desires."

"A whip in the United States House of Representatives is a member of the party leadership who comes second in line after the party's floor leader, which in the house is the House Majority Leader or the House Minority Leader."

Originally Posted by astralis

in short, that would also seem to explode the original premise that just about every last democrat either hates america, or is a traitor, or seeks nothing more than political advantage at the cost of country.

Ummm....Not sure about the first two, but the third one seems to be a lead pipe cinch when the Democratic leadership fears a postive report, for any reason.

He's stating the Democratic objective: Withdraw from Iraq.

That is the goal of the Democratic party. Lack of progress and dead troops furthers that goal.

Correct.

The OUTSIDE of the party has their own special name; the INSIDE of the party is just known as 'Democrats'.

tophatter,

i know you asked the question of S-2. but as to my POV, my major problem with bluesman's original thesis was that he unfairly tarred every single democrat with one big brush. doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a moderate dem- you're a traitor, as you belong to the party of traitors. also, if you were for withdrawal (short of an undefined "victory"), then you were also a defeatist.

now, i am under no illusion that there are plenty, plenty of democrats out there who seek political advantage, even at the expense of the country. but as i have sought to demonstrate throughout this thread, this is not an affliction that is solely democratic in nature, and it is not an afflication that affects all dems. i have also sought to demonstrate that withdrawal is not necessarily a recipe for defeat.

bluesman,

Perhaps you'd care to tell us all just how the party mainstream views those blue dogs, and their fellows in the Senate. Perhaps Joe Lieberman can fill us all in a bit on HIS experiences. Do you think that would that be uplifting and educational?

well, then. the democratic party is certainly indebted to them for bringing them victory in the legislative elections. and just the very fact that clyburn is talking about this splitting the democratic party shows you how big and important the blue dogs were. were the blue dogs an unimportant and much hated faction of the democratic party, how much attention do you think clyburn would lavish on them?

astralis, how invested are you really in this defense of the defenseless? Would you consider it a personal loss, some kind of public humiliation if you were to have to face example after citation after proof of me being right, you being wrong?

Because I'm trying to deal with your intellectual dishonesty and stubborn refusal to face up to what has become perfectly obvious, and if you're just hanging on out of simple pride, well then, I guess we're all done here.

my point isn't to defend the democratic party. they can do their own defending.

what i AM trying to point out is the fallacy of tarring every last democrat with the big brush of disloyalty. and you still have no convinced me of that fact, and i highly doubt you can do so- if for no other reason than the fact that i have voted democratic in the past, and would not consider myself a traitor nor a defeatist.

a different view point is not necessarily intellectual dishonesty, and i wish you'd understand that.

Originally Posted by astralis

tophatter,

i know you asked the question of S-2. but as to my POV, my major problem with bluesman's original thesis was that he unfairly tarred every single democrat with one big brush. doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a moderate dem- you're a traitor, as you belong to the party of traitors. also, if you were for withdrawal (short of an undefined "victory"), then you were also a defeatist.

now, i am under no illusion that there are plenty, plenty of democrats out there who seek political advantage, even at the expense of the country. but as i have sought to demonstrate throughout this thread, this is not an affliction that is solely democratic in nature, and it is not an afflication that affects all dems. i have also sought to demonstrate that withdrawal is not necessarily a recipe for defeat.

Astralis,
Don't worry about responding, I'm interested in knowing what everybody has to say.

The point is, the leadership of the Democratic party wants a negative report.

That is the "party line".

Politicians - being the whores that they are - don't always vote the party line.

But it's still their party hoping for a negative report and, hyperbole or not, I think that's Bluesman's point.

So yeah, in a way, that would be a party of traitors. A party that is, laid bare, hoping for bad news from Iraq. At the top of the list of "bad news from Iraq" is the U.S. body count.

I'm off to bed, try not to tear the place apart?

Originally Posted by astralis

tophatter,

i know you asked the question of S-2. but as to my POV, my major problem with bluesman's original thesis was that he unfairly tarred every single democrat with one big brush. doesn't matter if you're a conservative or a moderate dem- you're a traitor, as you belong to the party of traitors. also, if you were for withdrawal (short of an undefined "victory"), then you were also a defeatist.

now, i am under no illusion that there are plenty, plenty of democrats out there who seek political advantage, even at the expense of the country. but as i have sought to demonstrate throughout this thread, this is not an affliction that is solely democratic in nature, and it is not an afflication that affects all dems. i have also sought to demonstrate that withdrawal is not necessarily a recipe for defeat.

Look at the party's manifesto, and the platform of every single Democratic Presidential hopeful. Find me ANY mention of victory in Iraq.

This is who they ARE. You don't happen to believe it, but it's the plain, obvious truth. And it has been since Korea.

You want to hold individual Democrats up as something better than traitors. And I'll acknowledge that they exist. But what you simply won't see is that they belong to a party that is simply not faithful to what they believe.

It is now no longer possible to say that the 'extremists' in the party are screwing up the curve, that they're outliers and cranks and well beyond the bounds of party orthodoxy. They are in charge. And people like Sheehan and Churchill and Sheen and Moore and all the other people that YOU think aren't representative of the party's core and do not have control of its brain and its heart are exactly the sort of people that are driving Democratic inter-party politics. This is simply not debatable; it is FACT.

Read Howard Dean's polemics; look at the people they'll let stand on a stage and pretend to be real Presidential material. Look at what's not only perfectly acceptable in the Democratic Party, but what is actually DESIRABLE in the people they choose to hold up as the best they've got. I mentioned it before, but it slid past you: would John Kerry have EVER been able to say the things he said about US troops' conduct and then go on to ANY sort of credibility in the GOP? And YET - to the Democrats, it was one of his greatest charms, one of the 'WOW!' resume items that allowed him to be shoved into the vanguard of the party. He was not just acceptable for his acts, he was LAUDED for them, and it would've absolutely killed him stone dead politically in any patriotic - or even rational - party.

This is the truth: the worst things you can manage to say about United States history, foreign policy, heroes, meaning to the rest of the world, and a whole host of other matters that speak to American worthiness, the better career prospects you're going to have in the Democratic Party.

Look at who they hire for political operatives. Have you followed the story of Amanda Marcotte and her strange relationship with the Edwards campaign? Is there ANY analog on the GOP side?

They are attracted to a certain worldview, and the things Democrats believe about their country is simply not welcome in their opposition's ranks. But it'll kick the door off the hinges if you stand outside Democratic National Committee HQ and bellow about the disgraceful conduct of American troops from Wounded Knee to Fallujah, and they'll have you a cubicle and a red Swingline stapler before you can say 'Chimpy McHilterBurton'.

I refuse to believe the fiction anymore that you can simultaneously be patriotic AND well-informed AND a Democrat.

They're working as hard as they can for the defeat of their country while it's at war. They have their reasons for believing this is a Good Thing, but whatever they are, they believe it.

And they hate my wife and my son and their colleagues, and they are trying to defeat them, possibly even to kill them.

And I hate 'em for it.

"Better question: Why are you so casually brushing aside the fact that a high-ranking Democratic Party LEADER is worried about a positive report?"

One democrat's machinations amounts to no more than one republican. Powerful or not, they come and go with no more than one vote. Otherwise your House majority whip, Clyburn, wouldn't be so worried.

"Lack of progress and dead troops furthers that goal."

Perhaps. We've a five year and nine month history denoting a "lack of progress", virtually from the time that Kabul fell. Virtually all with a Republican president AND congress. Lay that, and all those troops since then (God rest their souls) at the Republican Party's doorstep. They've written a greek tragedy of miscalculation piled on hubris smothered in ignorance garnished with cites, examples, and proofs to make your head spin (to paraphrase one of our more calm posters).

I've caught up with the rest of this. Tophatter, Astralis presents my views succinctly. I'm very comfortable, as a Republican, with the democratic position for withdrawal. Like I inferred above, the conditions for dissent were created by the abysmal performance of my party, even with all the attendant legislative and morale advantages conferred post 9/11.

Withdrawal is a worthy consideration. The debate, though, will be more free and informative if it avoids the brash and rude behavior permitted here and respects the patriotism of those involved.

The Republican party may have to brush off Allen Drury's Advise and Consent. A few of it's adherants here could stand a re-read as well.

Originally Posted by astralis

bluesman,



well, then. the democratic party is certainly indebted to them for bringing them victory in the legislative elections.

You finally made a point I can agree with, but not for the reasons that you think.

They ARE INDEED indebted to them; the patina of sanity and rationality that was added when they were able to pretend to be a mainstream, responsible party seemed to really do the trick. If you ever watch 'Jaywalking' on the Leno Show, you can certainly see how they manage to do it. All those people that have no idea what July 4th is about have a vote that counts exactly the same as mine. THIS is the fertile ground of the Democratic Party.

and just the very fact that clyburn is talking about this splitting the democratic party shows you how big and important the blue dogs were. were the blue dogs an unimportant and much hated faction of the democratic party, how much attention do you think clyburn would lavish on them?

No, it shows how close the margins of 'control' are. The Republicans have to put up with their RINOs, too, and there's not a helluva lot o' love shown to 'em...until it's time to count the votes.

Don't gimme that crap; the Democrats can't get to where they want to go without holding their noses and kissing the most unlovable members of their caucus.

my point isn't to defend the democratic party. they can do their own defending.

Sad to say but that's exactly what you have been doing.

what i AM trying to point out is the fallacy of tarring every last democrat with the big brush of disloyalty.

No; some of 'em, like my wife's stubborn old mule of a grandfather, simply know nothing else, or they've been frightened into thinking the opposition is about to take away their freebies, or they're too goddamned ignorant to know anything but what a liberal noise machine tells 'em all to think.

I believe if all Americans were to really understand what the Democratic Party is all about, they'd be down to about 100 Congressmen and 20 Senators, and they'd never get within long sight of the Oval Office, unless there was a tour guide involved.

and you still have no convinced me of that fact, and i highly doubt you can do so- if for no other reason than the fact that i have voted democratic in the past, and would not consider myself a traitor nor a defeatist.

Okay, I think I understand WHY you're so deggedly determined now. But how you can admit such a thing in public...I'd rather you told me you were a drug dealer.

No, wait a second - if you WERE a drug dealer, your ideological home would be the Democratic Party. And you can look that up.

a different view point is not necessarily intellectual dishonesty, and i wish you'd understand that.

Oh, I absolutely believe that. But when you're faced with unassailable truth, it's not open to your perspective and point-of-view anymore.

And here's the truth: that party eagerly sides with your country's enemies FAR more often than they'll take her side.

Originally Posted by astralis

... but as to my POV, my major problem with bluesman's original thesis was that he unfairly tarred every single democrat with one big brush...

If the brush fits...oh, come on, astralis, as the party is perceived so are its members, even those who publicly question the party line.

One sign of a faltering rebuttal is a resort to criticism of generalities.

I doubt your "major problem" is that, at least I hope so. But if it is, then I suppose after you list those who were unfairly covered by blueman's brush, you'll agree with him as to the rest.