Risk and Reward

I'd say that ducking isn't bad optics if nobody sees you. Really, the places where I'd like to see Democrats beat up Bush on national security are on Iraq and Osama issues.

I suppose if they forcefully made the pragmatic argument against torture and tied it to pre-war intelligence failures, that could be pretty effective. But I'm not complaining. And I agree with you that the current leadership is quite good. Reid and Pelosi are such an advance over Daschle/Gephardt that it's not even funny.

"I'd say that ducking isn't bad optics if nobody sees you. Really, the places where I'd like to see Democrats beat up Bush on national security are on Iraq and Osama issues."

Yup.

"I suppose if they forcefully made the pragmatic argument against torture and tied it to pre-war intelligence failures, that could be pretty effective."

Nope.

I dunno, Neil. I think MY has this right: Dems aren't going to pick up anyone who believes that support for torture is a prerequisite to any claim of a strong foreign policy, and they offer up another example of their unwillingness to fight the other guy. I think that unwillingness translates to a general sense that the Dems are the guys with the caved-in chests, and it makes it hard for the electorate to picture us as protectors of US interests. Nobody likes the bully, but everybody trusts him to hold up his end in a fight.

I'm also a big fan of Reid and Pelosi, but I hope they pick a fight soon, and this would have been a good one to fight on. How hard can it be to run ads contrasting Patrick Henry and John Cornyn? How hard is to label as cowards a party led by draft dodgers?

"A lot of doubts about Democrats and security issues have less to do with concrete policy than with essentially characterological concerns"

I know that folks who'd like to see Dems foreground certain position love to say this, but that doesn't make it true.

Democratic problems on national security are tied to a perception that they will be less willing to use force, not that they aren't promoting a dovish line more forcefully.

"At the end of the day, the odds that Democratic candidates are going to pick up a lot of votes from strong torture advocates remains low"

Of course, the actual strategic calculus isn't about anything like this...

And the best thing about the current dynamic, of course, is that it's complicating McCain's road to the nomination.

"Reid and Pelosi are such an advance over Daschle/Gephardt that it's not even funny."

I agree about Reid, but not about Pelosi. Geppy is about due for a re-evaluation of his reputation upwards, and Pelosi's lack of skill at outdoor politics give me the heebie-jeebies about the dynamics if we take back the House.

I think they've got this one about right. Bush/Cheney would *love*
to fight the midterms on "we slap terrorists around, and the Democrats
want to mollycoddle them". Substantively, it's important that we
don't let this terrible legislation pass; but letting the few
moderately-sane Republican senators do the heavy lifting seems smart.
McCain in particular, having been on the wrong end of torture, has
the perfect standing to make Bush look foolish and wrong on this.

Whatever the question, Democrats should just say "Bush thinks capturing
or killing bin Laden is not a top priority; vote for us and we'll
make it happen".

"Bush/Cheney would *love* to fight the midterms on "we slap terrorists around, and the Democrats want to mollycoddle them"

Of course. It boggles my mind that Matthew would think that better treatment of terrorist suspects would be a winning campaign issue.

This, like many civil liberties issues, involves protecting the rights of immensely unpopular people for an abstract reason. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stand firmly against torture, but don't pretend it's a general election winning issue.

See, that's why I like the pragmatic argument. It doesn't matter whether the people are popular or unpopular. It's just that you're going to get crappy information.

See, that's why I like the pragmatic argument. It doesn't matter whether the people are popular or unpopular. It's just that you're going to get crappy information.

But it always works when they do it on the teevee...

THat's why you don't make it about protecting the torturee: the argument is that being a torturer is evil, and America is better than a tinpot dictatorship and is strong enough not to resort to such tactics.

"See, that's why I like the pragmatic argument. It doesn't matter whether the people are popular or unpopular. It's just that you're going to get crappy information."

The pragmatic argument may be a better electoral argument than some others anti-torture arguments, but that still doesn't mean it's a winning electoral argument.

Think of it this way: the right has many arguments for why the minimum wage shouldn't be increased. While some of those arguments are better than others, they'd prefer to spend as little time as possible offering those arguments during election season.

What's more, it seems to me that ducking national security fights involves some bad optics merely as such.

You can't fight on all fronts at once - that's bad strategy. If the Democrats are perceived as hitting Bush hard on the Iraq debacle and on OBL, it won't matter if they're not fighting out front on torture because the "optics" will still be Democratic opposition to Bush's failed policies.

Democratic problems on national security are tied to a perception that they will be less willing to use force, not that they aren't promoting a dovish line more forcefully.

I think this oversimplifies things a bit. I think that it's pretty clear that you can't beat a political opponent without meaningfully differentiating yourself from him or her on the central issue of the day. The Democrats need to run on a foreign policy that is immediately and obviously different from Bush's.

Because Bush's policy is essentially to be a crazed hawk at all times, or at least to sound like one, the Democratic position must necessarily be more dovish in some sense. Now, I certainly agree that being loudly "anti-war" is a bad way to go, but the way the issue hits the Democrats, purely politically, is to find a way to be anti-war within a generally forceful narrative.

The only thing that makes sense to me to explain the abject cowardice of our Democratic Senators and Representatives is blackmail. The GOP has slowly and methodically got the goods on the shysters and mucketymucks we've put our faith in. And they've just squeeeeeezed their little larynxes shut.

Democratic problems on national security are tied to a perception that they will be less willing to use force, not that they aren't promoting a dovish line more forcefully.

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of MY's argument. I believe he's not saying that Dems need to promote a dovish line more forcefully, but that they need to, generally, walk like they have a pair. They can talk anyway they want. This isn't really about Dems showing "courage" or any other useless characteristic; it's about being forceful at a personal level on the belief that it will increase voters' belief in Dems willingness to do it at a state level.

As I think I said at Ezra's, I suspect that if Kerry had knocked Bush down after one of the debates and peed on him in front of a national audience, Bush wouldn't have been re-elected. (Kerry wouldn't have been elected, either.) In fact, the only person who seemed to understand this point in '04 was Edwards, who, in closing days, noted that Bush had been a cheerleader and he'd played football.

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of MY's argument. I believe he's not saying that Dems need to promote a dovish line more forcefully, but that they need to, generally, walk like they have a pair.

Right, but that doesn't mean that if Bush says he loves puppies, Harry Reid needs to stage a press conference where he kicks a puppy in the groin. Some stances are popular, and some aren't.

While it's impossible to get elected without differentiating yourself from your opponent, it remains a matter of tact as to which issues you will focus on and how loudly you make your objections. As long as the Democrats continue to present a forceful (and basically correct) opposition to Bush's failed policy in Iraq and his failure to capture Osama, it won't matter much what the optics are on the torture tribunal issue.

Also, there's a substantive side to the torture tribunal issue. The Democrats need to beat this bill, for obvious moral reasons. The best way to unify the Republican majority in favor of the bill would be loud opposition, such that Republican apostates like Graham and Collins would appear to be helping the Democrats by opposing the bill. You can't take the politics out of politics, and all that. So, not only may it be smart politics for November to lay low on the torture bill, but I think it's definitely good tactics for beating the bill.

Right, but that doesn't mean that if Bush says he loves puppies, Harry Reid needs to stage a press conference where he kicks a puppy in the groin. Some stances are popular, and some aren't.

Everyone already believes Reid is anti-puppy. They also believe that he likes to kill them in craven, duplicitous, hidden ways. All purely pro-puppy votes are going to Bush anyway; people's belief on Reid's puppy position are set. If Reid gets on stage and bites the head off of a live puppy, OTOH, he'll pick up voters who don't care one way or the other about puppies but do care about cravenness-as-reflected-by-methods-of-puppy-killing. (Seriously--why haven't the Dems killed anyone's pets? It's like they WANT to lose.)

Sometimes the point of the fight is just to show that you like to fight, and that you're good at it. Like in an action movie, or (I suspect) politics. Cripes, let's be honest, there's a pretty good chance that's what's motivated our Iraq policy.

I'll buy DivGuy's argument. On moral grounds I'll take defeat of the bill over a strong, principled stance against torture. The latter may or may not be better for the party ('wise'), but the former is necessary. The few Republican holdouts have at least a little decency but they would fold if seen as aligned with the Democrats.

The best way to unify the Republican majority in favor of the bill would be loud opposition, such that Republican apostates like Graham and Collins would appear to be helping the Democrats by opposing the bill.

I think core Red voters may think like this, but that independents are more likely to line up behind Graham and McCain. So all we've done is give the Republicans a little show in which they can claim that they have something for everyone, be you looking for a nutter or a "strong, independent" voice. Graham and McCain reassure Blue State Republican voters that their party has not become the party of idiots and barbarians.

SCMT -

I wasn't talking about voters. I'm talking about the Democrats creating the circumstances most likely to bring about a defeat for the torture bill. I think that the Republican apostates have proven their weakness time and time again, and if the Democrats started talking about the torture bill as a partisan issue, they would likely lose the support of the Grahams and Collinses. And if we're going to be confident in defeating the bill, the best thing to do is prevent its passage. At the moment, Reid seems to have done that, though obviously the game isn't over.

I'm also concerned that your reading of the situation has an unfortunate tinge of "everything that happens is bad news for hte Democrats." I don't think that separation from the White House is going to be possible for most all of the endangered Repubs, and I don't think it's a winning strategy anyway - once you're talking about the extent of your opposition to Bush and Bush's policies, you're fighting a war on Democratic territory in which Democrats have large, natural advantage.

DG: Yeah, I understood that you weren't speaking to voter perceptions; I thought about noting that, but didn't. In any case, you may be right about the Republican apostates, but I'd really love it if the news stories on this issues mentioned a couple of prominent but not particularly liberal Dems. I have a hard time believing anyone much short of Kennedy is going to shift McCain and Graham.

"Sometimes the point of the fight is just to show that you like to fight, and that you're good at it. Like in an action movie, or (I suspect) politics."

Politics, much like warfare, is decided by who picks the ground where the fights take place.

The GOP feels no compunctions to fight out in the open over the minimum wage, just to show that they like to fight.

Winning generals pick their battles wisely.

The GOP feels no compunctions to fight out in the open over the minimum wage, just to show that they like to fight.

I'm not sure that speaks to the issue. Nobody doubts that the Republicans like to fight. Reagan had one war against Grenada, yanked us out of Beirut after the attack there, and reached out to Gorbachev, but few think of him as unwilling to fight. Part of that is policy, part of that is the language he used, but part of it is simply that everyone thought Reagan was, if anything, too aggressive.

SCMT -

Even insofar as that's true, the Republicans didn't get their reputation by fighting against the minimum wage, or against other Democratic proposals with popular support. you seem to be arguing for a strategy of fighting without regard for the individual issues which are at stake in the fight or the politics of those issues. I find it highly unlikely that indiscriminate aggression is or ever has been a successful strategy.

. I find it highly unlikely that indiscriminate aggression is or ever has been a successful strategy.

Yeah, that's certainly true. I suppose I just can't believe that the American people are strongly on their side on this issue. But you go into elections with the voters you have, not the ones you want.

Democrats are essentially denying themselves the possiblity of reaping whatever rewards may exist for standing up for basic decency and morality against Bush's depredations.

I believe this to be a non-concern as alas, I don't think there are any rewards for standing up for basic decency and morality as too many people in our country think of decency and morality as luxury goods to be abandoned in times of national emergency. Too many people here about "international law", etc., and think "how come a bunch of pansy pointy heads at the UN and swiss cheese eaters who've never had to go to war, get to limit how we can defend ourselves?". Ironically, it is especially our so-called defenders of public morality that are the first to ignore moral issues and be "realistic" (i.e. mean spirited) about torture, etc.

Actually, in some ways this is not such a bad sign: America is a fundamentally secular country and generally it is good that people are more interested in results than morality. The problem is people misunderstand pragmatism. But Dems. would do well to focus on our specialty of being pragmatic and consider talk of morality as only a dual use sort of thing -- i.e. to demonstrate to religious folks we do care about morality. Sen. Boxer is generally good at this sort of balance.

The moral angle is well morally important, and politically so -- but we cannot be seen as willing to sacrifice practicality for morality (ironically, the people least willing to make that sacrifice claim to have strong religious beliefs!): so it would behoove us to emphasize the practice problems with torture: e.g., it produces a lot of false confessions and hence false imprisonments, etc., -- and for every innocent person wrongly locked away, a guilty person is going free.

I know it is appealing to baser instincts, but look at how well the GOP has done doing that!

What's more, it seems to me that ducking national security fights involves some bad optics merely as such. A lot of doubts about Democrats and security issues have less to do with concrete policy than with essentially characterological concerns and if you worry that liberals are timid and easily frightened, well, then this is some fairly timid and frightened-looking behavior.

This is very true.

I think the most discouraging part of this whole issue is how many people think an anti-torture stance is not a good political move. It may be true, but how confident must people be to avoid staking out such an obviously morally obligatory stance? The US government has brutally beaten men it later acknowledged as innocent. This is the biggest problem w/ torture, not the treatment of the guilty (although that's bad too), but the culture of abuse and stupidity it creates. The sheer injustice is mindboggling. I do wish someone was willing to give Americans a chance to show they can appreciate that if the issue is presented clearly, now that a lot more of the dirty details are known.

I think the most discouraging part of this whole issue is how many people think an anti-torture stance is not a good political move. It may be true, but how confident must people be to avoid staking out such an obviously morally obligatory stance?

Perhaps, like most Americans, they don't think an anti-torture stance -- or, at least, a torture-is-never-justified stance -- is morally obligatory.

Anent the liberals as frightened idea:

Count the number of Democratic veterans of the Iraq War running for Congress this year vs the number of Republicans. 11-1.

Eleven to one.

Now, count the number of chickenhawks encouraging people to go to war without risking anything themselves. Oddly reciprocal, eh?

Timid and frightened is the polite way to describe it.

The Democrats are a bunch of pussies who will go down in history as having been too afraid to stand up for their county's basic principles when they were under attack.

Absolutely fucking pathetic. And stupid too.

The Democrats have been out of power for so long they're afraid to lose any handhold they have. It is important to vote for them, nevertheless, to balance the Republicans who have lived up to Lord Acton's maxim: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Sure the Democrats are scared, timid, afraid to speak out. So what? Does our analysis of it help the situation? Republicans lie. They continue to lie. The Republicans (and that includes Lieberman) tell lies so they can stay in power. Why is everyone so surprised by this, so astonished, so affronted by it? If you expect them to lie, and anticipate it, as opposed to being blindsided by it, as Kerry was by the swiftboating, then you will perpetually be the victim. And the Democrats have a long history of being aggrieved, of being the victims. Continue along that path, and once again you'll be a victim. As Morris Dees discovered, when you fight back, hit them hard, sue them where it hurts, make them pay dearly for each lie, then you will not be blindsided any more.
Second, it seems to me that the Democrats have been playing the victim, as in "Poor me!", for much too long. First, they let the Republicans mount an attack on them and their positions. Then they act surprised at the "bad" Republicans for doing this. Then they protest, calling what the Republicans do "dispicable" or "dirty tricks" or "untrue". All of which only makes the Democrats look even more like victims. And so they dig their own fate. I also sense that, when they do this and ring their hands, they are hoping the Republicans will receive their comeuppance from some mysterious force, and that they will self-destruct of their own accord. Act like a victim, end up like one. So go out adn vote for a Democrat, no matter how weak, get your friends to vote Democratically, and act to help others do the same.

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar

oyun ambar
oyun
oyun hileleri
Flash oyunlar
Bedava oyun
bedava oyunlar
En güzel oyunlar
varmısın yokmusun
Kız Oyunları
Süper Oyunlar
Komik Oyunlar
Hugo Oyunları
Çocuk oyunları
3 boyutlu oyunlar
Motor yarış oyunları
Minikperi oyunları
Zeka oyunları
Beceri oyunları
Giysi Giydirme Oyunları
Makyaj Yapma Oyunları
Teletabi Oyunları

slm

thanks ;)

thanks ;)

Thanks So much
2 Oyunculu Oyunlar
Yetenek Oyunları
Dövüş Oyunları
Aksiyon Macera Oyunları
Nişancılık Oyunları
Spor Oyunları
Yarış Oyunları
Zeka Hafıza Oyunları
Motor Oyunları
Mario Oyunları
Savaş Oyunları
Strateji Taktik Oyunları
Yemek Pişirme Oyunları
Dekor Oyunları
Boyama Kitabı Oyunları
3 Boyutlu Oyunlar
Hugo Oyunları
Sonic Oyunları
Webcam Oyunları
Peri Güzellik Oyunları
Battleon Oyunları
Bebek Oyunları
Süper Oyunlar
İlizyon Oyunları
Komik Oyunlar
Teletabi Oyunları
Giysi Giydirme oyunları
Makyaj yapma oyunları
Kız oyunları
Çocuk Oyunları
varmısın yokmusun
Oyun
Oyunlar
Bedava Oyunlar
Net Gazetesi
Haber
Haber Aktüel

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet

thanks.

penis büyütücüler

harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com

sex shop

Fibercement
Dış cephe
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dış cephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik

http://www.izokon.com/hakkimizda.html
http://www.izokon.com/hizmetlerimiz.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler.html
http://www.izokon.com/hekimboard.html
http://www.izokon.com/turksiding.html
http://www.izokon.com/fblam.html
http://www.izokon.com/kalite.html
http://www.izokon.com/sove.html
http://www.izokon.com/referanslar.html
http://www.izokon.com/iletisim.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunler2.html
http://www.izokon.com/sss.html
http://www.izokon.com/fiberust.doc
http://hekimboard.blogcu.com
http://www.izokon.com/style.css
http://www.izokon.com/sitemap.html
http://www.izokon.com/urunlergiris.html
http://www.izokon.com/hbteknik.doc