I’m delighted by the comments on yesterday’s blog entry, especially the ones from our liberal friends (however intemperate a few of them may have been). Bookworm and I have tried very hard to create in the Bookwormroom a safe place for people of all point of view to come and discuss their views. One liberal commenter described conservatives as intolerant. As I sometimes do, I invite that reader to stop by Daily KOS and the Captain’s Quarters and see which side treats those who disagree with them with tolerance and respect.
In any event, in the Bookwormroom we strive to respect all points of view (which is not to say that we don’t disagree with some of them, often with vigor!). So let’s talk. Perhaps we can learn from each other. To start things off, conservatives, why should the Republicans retain control of the House this November? Liberals, why should the Democrats take over? Note, I’m looking for concrete reasons here, not name-calling. What fundamental, substantive policy changes will occur if the Democrats take over and how will these changes effect American citizens and America’s place in the world, for good or bad?
I’ll start. I opposed the invasion of Iraq (in large part because I believed we’d have a difficult time getting out) but now that we’re there the worst thing we could do is withdraw, leaving behind the chaos that would follow if we left now. I’m quite afraid that if the Democrats take over the House (and especially if they take the White House in 2 years) we will withdraw without regard to the damage the withdrawal will do to Iraq itself, not to mention what it would do to the already strong impression the world has that America does not have the courage to do what it takes to succeed. The world is already a dangerous place. It will be infinitely more dangerous if the world believes America is so afraid of the sight of its own blood that it will not stand up for itself. I especially invite those who disagree to tell me why they think America will be stronger and better off for withdrawing.
P.S. I now appear to be unable to link to anything. I suspect you can find your own way to KOS and the Captain, though.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Republicans should retain the house because the House controls expenditures and taxes. We don’t need higher taxes that will drain our coffers when economic vitality is our last defense against Iran.
As I said before, the Democrats are the war party of America. And if they take power, at least they’ll stop threatening to filibuster, and obstructing good bills and work. Congress gets little done enough as it is, actively doing little saboteur tricks that our so called loyal opposition has created, is not a good thing for America. Even if it is a great thing politically for the Democrats to prevent the Republicans from getting rid of the felony in immigration bills, to prevent the Republicans from distancing themselves from the so called “Draft”, and preventing the Democrats are receiving any blame fo Katrina.
Let the Demos take over the Senate, nothing good gets done there anyway. Useless territory.
Well, America will be stronger and better off withdrawing because then we’d finally be alone in the world, and we would have no one else to blame or rely upon to procrastinate our unilateral actions. This being because, every ally now cannot trust us and every enemy will renew their attacks upon us. This will make us stand up for ourselves, since the destruction of America is hard to accomplish even with tactical nuclear devices.
More people will die, but then you didn’t say what things should happen to save American lives, but why this will make America stronger and better. Obviously withdrawing from Iraq will make us Better and Stronger. Because the only way a person gets stronger is if he relies upon himself, and not his daddy and mommy. We’ve skipped over the casualty sensitivity brought onto us by the 21st century, by getting the Iraqis to take most of the casualties. Civilian and military. Not exactly fair, but it’s better than they would have gotten from some other country. Like France, for example.
In the end, if your goal is just to make America stronger and not the world a more peaceful place, then you should withdraw from Iraq and cede it to our enemies. This will allow our enemies to engineer a greater attack. With the casualties from this attack, we can engineer a Holy War of our own, but not until. Power politics does work in this manner, as it did in WWII when Roosevelt tried everything he could to change public opinion to favor war against Germany. If you engineer a war successfully on your terms, your chances of winning improve drastically. Especially if you are the United States of America.
Roosevelt did not do anything drastically different than Bush, although Roosevelt probably did a lot of things worse. Bush attacked Iraq instead of Al Qaeda in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Roosevelt attacked Africa and Germany, when Pearl Harbor was attacked from Japan… I know, hard to believe, but history is hard to cover up. Maybe the Democrats should have taken extra effort with the libraries.
Roosevelt lied when he said he wasn’t going to go to war with Germany and fascism… Okay, sure. Roosevelt allowed a lot of incompetent things to go wrong with our military, killing a bunch of Americans.
I mean, if you’re willing to throw enough lives away, then the Democrat party seems to be a sure fire way to victory. Sure, you’ll have American and Iraqi body bags piling to the sky, if not nuclearized pits of skulls like Hiroshima, but at least you’ll know you will definitely win. With the Republicans, it is like Lincoln again. We don’t know whose going to win. The only thing with the Republicans I know, is that if we do win decisively, we will do so with the least casualties on both sides.
In the 1960s, when the Democrats ruled all three branches of government, corruption was the order of the day. And dont even get me started on the cultural fallout. Feminism? People who were pro-abortion? The TV Show “Maude?” It was over-the-top Lefty Land.
Who would want THAT ever again?
That said, I feel the same way about Republicans running all three branches of government.
I dont think the Democrats will do anything terribly different regarding Iraq. The US is building permanent bases, which many said was the goal all along.
Then, too, a history of US interventions shows a pattern. How “liberal” have most liberal presidents been? The Kenendys were in charge when a U.S coup put the Baathists in power in Iraq in the first place. Liberal presidents can be just as ruthless and short-sighted when it comes to foreign policy.
So what would be the plus side of Democrats winning back the House?
I’d like to think that checks and balances would begin to make a comeback, and that there would be more transparency and accountability from our leaders.
Is that Pollyanna-ish? Probably.
On one hand, I think both parties are pretty compromised, but on the other, I really really REALLY want this country to be okay.
[...] [read more and discuss…] Social Networking:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
Side note: “…Roosevelt attacked Africa and Germany, when Pearl Harbor was attacked from Japan.”
While technically correct, this leaves out the important detail that on the morning of December 11, 1941, representatives of the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., presented the U.S. State Department with a declaration of war. On the afternoon of the same day, the United States retaliated by declaring war back on Germany.
It is difficult to conceive of any president, of any political party, not responding to a direct declaration of war. This is not to say that to which front (European or Pacific)we should have directed our primary efforts is not debatable, but that any president would have had to respond to the German declaration of war.
Arcane minutiae, yes, but in point of fact, “They started it.” It is also interesting to note that under the terms of the Axis alliance, Germany was not required in any way to declare war, as it was a mutual defense pact.
at this point, if someone were to ask me what the democrats OR the republicans stood for in terms of real differentiators between parties, i would be hard pressed provide a good answer. the old labels simply don’t apply anymore; where the republicans once portrayed themselves as the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, the democrats traditionally portrayed themselves as looking out for the worker and protecting the middle class.
i would say this country is too mired in an entrenched plutocracy for the former claims of either party to be taken very seriously.
i agree that we need to re-establish some of the oversight and checks and balances that have been sorely missing since 2002 and democratic majorities in either the house or senate is one step towards that.
but what we really need, and ought to demand are candidates of both stripes who refuse to pander to the basest aspects of our nature by catering to xenophobia, homophobia and anti-intellectualism. and while i don’t give them much more credit, the democrats do seem to be a bit more evolved on that front.
peace
Republicans are marginally more likely to let any drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq be driven by generals and colonels rather than by professional politiicians. That’s reason enough to hope for maintaining a majority in the House.
But I also have to say that I’m sympathetic to the argument that Doug Powers makes today in American Spectator Online. Quoting him on immigration reform: The fact that this is even a “debate” is frightening and will cost somebody politically. That “somebody” will most likely be the Republicans, and if, on Election Day, candidates find themselves being treated like Capitol police officers confronting Cynthia McKinney, so be it.
Republicans are marginally more likely to let any drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq be driven by generals and colonels rather than by professional politiicians” — Patrick
While this was true during the Vietnam War, I’m not sure certain it’s true today.
It seems that politicians who actually served in the military, regardless of political persuasion, are the ones most concerned about the war in Iraq – and the ones who have been most forthright, even when it was prudent to keep one’s mouth shut.
Anthony Zinni, John Murtha, Chuck Hagel and Senator Richard Lugar have all been critical of the war in one respect or another – in ways that later turned out to be correct.
The thing I’ve noticed, however, is these guys are often targeted by those who place loyalty to George Bush and/or the GOP over loyalty to America or Truth or Reality, even.
While technically correct, this leaves out the important detail that on the morning of December 11, 1941, representatives of the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., presented the U.S. State Department with a declaration of war. On the afternoon of the same day, the United States retaliated by declaring war back on Germany.
I also left out the fact that the US was already at war with Iraq long before Al Qaeda ever showed up at the WT center. Some things don’t really matter because they cancel each other out in the end.
There’s the meta argument that going to Africa and Iraq is not a distraction from the war. I’m arguing the other meta argument, that Africa and Iraq are the same thing, and if one is a distraction then so must be the other to attain universal harmony.
T.S. believes in things because they are caused by Bush partisans and house hold troops. I really don’t think it is a good idea for TS to say that JB is a loyal Bush partisan all things considered.
The problem with believing that people who made judgements back in the past were right or wrong based upon information you now know that they didn’t, has to do with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle. Those people are not right because you can’t violate his Principle and get away with it, unless you are God of course, TS.
Wisdom lies in making the right decisions at the right time, not in making the right decisions when it doesn’t matter. Anyone who understands the OODA cycle in war and diplomatic poker, will know the foolishness in thinking otherwise.