Personally, I think the Democrats are employing the 'broken clock' principle, in that it is right twice a day.

If they continue to hark on about bringing the troops home, then when they do start to come home, as they are expected to start reducing numbers in the near future, then they can claim credit for 'ending the war'.

Yes, I've noted that myself. When troops are withdrawn -- as was always the plan, after Iraqi forces were able to hold the country themselves -- they want to say, "See? Withdrawing the troops was our idea all along!"

Well, yeahhhh... withdrawing in defeat was your idea all along.

But not withdrawing after a victory. That's definitely not an idea they support.

Ace, your blog is totally boogered. Bold tags everywhere!

Kerry and Bush may have had the same opinion on gay marriage, but who got the almighty Simperin Sully's support?

If only Bush had that, it woulda been a mandate.

(No pun intended)

It's really beyond me how Democrats can tolerate so much incoherence and contradiction in the messages and positions. I mean, I understand WHY they're forced to be like this (being honest and open about what they believe and want would sink them in most statewide and all national elections) but it has to be frustrating for Democrats to constantly feel like they have to "fool" the public and back off whenever they tip their hand too far.

Maybe that explains the tone of liberal blogs, like that NY Times story about the differences between conservative and liberal blogs; it's the only place they can vent and say what they really think without worrying about whether what they say will hurt them or not.

Dean: "It cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam"

It has been pointed out that the number of American soldiers lost in Vietnam was 58,000. But perhaps Howard did not misspeak. He may think that 25,000 brave American soldiers were lost, and the other 33,000 were not brave.

they want to placate their strenuously antiwar base while reassuring moderates who think that maybe it's a good idea to win wars our country begins.

This is the chink in the armor I've been yapping about since Dean took the Chairmanship of the DNC.

We can splinter the Democratic Party. I know we can.
But we have to do more than just give them the rope for which to hang themselves. Our congressman must continually force the Dems into either/or positions. In other words, it's time to call them out.

Bob M,

I noticed that mistake as well.

Maybe marines don't count as soldiers.

Ace,

Saying that Kerry and Bush have the same position on gay "marriage" is like saying they have the same Iraq policy because they both put their names to the Use of Force Resolution.

Yes, Kerry says he's opposed to it. But what he's really opposed to is taking the heat from voters. He wants judges to impose it on us so he can wring his hands and claim there is nothing he can do. It is political cowardice. Whereas Bush stood up and took the heat for a FMA.

Your larger point still stands, however. On the strategic level, the only real debate amongst Democrats is this: "Is it 'America is bad but Bush is worse' or 'Bush is bad but America is worse'?"

On the tactical level, the only qustion is "How can we best implement our true policies without being horse-whipped and run out of town on a rail by the voters?"--in short, "How can we fool them today?". This accounts for the cognitive dissonance & political schizophrenia you note.

"I say it is time for a positive polarization. It is time to rip away the rhetoric and to divide on authentic lines."~Spiro Agnew

While I was looking for the casualty totals for Viet Nam under Nixon's presidency, I came across a great piece by Nixon's SecDef, Melvin Laird.
Link

And this Link will show why Bush needs to make a "Silent Majority" speech to the American people. Plus, it has graphs comparing the casaulty rate under Nixon and Johnson.

(Why Dean used the figure of 25,000 is puzzling. Surely he knows that is not the total number.)

Dean is trying to pull an Arafat, saying one thing to his supporters and another to the general public. But he keeps forgetting to speak Arabic when addressing the former.

"Context"

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

I love seeing Juan Williams cry. What would happen if Juan Williams was the conductor for Paul Anka's band?

At least the four legged donkey has a backbone unlike the two leeged kind

It's really beyond me how Democrats can tolerate so much incoherence and contradiction in the messages and positions.

Democrats have become modern day sophists - taking positions that are only coherent or reasonable when taken without any context. They are, in other words, arguing for the sake of winning the argument.

What it comes down to is that there are no real historical or greater principles to which they move towards, except perhaps the applause that comes with a kiss-ass populism. But by that definition, they are subject to the worst sensibilities of an often angry and usually incoherent base.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Democrats don't adhere to any principles at all. It's just that, at least in toto, their principles are nihilistic: reject authority, reject structure, reject any conformity in which the conformity is life-affirming. It's post-modernism applied to politics - nothing has value in and of itself, and what value there is must be construed only after dissembling.

There are two problems that come from this. The first is that political parties, nations, and alliances are only valuable because all parties have, more or less, foregone their dissembled value in favor of the groups'. That's not collectivism, that's realpolitik. So by definition, Democrats cannot either see or add to the value that comes from an alliance, etc. The American strategy in Iraq at least seems unilateral, because, well, no single group would really benefit on the top line except the white-male American government. For shame, except that shame is really not condoned.

The larger problem is that achievable goals, real goals, that do not jibe with a crass materialistic analysis are simply beyond a Democrat world view. Freedom and liberty are abstracts that are only meaningful in the aggregate. If your lenses refuse to see value in the aggregate, then freedom and liberty remain words.

It's beyond understanding that Bush, or Christianity, The Patriot Act, or America could actually create an environment that respects and empowers individuals, because they are aggregate authoritarian structures. How, goes their line of reasoning, can a power structure abjure from exercising power? A simply materialistic analysis misses the abstracts, misses the bottom line. To the Democrats, it's all about the cost.

And so there are a lot of incoherent positions taken by Democrats. How do you feed a base which rejects the power structure in which you are attempting to operate. At some point, subversion begins to feed on its own tail.

Oscar Wilde said that the definition of a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Our problem is that one of our two political parties has painted itself into a cynical corner, and the paints going to take a long, long time to dry.

"Democrats have become modern day sophists - taking positions that are only coherent or reasonable when taken without any context. They are, in other words, arguing for the sake of winning the argument."

Thank you for that comparison, it is so correct. I'm definitely going to have to use it in the future.

The flaw in Melvin Laird's thesis (that I linked to earlier in this thread) is obvious. Laird believes the Iraqis can do what the South Vietnamese did: defend themselves with the increasing monitary and diplomatic support of the US while the US decreases the troop level. The flaw is that the lines were clearly delineated - North and South -- in Vietnam, whereas Iraq is infested with insurgents wearing no uniform.

Anyway, it's a good piece from an old codger who wants to reamin relevant in the political scene.

I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we'd gotten in there.

Yes, it is SUCH a shame they don't study military history at West Point (what do they teach there anyway?), but fortunately our universities across the country are brimming with experts on such crucially relevant topics as History of Mesopotamian Sexual Awareness, History of Inuit Basketweaving and Pre-Roman Pagan Studies to guide us through these difficult times - if only we are wise enough to LISTEN to them.