Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Why Democrats lose elections
[Read the article: Suddenly, the National Intelligence Estimate can be safely unveiled?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is he blind? Bush and the GOP have been REGAINING lately precisely because the President is (again) thumping his chest and painting himself as the tough on security boy. To go on some all out press conference opposing it is not only not going to work (the public by and large supports Bush's measures and the GOP has the majority) but is a surefire way to lose even MORE seats in the House and Senate since the areas that DO agree with Greenwald's positioning, are lefty-left areas already held by liberal Dems.
You've described perfectly the mentality the Democrats used in 2002 and 2004 - "don't challenge the President on foreign policy and terrorism measures because the GOP will use that to argue that Democrats are weak on terrorism." That strategy produced nothing other than the Iraq war and two straight national election losses. It's amazing that there are people who want the Democrats to do the sam thing again this year, hoping against hope that it will somehow produce a different result this time.
Democrats have been losing elections because people don't know what they stand for, and because they seem weak because they appear to be afraid to stand up to the President and take unpopular stances. People want leaders as their elected officials, and leaders stand up for what they believe in regardless of whether it's popular. Leaders don't follow public opinion; they shape it by resolutely articulating their position and persuading people of the right view.
As George Bush put it during his 2004 RNC Acceptance Speech: "In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. (Applause.)"
Do you think people would say the same thing for Congressional Democrats?
I'm not saying that Democrats should take a stand on these issues even it means that they will lose. I'm saying that Democrats lose because they don't take a stand on these controversial issues. People know that Democrats are just going along with these torture and eavesdropping measures because they're afraid to oppose them and because they don't have the courage of convictions. Do you really think voters find those attributes to be admirable?
-
Re: How many times are you going to rewrite your anti-Democrat screed, Greenwald?
[Read the article: The president's power to imprison people forever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many times are you going to rewrite your anti-Democrat screed, Greenwald?
As many times as I think the Democrats deserve to be criticized. I'm a citizen, not a DNC spokesman, and I think the Democrats ought to be criticized for sitting by and allowing the legalization of torture, indefinite detention and warrantless eavesdropping.
This is the War Room. I come here to find details of breaking stories. I don't come here to read convoluted analyses of the Democrats' political dilemna and their lack of courage.
I can get that shit from Cokie Roberts.
Actually, the Democrats are doing exactly what Cokie Roberts and most Beltway pundits think they should be doing -- refraining from challenging the President on national security issues based on the fear that Karl Rove will attack them as being weak. Cokie is almost certainly cheering the Democrats on for their passivity and meekness.
Despite the fact that Democrats have lost two straight national elections by following this "advice" -- "whatever you do, don't impede the President's war and terrorism policies no matter how extreme they might be" -- it seems that there are people who think the Democrats should try it a third time.
Personally, I don't find it any more commendable for Congressional Democrats to allow the President to seize extremely dangerous and un-American powers than I do for Congressional Republicans to allow that.