DEMOCRATS BECOMING THE NATIONAL SECURITY PARTY AGAIN AS MORE PEOPLE SEE BUSH REGIME AS INCOMPETENT AND UNABLE TO FULFILL EVEN BASIC DUTIES

Yesterday I mentioned how surprised I was-- pleasantly so-- that even a relatively reactionary red-state Democratic freshman like Heath Shuler had hewn to the Iraq War positions worked out by Nancy Pelosi and her team. The New York Times was just as surprised and, they say, so were the Democrats. Oh, not about Shuler specifically, but about the whole Big Tent.

Their aggressiveness and unity on a major foreign-policy challenge to the president is a striking change for a party that has, on many occasions over many years, seemed to be on the defensive on national security issues.

In fact, for much of the post-Vietnam era, the Republican advantage on those issues has been a defining feature of American politics. Many Democrats felt they needed to prove, again and again, that their party was tough enough to defend the nation’s interests-- to fight the notion, often stoked by Republicans, that Democrats were the party of George McGovern and the nuclear freeze.

Democrats feel newly emboldened not because they are unconcerned about security issues but for the opposite reason. America is facing grave threats and Bush and his greed-obsessed rubber stamp Congress have failed miserably. The Bush Regime's utter incompetence-- from allowing our country to be attacked on 9/11 to the failed response in Afghanistan (beyond a great first month) to an unprovoked and catastrophic war and occupation in Iraq-- is the worst thing that has happened to our nation since the Civil War.

Democrats of all stripes are cognizant that the American public has lost faith in Bush and his cronies and his agendas. They understand that the time to step up to the plate is now, for the good of the country.

Former Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, who played a key role in military policy during his years in Congress, said the intellectual challenge facing the Democrats was immense, but so were the potential payoffs.

"What challenges the Democrats now is fashioning-- not just muscular, not just more-- but a more sophisticated approach to security," he said, "and that requires you to comprehend the security needs of the 21st century. That’s the prize to be won, because the Republicans are in huge disarray now."

Democratic Congressional leaders say they are moving in the direction of an alternative foreign policy vision. They added money in the new legislation, for example, for the conflict in Afghanistan. And policy groups in various wings of the party are working on their own proposals.

Ultimately, though, the party’s foreign policy will be defined on the presidential campaign trail, by the candidates and eventually the nominee.

Of course, the Regime, even in it's last spasms, isn't without weapons-- and Bush is bellowing with rage and vowing to veto everything, even to the point of cutting off his own nose to spite his face. "Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely. That’s not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible." He may be in for a very unpleasant surprise when he sees who the people blame. He certainly lost our collective trust long ago. Even the Mormons don't believe anything he says anymore.


As for unity in the Democratic Party, it is fairly powerful, but, obviously not perfect. Ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman, now a spokesperson for the Bush Regime is furiously pushing the Rove talking points and is sounding as delusional as his senile friend McCain. While McCain is misleading Americans about strolling down peaceful Baghdad neighborhoods, Lieberman was writing an OpEd for USAToday claiming everything's coming up roses and invoking-- as Bush and all his minions do incessantly-- General Patraeus as they he were the holy grail.

I hope regular DWT readers will recall last fall when I said that the Democratic Party would be far better off if they took the Senate without a treacherous reactionary like Harold Ford winning a senate seat in Tennessee. One Lieberman is bad enough! Not only did the Democrats win the Senate and not only did the execrable Ford lose his race for the open seat but-- best of all-- Ford's safe blue district went from being represented by an egomaniacal reactionary to having a genuinely progressive Democrat who's on the side of the people on every single issue, in other words, the opposite of Ford.

Why bring Ford up now. Isn't he a Merrill Lynch and DLC shill and out of people's hair finally? Well, he's definitely shilling for Merrill Lynch and the DLC but he's hardly out of everyone's hair. He still fancies himself a force. And he's still carrying water for the forces of reaction and doing all he can to sew Democratic Party disunity and confusion. This morning Washington's far right Moonie Times gets to portray the Democrats as being in disarray because the ex-congressman and bigtime loser decides he needs to shoot his mouth off about how he disagrees with the party on Iraq.

Echoing Karl Rove's GOP talking points, Ford sounds like he's applying for a job with the dying Regime looking to give itself a "bipartisan" face. "I think most Americans want to win, they don't want to see us leave early, and if we leave prematurely, we may create a broader set of conflicts and invite a bigger problem in that region than before leaving."