digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'

washingtonpost.com — The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25I totally wasn't convinced, but then when I saw the word "Defeatocrat" I was totally won over. Such skillful use of language is well worth my vote. Well played Republicans!

    /sarcasm
    • EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12"Defeatocrat" is pretty lame. But be careful with use of language. Republicans are "running scared," launching a "desperate assault"? This is using sensationalistic language to similar purposes: influencing your audience.

      Not as bad as making up a stupid word, but sensationalistic language is sensationalistic language.

      -Pie
  • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Do repubs learn how to debate from watching WWE?

    BTW wheres Jeff Gannon, the gay prostitute?
    • cathars1s, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Being gay is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice for some. It's a pity that for all the bigots on the right, there are still bigots on the left.
    • tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7cathars1s

      Yeah too true. I just dont get why the left is considered "gay friendly". I guess the same reason they are the party of the black man, yet actually actively TRY to keep blacks out of office. Janice Rogers Brown, Harold Ford Jr, and Carl McCall - three examples of black Democratic politicians that got the short end of the Democratic stick.
    • Smiff2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20cathars1s: it's not being gay that's the problem, it's the hypocrisy of running on an anti-gay agenda whilst closeting gays in your own party.
    • bobplank, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4@tgrossner

      "Yeah too true. I just dont get why the left is considered "gay friendly". I guess the same reason they are the party of the black man, yet actually actively TRY to keep blacks out of office. Janice Rogers Brown, Harold Ford Jr, and Carl McCall - three examples of black Democratic politicians that got the short end of the Democratic stick."

      From a gay perspective, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans hate gays to their face, while Democrats hate gays behind their backs. Both parties look at gays as something less than human.
  • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Now that is just weak.
  • SoullessDragon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8That is even lamer than Republican'ts
  • julianrz, on 10/12/2007, -33/+5I like the term. Very appropriately named. I did not know the Democrats had any position on the war except for not wanting it, regardless of consequences to Iraq or the US. That's a pure recipy for defeat
    • MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25misspelling "recipe" is a pure recipy for looking like an ignorant douche, too
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11They opposed the war, as well they should have since both the WMDs and the ties to Al Qaeda turned out to be Bush administration FUD. As far as consequences to Iraq and the US...let's see, estimates for Iraqi dead range anywhere from 60,000-600,000, and our own losses exceed those of 9/11, and for NOTHING. Yeah, go Reps.
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35Republi"can'ts"

    Can't fix social security
    Can't fix foreign oil dependence
    Can't fix the middle east

    Republi"cans"

    Can turn a profit
    Can lie to your face
    Can kill the innocent in the process

    Get out and vote.
    • DEEZED, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Social security? Show me the democrat's plan to fix it. They don't have one. All they did was complain about GWB's solution instead of bringing their own plan to the table. We all know that social security will not work in its current state, but when will we stop bringing partisan politics into everything.
    • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2I dont think you want to tell people to get out and vote, because a lot of htose people are simply going to vote for republicans, myself included.
    • wpjmurray, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Social security is one of the most successful government programs ever created. Republicans want you to believe that it's broken because they want you to believe that all government programs are wasteful and broken, and now that they control all three branches of government they're proving it. The problem with Social Security is that the funds are being stolen to pay for other programs and it's not being paid back.
  • marshallh, on 10/12/2007, -26/+7This isn't news. It's an opinion of a journalist. What is the deal with Digg lately?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I missed the part of the TOS that bans opinions.. strangly you have dugg nothings and have never commented anywhere but to complain here...and i have seen that same comment by other nicks here on digg

      '
    • marshallh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1My bad... you're right the TOS doesn't have anything on opinions.
      I stand corrected.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8The biggest complainers always seem to be those that have contributed the least.
    • marmaduke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Um, no actually that was written by John Murtha, one of the most senior congressmen at Washington. Read, just a little, and you won't seem so ignorant.
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8Because the Dems are so clean and respectful on their attacks on the Republicans. It works both ways, bub.
  • adb22791, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11John P. Murtha is a very interesting person. I find him to be very well spoken and he seems to be a generally smart person. However, I think his love of PORK bills and grabbing money for his district make him stray off course sometimes. This article has made me think much more highly of him than I did before, when I heard about all his involvement in PORK bills (some of which I have a feeling is overplayed by the GOP).
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The gop are fine lovers of pork... heck the bridge to nowhere guy had a hissy fit when they asked if he would give up those funds for katrina victums.
      Congress is addicted to pork, it doesnt matter the party.
    • byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pork = elections.

      How else can you get elected if you can't win money for your district?? Democrats run on the idea that taxes are used for the good of all so a good democrat would lobby for use of taxes to do better for his district.

      What i find Ironic is that Republicans do the same, yet label the Dems as "tax and spend".

      So it isn't Pork projects that = bad, its spinnning for the sake of appearing good that is bad. The concept of taxation & representation is what americas has stood on for years.

      The concept of labels is what the Republican party has its base upon.
  • pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4are we back in middle school? i guess in our sound-bite oriented media, name calling makes you popular. can't wait for the congressional version of garbage pale kids.
    • Toon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I agree. The Republicooties are poopfaces and the Democraps are stupidheads.
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6I just prefer the word, "cowards."
    • enki25, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Yeah I bet that saves you from having to come up with a defense for how Republicans have so miserably failed to protect our country. Just scream names and point, good thinking.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11better than suicidal.
      and since you obviously arent a coward, can I encourage you to enlist?
      I dont think it is cowardly to leave a fight we should never been in
      i dont think it is cowardly to get our troops out of the middle of a civil war
      But obviously you do, so put your money where your mouth is and enlist.
    • sizzzzlerz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I hope your posting in between patrols outside of Baghdad or Fajulla. Otherwise, you're another one of the yellow elephant chickenhawks who talk real big about who is a coward but retreat into mama's basement at the first sign of a recruiter.
  • paulwoll, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7John Murtha is full of crap. Total poser. How does this garbage warrant digg attention?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8wow your argument is so inciteful and persuasive, you really should get a job as a GOP pundit,as you totally tore this guys argument apart [sarcasm]
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"How does this garbage warrant digg attention?"

      Ahem: Once a story is submitted by a user it is instantly posted in the Upcoming stories section. This is a temporary holding place where stories wait to be promoted to the homepage. To help promote stories to the homepage, simply visit the Upcoming stories section and digg stories you think are cool. Once a story has received enough diggs, it is instantly promoted. Should the story not receive enough diggs, surpass 24 hours, or is reported, it eventually falls out of the Upcoming stories section. Digg works because a large group of people actively digg (promote) good stories and report (remove bad stories). Since digg's content is user-driven, it is up to YOU to contribute.
  • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@ cathars1s

    Of course being gay is a legitmate lifestyle...I just wanna know why a gay prostitute was visiting the White House after hours and who he was seeing?

    Perfectly legitimate, dont you think?
    • tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@ClosedCaption-
      No, not by the "standards" of the left, its not a legitimate question. "Its just about sex", remember? Unless we are talking about 16 year olds, evidently.
    • Smiff2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7even when the gay prostitute has been given white house press credentials, softball questions to ask the president, and a false name to do it all under? still no story there? bwahaha.
    • tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Smiff -

      I didn't say it shouldn't be investigated. What I said was that by the standards that the left supposedly adheres to, this question should be "why was this person whose sex life and extracurricular habits are none of our business at the White House". If you go by the left's public positions to things such as this, then this whole Gannon thing would be a non-issue. But because the current President does not have a (D) after his name, its a scandal. Its another case of Democrat "do as I say, not as I do".
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Oh no! The Republicons have control of Congress. Defeatocrats, transform and roll out!
  • BarryG, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The truth hurts.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I imagine any significant thought hurts your head. But what truth do you refer to? That GOP/Bush got us into an unwinnable war and wants to blame the party out of power instead of owning his mistakes like a real leader?
  • DEEZED, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Here is an actual news article from the Associated Press on this opinion piece:
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MURTHA_IRAQ
  • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Murtha was obviously supposed to go whining home, after the nasty big Rethuglicans called him a bad name.

    As for Murtha being full of it, more and more it's getting to be the best of many bad choices. If you think "victory" is possible, I got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in too. In fact, the top British general just said the same. Over half a million Iraqis have died, we've wasted $350,000,000,000 and counting and almost 3,000 American lives, and all we've managed is for there to be more torture now than when Saddam was there. We shouldn't have gone in; but having gone in, we had maybe the first six months to have a chance of a decent ending. Now, more than 70% of the Iraqis want us to get the hell out of their country. Great job, Bushie!
    • paulwoll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Actually the same poll that you use to say 70% want us to leave says that
      60% say they would agree with President Bush’s statement that removing U.S. troops from Iraq now would be ‘a recipe for disaster.’"
  • Demagogue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I hate the 2 party system, it blows.
    • Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Then vote for a third party candidate. The reason the United States has a two party system is because voters believe that only these parties can win. If anything is defeatist, this attitude is.
  • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Are you people ***** delusional?

    running scared my ass.


    prediction: the House and senate will still be owned by the Republicans after midterm
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You must be tweeking right now.

      Wow. You're just delusional.
  • visvivalaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Defeatists, they call us."

    This is part of the problem with digg -- the assumption that everyone on here will consider themselves one of "us". It's a decision digg needs to make. Stay small and isolated or welcome the various opinions of mainstrem America. Most people in this country wouldn't consider themselves one of the "us" this article is talking about.
    • Smiff2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"us" refers to democrats, not digg users - it's the first paragraph of the article by a democrat.
      FYI, most americans are now against the war.. for example.
      Digg is probably more left wing still than America.. but i'd also like to ban copying the first paragraph of an article as a summary. It caught me out earlier also.
  • paulwoll, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6John Murthas history of retreat (Somalia) and how it emboldened Bin Laden:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5012

    Take a look at Osama Bin Laden's perceptions of Mr. Murthas and Americas resolve.

    Spineless weak americans with no resolve (Defeatocrats seem appropriate now that you think about it)

    Leaders need to make the best decisions for the country and not be swayed by public opinion which is so fickle and easily swayed and deluded by the media in genera.
    • tgrossner, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4paulwoll-

      Excellant point. I couldnt have said it better myself.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7yeah, we should keep fighting until Osama admits how tough we are. /sarcasm
    • gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4hey, you're not allowed to invoke historical reference on digg. I mean, that's why people like CloseCaption only respond to you with sarcasm...they don't counter-argue with fact because it's just not allowed.

      Showing a history of Murtha supporting withdrawal of troops regardless of the consequences is way out of line man. Citing OBL's reaction to the withdrawal is just BS.

      You'd better learn to submit to the rule of liberal thinking...and fast...
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ gitness

      You dont understand...hes basing our war strategy on the words of a terrorist, Osama isnt some ray of truth, hes a terrorist. Look at other things hes said, are we to attempt to prove him wrong at his every call. Osama also said we're the "Great Satan" so we must...be a...God or something?

      Who makes the rules here anyway? Osama had nothing to do with Iraq, Lets run all of our ***** straight thru Afganistan and get it done, instead of pussyfooting around Iraq waiting for a soldier to get blown up or shot and then fight ppl hiding.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nice point, except it was the GOP that kicked and screamed at Clinton to get us out. So, nice try, but you're 180 degrees off.
    • funhouse1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bin Laden actions, for all intents and purposes, serve his oil buddies' agendas on both sides of the aisle. Follow the money. He's a paper tiger.
      More people die from lung cancer than do of terrorism each year. His actions have driven up the price of oil and have served as false rational for occupying Iraq in order to control the flow of oil. The Bin Ladens and the Saudis, the Bushes, Big Oil they are all in bed together. Outwardly Bush and Bin Laden look different but their actions lead to the same end = more money for those who control oil and thus control the current government. When was Bin Laden fired from the CIA?

      OSAMAGATE - http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html

  • JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5The Democrats are very vocal on the invincibility of the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They can dress the pig up all they want, but cut and run is cut and run.

    "Defeatocrats" stings because it is so true.
    • JimNtexas, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5F**king Murtha voted for the war, and then immediately changed sides when he saw a poll. He's a backstabber.
    • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Democrats are very vocal on the invincibility of the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They can dress the pig up all they want, but cut and run is cut and run.

      "Defeatocrats" stings because it is so true.
      ---JimNtexas



      YOU are now in the minority in this nation wanting to stay in the occupation that is not helping our war on terror Jimmy...
      You can "dress up the pig" on FAILURE all you want, but an occupation, is an occupation. Occupation is the problem. Simple. You can blame everyone else, including the "libruls", but reality stares squarely at you.
    • bobzibub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Let me put it this way Jim in Texas: Your country is loosing both wars (or one war if you want to call it that). The government in Iraq is simply mayor of Bagdad which is looking to be an Afghanistan all over again. Or worse, a Lebanon. They are fighting a war of ideas and you are fighting a war of bullets. They have fundamentalist Islam and the brilliant strategy that your party has come up with is the "freedom" for bigger boats for defense contractors and oil moguls. This while world public opinion is turning against the US and not even the closest allies' population have any interest in continuing the war your way. It doesn't even sell in the US.

      It reminds me of the rise of communism. Then the poor falsely believed that communism would raise them up and the rich kept them down. Now much of the poor believes falsely that Islamic law will raise them up while the rich Americans keep them down. If you remember what happened in Russia and China, you do not want to go there.

      It doesn't matter what Republicans call Democrats or Democrats call Republicans. It does matter that the US comes up with a better way of dealing with the plight of the poor in the world that is quick, believable, practical, sell-able and most of all: beneficial. If it doesn't, it'll be game over for them and us because western society has proven to be much more fragile it ought to have been. While western countries struggle to find out who takes a city bus, they will never have a magic system for finding out intent of those people. And while deterrence is the basis for our system of laws, one cannot deter a suicidal bomber.

      Since 9/11 we have found that their techniques are adeptly suited to what one might think of as our weaknesses. What Iraq (and Hezbollah in Lebanon) has shown is that our techniques are adeptly suited to their strengths: With every bomb and bullet that meets it's target, there are many more willing to take up the cause.

      So if you think you want to win this war, you'd better do a lot better than playing word games. Or just keep sending 20 somethings off to die.
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6F**king Murtha voted for the war, and then immediately changed sides when he saw a poll. He's a backstabber.
    JimNtexas


    At least he had the balls to realize occupation is NOT helping our cause in the war on terror. The Majority of the world sees it, the Majority of Iraqi's want us out, and the Majority of America agrees. You ever learn the basics of what a Leader is made of Jimmy? Stubbornness and the inability to CHANGE in the face of situational awaaaaaareness is in plenty of books.
    I suggest you pick a few up.

    How's that "stay the course" working out for our party there Jim?



  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4next up, republicans call democrats "child molestors" and "rapists"...
    • tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Faux News already tried pulling off claiming Foley was a democrat
  • DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This follows a very old strategy. When you can't win on the issues start name calling and demonizing your opponent. Lies told often enough become truth (to paraphrase Herr Goebbels).
  • jakdracula, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I'll be looking forward to yet another Republican victory in November.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That's because you're standing with your back to the future.
    • vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I find your comment so amazing that I have to ask. How exactly will a Republican victory benefit you? I honestly can't think of a single thing that the Repubicans have done or promise to do that would benefit me or most the people in this country. On the other hand, I can point to a dozen or more direct actions (or inactions) that have harmed me personally or the country as a whole.

      This is a serious question, so if you can muster a serious answer I would appreciate it.
  • tinker123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7They can say what they want.

    They have had complete control of the country for 6 years. What do they have to show for it?
  • dstrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0From Neal Boortz's site:

    Murtha takes issue with being called a "Defeatocrat." OK...fine. Let's look at the word...which, for those of you who went to government schools, is a combination of defeat and Democrat.

    The fact is that since oh..about 2003, Leftist Democrats like Murtha have been betting and hoping for America's defeat in Iraq. Their hatred of George Bush after the 2000 election is so intense that they will sacrifice the safety of this country and give outright comfort to the Islamic fascist enemy if it means they can discredit George Bush in the process. Not only have they been steadily predicting failure, they've been hoping for it. They are betting their election dreams this fall on it. They see no path to victory for the United States in Iraq, nor do they want one. They're Defeatocrats. Catchy name that fits.

    Murtha also complained about people calling the Democratic Party the "cut and run" party. For years now...going back to the 2004 presidential election, Democrat after Democrat has proposed cutting and running. Well ... they don't exactly call it cutting and running, they've come up with a fancy word that covers the true meaning. The Defeatocrats call it "redeployment." They have never once proposed a workable solution to the Iraq mess. All they've offered is surrender. Nothing would please the Islamic terrorists running the insurgency more than a total surrender. This is what Murtha and a lot of the Democrats want.

    So he can whine all he wants.....but people are calling him names because they fit. And as the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it.

    http://boortz.com/nuze/200610/10162006.html#murtha
  • successrealm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ dstrube



    Ok clown, how about YOU prove to us all today, WHERE anyone here, or Murtha himself, has stated they are " betting and hoping for America's defeat in Iraq".
    Well? Let's hear more than just some lameass talking point from your sheep ass, let's see you show proof of such idiocy.

    Secondly, The CIA, the men on the ground and everyone else agrees, that the occupation is the problem here, and we are not going to 'win' by following this failed "stratergy" that is implemented under the banner of "freedom". The Majority of the World disagrees with you, the Majority of Iraqi's disagree with you, and the Majority of America disagrees with you. You apparently have NO clue as to what makes a leader a leader. Blaming everyone else for one's reluctance to change a failed pattern is not the sign of a leader, it is a sufficient sign of an idiot. Apparently, it's much easier for you to dismiss Bush's past as a failure, see his failures again, and follow along with "Boortz" than it is to face reality it seems.

    Third, you have LIED by stating, "They have never once proposed a workable solution to the Iraq mess. All they've offered is surrender." Pure ***** on your part, and it completely shows you have not been paying attention and is apparent as hell that you have done nothing more than scratch your nuts on the couch while getting your "truth" from Fox Television. Even James Baker himself has talked about this, as have Generals on the ground stating we CANNOT win this "militarily". The democrats have talked about how occupation is the problem, as has the CIA, as has the men on the ground, as has the NIE, as has the.... You seem to be the only plant life left on planet earth not recognizing this and still "blaming the libruls". You've been asleep huh?

    Fourth, if you will recall 29 percenter, your ridiculous "coward/cut and run" talking point DIFFERS from reality when the fact remains that it was a DEMOCRAT admin in World War I, World War II, the Korean War......Furthermore, take a quick cursory look at those that have served in Congress who are republican compared to democrat. You don't have a clue here either do you? Grow up.

    and finally....It's a ***** shame that I spent eight years of my life in the US Military upholding YOUR "freedom" to be such a damned useless sheep trying to be an AMERICAN. Wake the hell up....
  • modiggs1976, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny they say defeatocrats because after hearing this I have officially given up hope for rational political discourse in this country.
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0loneranger85: I just prefer the word, "cowards."

    If Democrats are cowards then tell me why my son is in Iraq risking his life because our insane president wanted us to invade that country and YOU are sitting at the computer running your face. GET ON A PLANE. GO FIGHT. WHO IS STOPPING YOU? Go be a freedom warrior for your god Bush.
    If the people who supported war had to fight it there would be no more wars. The true cowards are the old men who start wars and expect others to die for them.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.