<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lamont Wins: Political Strategy Implications</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2006/08/09/lamont-wins-political-strategy-implications/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/09/lamont-wins-political-strategy-implications/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:59:03 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Evan</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/09/lamont-wins-political-strategy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-60917</link>
		<dc:creator>Evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=2506#comment-60917</guid>
		<description>Republicans like to say that the Democrats don&#039;t have a strategy because it implies that the Republicans do have one. The Republicans pretty much have fear mongering and xenophobia but has anybody heard a of their plan? It&#039;s non existant. They do have constantly shifting goals: WMD&#039;s, regime change, democracy; all those things have been &quot;accomplished&quot;. The Republicans (and some Democrats) are certainly right about one thing: if the US military pulls out too soon, all those &quot;accomplishments&quot; will vaporize.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Republicans like to say that the Democrats don&#8217;t have a strategy because it implies that the Republicans do have one. The Republicans pretty much have fear mongering and xenophobia but has anybody heard a of their plan? It&#8217;s non existant. They do have constantly shifting goals: WMD&#8217;s, regime change, democracy; all those things have been &#8220;accomplished&#8221;. The Republicans (and some Democrats) are certainly right about one thing: if the US military pulls out too soon, all those &#8220;accomplishments&#8221; will vaporize.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lewis</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/09/lamont-wins-political-strategy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-59751</link>
		<dc:creator>Lewis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=2506#comment-59751</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m hoping this situation has the positive result of sparking a healthy debate about how we are going to deal with not only Iraq, but with the dysfunctional Arab/Islamic society as a whole.  Lets face it, any religious-based society that glorifies hate, death and outright murder, brainwashes young kids that this kind of attitude and behavior is acceptable, riots over harmless cartoons, thinks beheading and mutalation of bodies is a wonderful thing, threatens to wipe the Jews and their nation off the face of the earth, offers brutal punishment for heresery against their religion, keeps their women as second class citizens (denies education and voting rights), forces their woman to walk around covered head-to-toe, finds honor killing of women acceptable, and sits on top of the mother load of oil but have a large part of their population uneducated and destitute, that is a truly dysfunctional society.

This is such a total opposite to the ideals of the democratic party, not to mention the rest of the civilized world.  OK, how do we deal with that?  I&#039;m anxiously awaiting a realistic and sensible plan from any political party.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m hoping this situation has the positive result of sparking a healthy debate about how we are going to deal with not only Iraq, but with the dysfunctional Arab/Islamic society as a whole.  Lets face it, any religious-based society that glorifies hate, death and outright murder, brainwashes young kids that this kind of attitude and behavior is acceptable, riots over harmless cartoons, thinks beheading and mutalation of bodies is a wonderful thing, threatens to wipe the Jews and their nation off the face of the earth, offers brutal punishment for heresery against their religion, keeps their women as second class citizens (denies education and voting rights), forces their woman to walk around covered head-to-toe, finds honor killing of women acceptable, and sits on top of the mother load of oil but have a large part of their population uneducated and destitute, that is a truly dysfunctional society.</p>
<p>This is such a total opposite to the ideals of the democratic party, not to mention the rest of the civilized world.  OK, how do we deal with that?  I&#8217;m anxiously awaiting a realistic and sensible plan from any political party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Aqui</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/08/09/lamont-wins-political-strategy-implications/comment-page-1/#comment-59717</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Aqui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=2506#comment-59717</guid>
		<description>I think any attempt to portray Lamont as representing the Democratic Party should fail on the logic, just as any attempt to portray, say, Lynn Westmoreland as representing Republicans should fail. He is one candidate. That&#039;s all.

The problem with Democrats on Iraq -- a problem that Republicans are increasingly encountering themselves -- is that they are of divided opinions about the proper course in Iraq. So you&#039;re probably not going to see some official, unified Democratic position on the war. Most Democrats -- indeed, most Americans -- agree that the war was a mistake. But there&#039;s no consensus on what to do about it now that we&#039;re there.

That doesn&#039;t mean that Democrats don&#039;t have opinions, or ideas, or plans. It&#039;s just that they have different opinions, different ideas, different plans.

To me that&#039;s the best possible Democratic response. &quot;Stop looking for a party-level dictate; look at each individual candidate&#039;s position.&quot; It lets them continue to blast the GOP for getting us into this mess, and individual candidates won&#039;t have to contend with the baggage of a party-line position.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think any attempt to portray Lamont as representing the Democratic Party should fail on the logic, just as any attempt to portray, say, Lynn Westmoreland as representing Republicans should fail. He is one candidate. That&#8217;s all.</p>
<p>The problem with Democrats on Iraq &#8212; a problem that Republicans are increasingly encountering themselves &#8212; is that they are of divided opinions about the proper course in Iraq. So you&#8217;re probably not going to see some official, unified Democratic position on the war. Most Democrats &#8212; indeed, most Americans &#8212; agree that the war was a mistake. But there&#8217;s no consensus on what to do about it now that we&#8217;re there.</p>
<p>That doesn&#8217;t mean that Democrats don&#8217;t have opinions, or ideas, or plans. It&#8217;s just that they have different opinions, different ideas, different plans.</p>
<p>To me that&#8217;s the best possible Democratic response. &#8220;Stop looking for a party-level dictate; look at each individual candidate&#8217;s position.&#8221; It lets them continue to blast the GOP for getting us into this mess, and individual candidates won&#8217;t have to contend with the baggage of a party-line position.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
