The Colossus on the Democrats’ “New Direction”

June 17, 2006

The Colossus comments on the Democratic plan for victory in 2006:

In other words, there is no unity in the Democratic party about how to proceed in Iraq, or on the global war on terror. They want to broom the whole issue because it’s inconvenient for them to talk about.

Good point.

UPDATE: Commenter Cyril points out that the "New Direction" plan that the Colossus is discussing seems to be a purely domestic document, and argues persuasively (to me at least) that this plan should be seen as a companion to the Democrats’ "Real Security" plan, released earlier this year, which states in part:

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Now, while I fail to see how this provides anything better than the current Bush plan, it certainly does address the issue that I thought was missing from the "New Direction" plan, and thus voids my original point. Thanks to Cyril for alerting me to this information.


4 Responses to “The Colossus on the Democrats’ “New Direction””

  1. Yeah, I suppose it’s better to simply “stay the course,” despite the fact that it is getting us nowhere. Unity is great and all, but if everybody is unified in the wrong direction then how is that helping anybody? Good point.

  2. Jake Savage Says:


    Thanks for the comment, but I think you’re missing the point. The problem that the Colossus has identified is that the Democratic plan for America simply avoids the biggest issues facing our country right now to focus on narrow areas of policy agreement. It’s fine that there is disagreement within the party as to the best plan in Iraq, but it isn’t a good sign for Democrats who want to convince the country that the Democratic vision for America is the better one.

    Regarding the rest of your comment, I would deny your premise. Staying the course is not “getting us nowhere.” Real progress is being made in many areas and the insurgents are losing the war on the ground. Their only hope is to outlast our will to fight, since they cannot defeat us militarily. Since I don’t agree that we’re headed in the wrong direction, I don’t think that continuing in that direction would be bad. I do think that some changes in our Iraq policy would be beneficial, but I don’t believe that the Democratic Party has any better ideas or would handle the situation with more success.

    Thanks for commenting. On a side note, I enjoy your website; keep up the good work.


  3. Hey Jake.
    There’s a reason that the New Direction plan didn’t have anything to do with Iraq … it’s because it was a domestic-only plan. When you put it the way you do (“The problem that the Colossus has identified is the Democratic plan for America simply avoids the biggest issues facing our country right now to focus on narrow areas of policy agreement”) it sounds terrible … but you are forgetting to mentionn that the New Direction plan was 100% domestic, it was never supposed to be about Iraq or any other foreign situations.

    This New Direction plan follows a proposed national security strategy released earlier in the year that did address “the single biggest issues facing our country right now.” When you completely ignore that fact you miss the point. I would be more than willing to send you the PDF version of the “Real Security: The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World.” This was released March 29, 2006.

    If you ignore this plan (as you and The Colossus did) then it’s easy to snipe the Democrats … but it’s also only telling part of the story. I’m not saying you need to agree with it, but it’s a cheap shot to beat up the Dems because their DOMESTIC plan doesn’t focus on Iraq. That’s the type of thing Fox News would do.

  4. Jake Savage Says:


    Thanks for drawing my attention to the “Real Security” plan. I was unaware of it and now that I see it believe that my original post was in the wrong. I had not realized that the “New Direction” plan was meant to be entirely domestic. Of course, the “Real Security” plan isn’t much by itself (the Iraq part seems to be very similar to what the Bush administration is pursuing, only with more finger-pointing). However, it does speak to the Iraq and national security issues directly, which is what I thought was missing from the “New Direction” plan. Now that I see the two together, I believe my original comment was out of place.

    Thanks for being so dogged in pointing this out and keeping me honest.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s