Looks like somebody missed the point

Our relatively esteemed Sith blogroller at Wick o' the Bailey, that is.

"Barnum's Baileywick" popped off a lengthy reply ("In Self-Defense") to my post titled "Jedi vs Sith on Lamont/Lieberman fallout." (a problem--hopefully temporary--with the August archive forced me to borrow the URL for my article from Wick o' the Bailey)

In that post, my primary point was that the Democratic Party on the whole, being steered by its pacifist left wing as illustrated by Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman, has the problem of not taking the war against Islamofascism seriously.

I was specific in my post about the reasoning I use in support of that proposition, that being the lack of a Democratic alternative to Bush's foreign policy. An alternative that arguably has a chance to produce victory, I should say. Redeploying to Okinawa, ready to help in Iraq in an emergency at a moment's notice--a part of the Murtha plan--is certainly an alternative. It's just not a serious alternative, since returing to the Middle Eastern theater from Okinawa would be difficult and time-consuming (neglecting the resistance of Okinawans to US military presence).

BB, in supposedly defending himself, only supported the premise of my argument. BB didn't suggest a strategy for winning the war on Islamic fascism. Instead, he defended the Democrats/liberals (should I just go along with the label "progressive"? It describes their tax policy accurately enough ...) from a phantom charge, that all Democrats are weak on the war.

I never failed to count Lieberman as a Democrat. I still count abortion-rights proponents like Rudy Giuliani as Republicans, also. The point is that the party on the whole has increasingly adopted a weak stance on the war, steered in that direction by pacifistic liberal blogs. Ned Lamont's win is a symptom of that movement. Other Democrats whom BB mentioned in support of a strong response to the war are finding their support from the left slipping, and if they value their political future within the Democratic Party they may have to weaken their stance against the spread of Islamic fascism still more.

By responding to the charge without a proposal for winning that war, BB effectively pleads guilty to the charge, given the rationale that I used in support.

I'd be delighted if he would change his plea, of course.
And I'd still allow that he's a progressive, liberal, Democrat, or whatever label he prefers. But one thing that he won't be, if he has a workable plan to beat Islamofascism, is part of the mainstream of the new Democratic Party.

***

Little nitpicks from BB's post
I did not misspell "boogeyman," so BB need not editorially place "(sic)" after it. There are a number of acceptable spellings of that term, including the one I used.

BB's strong-on-the-war Democrats:

Hillary Rodham Clinton

On the war, Clinton's recent "I disagree with those who believe we should pull out, and I disagree with those who say we should stay without end" seems little different from Kerry's famous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line. The last thing we need is another Democrat afraid to stand on principle.
(Markos Moulitsas in the Washington Post)

Jane Harman

When confronted with a primary challenge from the left of her party, Rep. Harman understood that she had lost touch with an important component of her base. And she understood that she needed to find out why, needed to begin a conversation with those party activists and with the netroots community. Not only did she post diaries, she stuck around to comment. Not all of us agreed with her responses, and were adamant in telling her so. But we had an honest exchange of views and, amazingly, she began to take a harder line against the Bush administration. She came back to being a Democrat.
(mcjoan at the Daily Kos)

Joe Lieberman
Lost primary battle to Ned Lamont. Enough said?

Diane Feinstein

"We have to say it's time for your soldiers and police forces to take over," she said.

Feinstein's proposal follows those made by several Democrats in the House and Senate, led by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who have called for a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq.
(San Francisco Chronicle)

I'm not sure what Feinstein's doing on this list, other than for voting for Bush's war powers (along with the majority of Democrats; Senate Dems favored the measure 29-21).
Take a look at the record Feinstein touts at her official website. She lists ten categories of legislative endeavor, and only one fails to hotlink to a description of her role in advocacy. Which one? "Terrorism, Intelligence, and Homeland Security."

I feel safer already.

BB mentions "others" ... hopefully he didn't use his best examples already.