Posted on 06/25/2005 6:33:07 AM PDT by Pokey78
DEMOCRATS DON'T HAVE A DEATH wish. It just seems that way. What they actually have is a habit of falling into the national security trap. They did it in 1972. They did it in 1984. They did it in 1994. They did it in 2002. And they're doing it again this year as they prepare for the 2006 midterm elections, in which they hope to produce a breakthrough as sweeping and decisive as Republicans achieved in 1994.
The national security trap is simple. When faced with a choice between supporting or criticizing the use of military force along with a strong national security policy, Democrats often side with the critics. Which is how they fall into the trap, which leads to electoral defeat. When they back a vigorous defense of America's national security, however, the opposite happens. They usually win. Even when Democrats merely neutralize the national security issue--this happened in 1996 and 1998--or the issue is peripheral, they stand a good chance of winning.
At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support,
Kennedy lost that exchange. And Democrats did no better on a related issue, the treatment of terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for likening the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to that of the Soviet gulag, Hitler's death camps, and the Cambodian killing fields. What was striking was the matter-of-fact manner in which Durbin drew the parallel in the first place. He seemed to be oblivious to the possibility he might be seen as worrying more about the detainees than about America's national security.
Democrats haven't learned the lesson on national security from elections over the past 30-plus years. In 1972, Democrats thought the public had turned strongly against the war in Vietnam. So they nominated a fervent antiwar candidate, George McGovern. He lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. Granted, McGovern's stance on national security wasn't the only factor in his loss, but it played a part. In 1980, Ronald Reagan ousted Jimmy Carter at least partly because he took a tougher position toward the Soviet Union and Iran. Four years later, Democratic candidates spent the primaries arguing over who had endorsed the nuclear freeze first. Reagan won reelection easily.
In 1988, the elder George Bush won after Democrat Michael Dukakis undermined his own credibility as a potential commander in chief by riding in a tank wearing silly-looking headgear. But in 1992, things were different. Bill Clinton and Al Gore avoided the national security trap. Clinton was hawkish toward China (later he mellowed) and Gore had voted for the Gulf war as a senator in 1991. They won. In 1994, after Clinton had responded weakly in Somalia and Haiti, Republicans captured the Senate and the House. Clinton responded strongly in Bosnia in 1995 and won reelection in 1996 and Democrats picked up a few House seats in 1998. In 2000, national security was a secondary issue and Al Gore won the popular vote and Democrats gained 5 Senate seats. In 2002, Democrats voted 11 times against the creation of a Homeland Security Department, insisting the wishes of federal employee unions be accommodated first. They were pilloried by Republicans, who gained congressional seats. Finally, in 2004, Democrats concluded a majority of voters were anti-Iraq. John Kerry acted accordingly, voting against funds to continue the war. And Democrats spent much of the year attacking Bush also over the conduct of the war on terror. They fell in the trap. Bush was reelected in large part because voters trusted him more than Kerry to keep the country secure.
Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.
The Democrat Party in general is run by a bunch of Liberals who are against anything and are for nothing but obstruction.
They are evil and foam at the mouth like rabid dogs.
Howard Dean is the ideal leader for them because regardless of what their leaders say they espouse his views.The party in general is ruled by a group of people that are no different than Southern Plantation owners and their leadership style shows it. They are truly a National disgrace in my opinion.
That's strange. I heard Ted Kennedy's comments repeated over and over on the radio news, but not General Casey's. I wonder why?
I wish this were true - but it isn't. We're fighting a very, very dangerous enemy with a clear (flawed) vision and much popular support throughout the Muslim and Arab world. It will be a long, hard fight. Bin Ladin thinks we cannot fight this way and are sure to lose.
The minority of people who hate their country need to have a political party to join. It might as well be the stupid RATS.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Its worse. The media showed clips and told the story of how the generals were saying no progress has been made against the insurgency!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
SSSSSSHHHHHHH, Fred. Don't give them any advice . . . please. Let them continue their harangues against our military. Stand back and watch them destroy themselves.
Rush Limbaugh, I think it was, talked about "water cooler news", which is what happens the day after news reports on MSM. People talk about news at the office. Before widespread alternative media the only source of information was MSM, and that, of course, meant that liberals in media controlled the gate, so to speak. The few alternatives were easily ridiculed or falsely discredited by MSM talking heads.
Now, a whole new "army" of persons informed by alternative media stand at the cooler with their old-fashioned MSM colleagues. Water cooler news now has other viewpoints, and when facts countering MSM bias are discussed, doubt about MSM reliability begin. MSM influence was and is on the downward spiral, and its refusal to change adds to its ruinous inertia.
"The Public" is less informed that those who frequent the blogosphere and sites like Free Republic, that's true. But it is not as propagandized as it used to be. And while support for the Iraqi war has dwindled, support for the national defense has not.
The challenge for the President is to clearly demonstrate the connection between Iraq and radical Islamism, and how a democracy in that region will dissipate Islamist power throughout the world. That is the truth about the Iraq war. Islamists crashed into the World Trade Center on 9-11 starting this war. It is radical Islamism that we seek to defeat, not a nation or a people, and Iraq is the front in that war.
The people of Iraq are committed to liberty; in Sunni areas mainly are terrorists killing civilians, with prosperity returning to (non-Sunni) areas. Satellite dishes are popping up, cell phones are everywhere, automobile traffic is swelling.
Iraqis themselves are now patrolling city streets. They are finding and apprehending or killing the enemies of their fledgling nation, both solo and with U.S. personnel. They only need more time to consolidate the recovery and rebuilding of everything Ba'athists destroyed while ruling Iraq.
We are winning at that front in the war on terror, and to abandon it, or to impair victory with an announcement to our enemies that we will abandon it on a certain future date, as liberals wish us to do, is patently stupid. It is as if liberals do not want the U.S. to be victorious.
These are the facts we, the public, need to discuss at the water cooler.
People are tired of war...BUT
People also know that Congress approved this war, that these are our own sons and daughters they sent to fight this war, and that now the Democrats in Congress are undermining them while they are on the front lines of this war. Also the cost of the war and the federal deficit have people very concerned, but the fact is the US economy is strong, despite the efforts of Russia, China, EU, OPEC.
The Democrats and anti-Americans in this war seem to be angling for an eventual replay of the fall of Saigon. They seem to forget that many of the people who vote understand that and I think it represents a rotten plank in the already weakened political platform that the Democrats are standing on.
Yeah, you know more than our generals, of course. And Bush is dumb and has big ears and can't pronounce nuclear.
STFU. Big Pussy.
Do you think we could also be training mujahadeen we will eventually have to fight?
The liberal media only shows what they think will help The democrats. But there are more outlets for the news and by and large fewer people are going to traditional news outlets as a result of their bias and dishonesty.
But .. on Tuesday night the President will be addressing the country - and I suspect it will be a humdinger.
But .. over on FOX, they played Casey's statement over and over - right after the Kennedy statement.
I would disagree with only one point - the terrorists do have a vision .. to keep Iraq from becomming a democracy.
However, they really have no base anymore - because we have killed or captured most of it .. and there is NO POPULAR SUPPORT for the terrorists. Since the election, more and more Iraqi citizens are turning in the terrorists .. and in fact .. because of that we have discovered tons of weapons, bomb making facilities, safe houses, etc. - all of that from citizens who are sick and tired of the terrorists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.