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.
I was already very clear on where you stood by what you said.
Well .. since your conversation has desolved into name calling .. our conversation is over.
I have confidence in about 1/3 of the voters of the country to do the right thing; I understand that about 1/3 are hard-core America haters who would love nothing more than see a Communist government, wit no private property rights, and no free speech. (this is the Democrat base). I have lost confidence in the other 1/3, those who are the soft middle and who are basically squishes, might go one way, might go the other. So, basically whenever there is an election, the Demonrats will have a chance as you just cannot trust the middle 1/3 to do the right thing. They are why the Demonrats are even around anymore. The Dims should have died a quiet unlamented death as a political party many years ago.
When you call me a typical arrogant elitist liberal (and by extension "dim" and "an idiot") you think that's fine but when I return the favor by calling you a self-righteous hypocrite you depart in a huff because I've descended into name-calling.
I wish I could say this was typical of conservative behavior...but it isn't. It's typical of the self-righteous and the unconscious.
bttt
Yeah, it's so easy to confuse a Clinton c***s***er (Wesley Clark, Lib!) with a real general.
For libs like you who don't even know the first name of your softie "war hero", maybe there is no difference.
You are laughable.
As far as I can tell the difference between a real general and a "softie" - in your mind - is his politics.
For libs like you who don't even know the first name of your softie "war hero", maybe there is no difference.
I didn't remember his name because he's not my hero and has never been important to me. You can't see that because you can't think.
By the way, hypocrite, if you have such trust in the average man why is it that people of your political persuasion are so adamant about making sure this is a republic rather than a democracy? Why so much emphasis on checks and balances? The founders were also clear about the need to restrain populist passions and lusts.
from Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years
Another c**ks****r, liberal, "softie"? You know that thing on top of your neck is actually good for something. You ought to at least try using it.
You lack of coherent thought and your complete inability to grasp what is being "argued" about is unworthy of any further response, liberal.
Don't address me again.
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.