Posted on 09/23/2005 9:20:31 PM PDT by RightDemocrat
Fifteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives have produced a document and a strategy that they hope will convince substantial numbers of voters who don't trust them on national security to begin trusting them again.
Led by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Ensuring America's Strength and Security: A Democratic National Security Strategy for the 21st Century is an attempt by Democrats to reclaim this issue from Republicans and return the Democratic Party to majority status.
Hoyer, a liberal who voted for the Patriot Act, tells me that during Bill Clinton's presidency, ''We didn't do enough to fight terrorism.'' But he praises Clinton for deposing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from his genocidal power without many American casualties. (That was because Clinton mostly employed high-flying bombers instead of ground troops.) He also calls the United Nations ``feckless.''
Hoyer adds, ''We got it.'' What did he get? ``If we don't convince people we are capable of defending the country, we'll never get to other issues.''
A Republican might conclude this is merely a repositioning of the party so it can get back to its big-government, big-spending ways, and maybe it is. But Democrats have not always been the party of peace-at-any-price and never seeing a war or an idea for which they would fight. Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson changed the party's direction on foreign policy, radically jerking it leftward.
The late Sen. Henry ''Scoop'' Jackson of Washington was a leading congressional Democrat known for putting his country's best interests ahead of partisan politics. While much of the rest of his party embraced liberalism during and after the Vietnam War and favored negotiation instead of confrontation with the Soviet Union, Jackson clung to the belief that communism is inherently evil and should be opposed and ultimately defeated by American power.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
Don't lose any sleep waiting for that to happen.
Talk is cheap. Let's see how the act.
Just another "bait and switch".
If the democrats are making noises about being concerned about border control and national security then they are lying to get votes. They will not carry this stuff out if elected. Mark my words.
The "Scoop Jackson" wing of the party died a long time ago.
Zell Miller is retired and I don't believe in zombies.
Cal Thomas has spent far too much time on that stupid Fox News Watch show. He needs to get away from the libs Jane Hall and Neil Gabler, and also the pretend conservative Pinkerton.
They won't be able to moderate unless the party splits off it's crypto-commie hippies from the party. Doesn't seem there are enough Zell Miller types to force such a change.
The people who are controlling the Rat party now will cut off anyone at the knees if they don't adhere to the government control, higher taxes, abortion on demand, enforcement of sexual deviancy as a right, take the guns, silence the church party line.
They lose ground each election, but they also become a more pure breed.
How is this alleged Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic atrocity going to compete with the moonbats' Soros money?
I think you need to go to sleep, your brain is tired.
I'm glad the Republican politicians followed through on their promises to close the border, despite only controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Face it, politicians won't care about closing the border until we make them care. That means holding them accountable for their promises.
---Conservative columnist Cal Thomas seems to think that the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party may be coming back to life. ---
Maybe in another 20-30 years the Dims will be trustworthy again. I've made a note to myself to take another look at them then.
Not any more.
Is this article the reason Cal's show has been canceled on Fox? :-}
Well, hello.
Lots of blood on BJ's hands.
Follow the money, folks.
The reason that the farther left elements within the Democratic party have managed to leverage it leftward is a matter of funding and the structure of fundraising within the party itself. The Democratic party has never been as efficient in raising hard money (donations less than $2,000) as the GOP has been. Before the BCRA (aka McCain-Feingold), the Democrats relied more heavily on soft money than the GOP did, too. That is not signifncant thanks to the 527 loophole in terms of effective dollars and cents, but it makes a world of difference with regard to who pulls the strings and how campaigning is done.
Until significant changes are made to the Democratic Party's fundraising structure, I don't see this change happening. Under the current scenario, you would need to have someone with even more money than the Peter Lewises and George Soroses of the world to essentially outbuy influence and moderate the party.
On the beast's claws too!
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.