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 ...
He's wrong and here's why. The Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party went bye-bye the minute Nixon was elected in 1968. Bobby Kennedy probably would have been elected had he not been assasinated but the truth is he ran as an anti-Vietnam War candidate. The Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party put us in Vietnam but with the help of a willing MSM the Dems were able to redefine Vietnam as Nixon's war. And every Democratic candidate since then has been a left-wing pacifist except for Clinton who, claiming to be a moderate Dem, used the military only when it was politically expedient or advantageous for him to do so.
There's not a whole lot of difference between the SDS, the Weathermen, the Black Panther Party, Abby Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, etc. of the late sixties and early seventies and the present day Moveon.org and left wing wackos that are controlling the Democratic Party now. Certainly no difference in ideology. But there is one main difference. The old school liberals thought rioting and demonstrations were helpful to their cause. They were too anti-establishment to ever consider using the "system" as a means to an end. The modern day versions realize money talks. That's how they've taken control of the party and how they'll keep it. And watching various Democratic politicians go through contortions trying to be all things to all people makes for enjoyable viewing.
Most of the supporters of the Scoop Jackson wing are now moderate Republicans. The FDR wing morphed into the Jackson wing. That's why many older Democrats either don't know or refuse to admit their party has left them. But as they die off it becomes more and more clear. The liberals control the Democratic Party and that's why it continues to lose power. Even John Kerry had to try and pretend he wasn't a liberal, a mighty task considering his voting record. Same with Al Gore. If being a liberal was so mainstream, why would they have to do that?
The only reason Clinton got elected is because he triangulated the election by having Perot involved. He never would have won without that. And neither will Hillary. So the questions for the future become 1) who will be the third-party candidate and 2)what will the issue be that causes that rift in the GOP? I don't know the answer to #1 but illegal immigration looks to be the answer to #2, particulary if Bush doesn't deal with it and soon.
Hmmmmm?? After the attack on Leahy because he voted for Roberts .. I wonder if these dems will get the same treatment if they start agreeing with Bush on the WOT and on Iraq. The anti-everything crowd is not going to buy this and they have the media's ear.
My opinion is that the dems have missed the window of opportunity to get it done.
They have gone beyond the point of "political opposition". They have made themselves "the enemy".
And we have answered the call. We are going to destroy them and wipe them from the political arena.
There are 201 Dems in the House. Its a given that every one of them was invited to sign on to this. Only 15 did.
Sounds to me like the Scoop Jackson wing is having some trouble roaring back to life.
You sound more like the LeftDemocrat.
Get real. After what Clintoooon did with the terror threat, no American will trust Dems on this issue.
Only a prayer can win the presidency for the Dems. Well, even God is on the right side.
If that's true I expect they will change parties, their outspoken base will have none of it.
"Yeah. ....and I'm an astronaut."
And Im a Chinese Jet Pilot.
I think the democratic party has to split for any hope of getting power away from the Dean Dream Scream Team that currently is in control.
Well stated.
Tom Delay comes out with a wacked opt in saying there isn't any more pork to cut and not they find 500 billion that can be cut.
Rush tells them to speak their mind and be true and we see articles where they spew wacko left ideas.
Thomas is egging them on to come out because they want to split the rats.
I bet we'll see many more articles like this over the next several months !
Who in their right mind would purposly want Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Barbera Mikulski, any of the asses from calif and a lot of other Dims in charge of anything?
Hell, I wouldn't hire any of the lot to run a car wash much less senate or house committees.
Thanks, I tried to "behave" myself...
BINGO!
The old hippies took showers, shaved, got haircuts, ran for office, and (sadly) won.
Yeah, but even that (above statement) is wrong.
It should read, "We didn't do ANYTHING to fight terrorism. In fact, we made it worst by enacting laws that prevented our government from investigating terrorists in our midst."
When I read a statement like that from a prominent Democrat, THEN and only then will I think they are serious about national security.
convince = dupe
True enough, but I believe the mainstream media, starting in 2006 and continuing in 2008, will praise and support any and every Democrat who even so much as hints at being a strong military, tough on illegal-immigrant type of candidate.
Thus, the mainstream media will try and paint the Democrats as being "just as tough" as the Republicans on issues of national security.
Look at what they are already trying to do with Hillary, and the only thing SHE did was make a few offhanded 'tough' comments about our southern border. (Hillary has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent illegals. And in fact continues to support the idea of easy no-identification voting and open borders)
Bottom line: the mainstream media will always do whatever they possibly can to put Democrats in power.
Illegal immigration is spitting both parties (Gov. Bill Richardson), but is still not a big enough issue to be a factor in either party, IMO.
These few "hawkish" Democrats will be allowed do their own thing because they represent swing districts, but these guys will not be presented as faces of the party.
Yup, they will parade a few "Dem hawks" out to be real loud and vocal, pontificating in front of the camera's while the rest of them (the extreme left wing branch) will be behind the curtain, plotting.
Steny Hoyer is a phony. He's been trying for 20 years to put a conservative (or simply sensible) face on Liberalism. It never works, and always the sensible conservativism of what he's pushing always falls out of the deal. Cal Thomas ought to know better.
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.