David Limbaugh nails the flipper.
Posted on 10/28/2005 8:29:19 PM PDT by upchuck
In reading the bizarre missives from Sen. John Kerry contaminating my inbox, I have to wonder whether he's operating as a foil for Hillary Clinton. Is he saying especially stupid things about the war because he believes them or to enhance the presidential prospects of latter-day warhawk Hillary?
Of course I'm being facetious, since John Kerry is not about to sacrifice himself intentionally for anyone, even Hillary. But Kerry's recent statements on the war, including his gratuitous speech at Georgetown University Wednesday, again remind us just how close we came to a national train wreck in almost electing him to be commander in chief. Juxtaposed against Hillary Clinton's pro-war pronouncements, they also illustrate that the Republican Party is not the only party with its set of problems.
Despite all the debate among conservatives over the Harriet Miers nomination and the hint of scandal in the air, Democrat leaders, in their most candid moments alone, must realize (and agonize over) the woeful state of disarray they find themselves in over this war.
Besides, Republican fighting over Miers does not represent a major schism in the party. Republicans are virtually unanimous in believing that the next Supreme Court nominee should be a competent, constitutional originalist. They just disagreed about whether Miers fit the bill, or whether she should be entitled to a stronger presumption in that respect until the confirmation hearings.
Assuming President Bush nominates a strong, non-stealth originalist this time around, Republicans are likely to unite behind him with a renewed enthusiasm that will only grow stronger to the extent that Democrats obstruct the nomination.
So before Democrats get too sanguine about 2006 and 2008, they should remember they are still the antiwar party during wartime.
When you review Kerry's latest statements on the war you can't escape the impression that he is still trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
He so desperately wants to recapture the loyalty of the antiwar Democrat base, but every time he tries to fashion a coherent policy toward that end, he finds himself running head-on into the brick wall of reality. Every time he tries to articulate an Iraq policy sufficiently distinct from President Bush, he finds himself hamstrung by his own previous inconsistent positions and by his mortal enemy: common sense.
Kerry called on President Bush to withdraw 20,000 troops from Iraq over the Christmas holidays, assuming the parliamentary elections in December are successful. Never mind his earlier harangues about President Bush's irresponsibility in having too few troops in theater.
Why not 25,000 troops, Sen. Kerry? Why not January? February? Now? The answer is: He has no clue, but he feels the need to say something -- anything -- just bold enough to retain a shred of the relevance he has long since lost.
Notice that Kerry conspicuously fails to tie his recommendation to our overall goal in Iraq, which is to secure the long-term stability of Iraq and the self-determination of the Iraqi people. His goal, in keeping with his lifetime naivete and pacifism, is to withdraw our troops -- period. It doesn't matter how noble the cause -- whether in Vietnam, Iraq, or elsewhere. It doesn't matter how many will have died in vain if we follow his prescription. It doesn't matter what condition we leave Iraq in upon our precipitous withdrawal. If it did, he would dispense with the artificial withdrawal dates and realize that the timing of our withdrawal must be determined by our completion of the mission.
But Kerry's idea of the mission is quite different. Being an unabashed globalist, he believes that the "presence of 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is deterring peace efforts," as if our terrorist enemy (any more than the North Vietcong, whom he similarly misjudged) is interested in a peaceful resolution of this war. According to Kerry's counterintuitive analysis, "the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down."
Kerry is obviously confusing causes with results. Without question we will not have defeated the enemy until Iraqi security forces can assume primary responsibility for keeping the peace there. But prematurely removing our troops will retard, rather than accelerate that goal.
Despite his personal irrelevance, Kerry is not some wild maverick crying in the wilderness. He is articulating the tired, irrational and reckless position of the Democratic Party mainstream.
But neither the constant hand-wringing of the mainstream media and Democrats over 2,000 American deaths in Iraq, nor their never-ending, obscene ploy to put meat on the skeletal charge that President Bush lied to get us into war will obscure the fact that he has been a historically great wartime president.
For Democrats to make significant inroads in 2006, they are going to have to manufacture a credible position on the war. And for Hillary to prevail in 2008, she's going to have to devise a way to thread the needle between her faux warhawk persona and her rabid, hate-gorged base.
The problem is liberals are dumb enough to still follow Kerry.
Just look at all the baseless lies and propaganda they have thrown at this President, Those idiots are still crying about the election in 2000 that they claim was stolen. They continually claim Bush lied to get us into a War in Iraq when President Clinton, all of Europe (including the French), The Middle East and every Intel agency around the world, all said that Saddam had WMD's and was seeking more of them. When a Party bases it's platform on propaganda, spin and outright lies, The truth is their handicap. When they sit Michael Moore next to Jimmy Carter in the VIP seats at their National Convention, the truth is not what they are about...
Stick a fork in the RATS, They're done
Not a problem, if you ask me. And who am I to stop the Dims from doing stupid things?
Hillary has problems because she moved toward the center much too early. Four years too early, in fact. Either she has to stay there, or she has to move way over to the left to please her base and then back again to the right immediately after she wraps up the nomination, which isn't going to be easy with the spotlight on her.
Howard Dean makes James Carville seem like a rational and reasonable man
Hmmmm, seems I've heard the "bring our troops home" refrain before. Maybe Kerry's just getting his foreign policy ideas from Cindy Sheehan, why not make her his running mate in '08?
David Limbaugh nails the flipper.
How would a moderate Dem win any primaries. Joe Lieberman was the most moderate Dem in the field in 2004 and he was murdered in the Primaries. I agree with you that a majority of Dems are most likely not representative of the moonbats the Democrat Party puts in front of the Camera's, but the moderate Dems do not vote in mass in the Primaries
That had to be the most civil response from an admitted Democrat I have ever recieved on this Board, and he was banned, I'm always up for a civil debate with a Democrat if he/she is civil, what did he do wrong?
I'm increasingly worried about Mark Warner. Since he's only been a Governor, he can say whatever he wants about the war.
Especially with a smart VP pick, Bahy especially, I think he'd be a force to deal with, and it strikes me that he might actually be able to win the primaries.
Deja Vu?
I seem to recall Gore treating us to the same meal after his fallen attempts to gain the office.
9/11 made us glad we weren't being led about by the real Al Gore and now the Iraq war is teaching us about the incredibly lost and confused Kerry.
But why then, are our elections so close?
Lieberman was too forcefully moderate at too difficult of a time. He wasn't able to define himself, because everybody knew him from 2000.
I wouldn't count out Warner or Bahy having a shot at the nomination.
The Anti-War left is so full of rage and hate, that they will be out in droves in the primaries. A Moderate Dem doesn't have a chance, and if one free falls to the left in order to win the Primaries, whoever it is will be beaten like a rented mule over the Flip Flopping when the Nominee races back to the middle
On his looks. If Joe Lieberman had been young and handsome he'd have beaten Kerry in the primaries.
Here's my 16-year-cycle theory: After 8 years of Republican presidency and the fatigue of them, the people elected a seemingly vigorous, youthful Democrat with a young child and good hair in 1960. Sixteen years later, after 8 years of Republican presidency and fatigue, the people elected an apparently vigorous, youthful Democrat with a young child and good hair in 1976. Sixteen years later, after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, which can be fatiguing, the people elected another energetic young Democrat with a young child and good hair in 1992. Sixteen years after that it'll be 2008 and we'll have had 8 years of a Republican. Be on the lookout for a young, smooth-talking Democrat (with young children and a good head of hair).
Prime suspect: John Edwards. Politics immaterial, as long as he wears a D after his name, but a moderate is ok if he's attractive and moderates win general elections better.
Heh... I wonder if sKerry pulls a 'gore' and goes off the deep end by the next time around.
Kerry/Dean in '08! ROTFL...
We can only hope ;)
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.