Posted on 06/11/2006 10:47:56 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
"This is just to cover Bush's (rear) so he doesn't have to answer questions" about things in Iraq, said Rep. Pete Stark, second ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "This insurgency is such a confused mess that one person, dead or alive at this point, is hardly significant today," said Rep. Jim McDermott, formerly the lead Democrat on the House ethics committee. The deceased, said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the 2004 presidential nomination, was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency." He said the United States should get out of Iraq. "We're there for all the wrong reasons."
Such was the reaction of the left wing of the Democratic Party to the killing of al-Qaida terrorist Abu Masab Zarqawi in Iraq. It was not the dominant note sounded by Democrats. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry all hailed the death of Zarqawi in unequivocal terms. And if Democrats also made the point that his death probably won't end the violence in Iraq, they were only echoing what George W. Bush said.
Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.
It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored.
In all this they have been aided and abetted by large elements of the press. The struggle in Iraq has been portrayed as a story of endless and increasing violence. Stories of success and heroism tend to go unreported. Reporters in Iraq deserve respect for their courage -- this has been an unusually deadly war for journalists, largely because they have been targeted by the terrorists. But unfortunately they and the Bush administration have not done a good job of letting us know that last pertinent fact.
We are in an asymmetrical struggle with vicious enemies who slaughter civilians and bystanders and journalists without any regard for the laws of war. But too often we and our enemies are portrayed as moral equivalents. One or two instances of American misconduct are found equal in the balance to a consistent and premeditated campaign of barbarism.
All of this does not go unnoticed by America's voters. The persistence of violence in Iraq has done grave damage to George W. Bush's job rating, and polls show that his fellow Republicans are in trouble. Yet when people actually vote, those numbers don't seem to translate into gains for the Democrats. In 2004, John Kerry got 44 percent of the votes in the 50th district of California. In the April 2006 special primary, Democrat Francine Busby got 44 percent of the votes there. In the runoff last week, she got 45 percent and lost to Republican Brian Bilbray.
The angry Democratic left set the tone for the 2003-04 campaign for the party's presidential nomination, and John Kerry hoped that it would produce a surge in turnout in November 2004. It did: Kerry got 16 percent more popular votes than Al Gore. But George W. Bush got 23 percent more popular votes in 2004 than in 2000.
In California's 50th, both parties made mammoth turnout efforts, but the balance of turnout and of opinion seems to have remained the same, even though Democrats had a seriously contested primary for governor and Republicans didn't. The angry Democratic left and its aiders and abettors in the press seem to have succeeded in souring public opinion, but they haven't succeeded in producing victory margins for the Democrats. Maybe they're doing just the opposite.
There are a few "conservatives" that are suffering from BDS as well but I sort of believe that "they went from us because they were never of us"
Two thing, domestic policy involves congress, the courts and a whole lot of checks and balances. The Presidency is a minor part of that. But when it comes to foreign policy the President is THE only player that matters.
Second is that domestic missteps are painful and costly to clean up but they are not bloody. Foreign policy missteps are very bloody to clean up.
Most of the war we are in right now was caused by letting a democrat run foreign policy.
"Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq and as a country so they can return to power, pick up the pieces and remake the US in their own image.".......I always add a corollary...the observation that the "Democrats can only see opportunity in American misery"...a hangover, I presume, from their halcyon years during the Depression.
This will go down as the YEAR OF THE ANGRY RAT.
Barone ping
Most "average voters" will say, "Do I really trust these people (the Dems) with national security?" and the answer will be "No." No matter HOW betrayed even some conservatives feel, it's childish to not vote or vote against the ONLY party doing ANYTHING to win this war.
Good points, which is why I think the majority of the disgruntled conservatives, and I'm "among 'em, Pee Wee," as Dizzy Dean used to say, will put national security over border/spending/prescrip drugs in the fall. There simply is no alternative.
Keep in mind my prediction, now over six months old: the GOP will have a net gain of at least one seat in the Senate (two if Santorum holds) and one to five in the House.
I've seen no real reason to worry about the GOP's chances this November, with the exception of gubernatorial races. I think the Dems are set up to do well there.
No John, victory is not a strategy. It is the result of having a strategy. That is something no current Democratic leader currently has on tap.
BTTT
Mr. Barone's got this one wrong (I sure don't say that very often). Pelosi, Reid and Kerry paid the briefest lip service to hailing Zarqawi's death, and did that only to set up their real point, which was "Withdraw our troops at once!" Reid in particular sounded like he was on the verge of weeping on the Senate floor when he "congratulated" our troops.
Their sentiments clearly lie with Stark, Kucinich and McDermott, as well as John Murtha. They're just too chickensh!t to come out and say it themselves; instead, they'll hide behind these kooks in a vain attempt to "look electable" while trying to appease the far left Deaniacs who run their party.
Many of us have been saying this since November 2004. The RATS took off the table their core domestic issues like medicare and education because they can not win on saying that we need more taxes to pay for it. Plus, the only people that will vote for it are their base. They will lose moderates on that as well as gay marriage and abortion.
The RATS tried Culture of Corruption but have been caught in that web also. So that is off the table.
The only thing on the table is foreign policy and more moderates are not in favor of the UN's policies, which have hurt the RATS. In addition, Iraq is not a quagmire, despite what the RATS and the MSM say.
So basically, the RATS have nothing to run on except Bush is a Nazi. While this appeases the base, it does nothing for anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy except put a taste of RAT desperation in their mouths.
Republicans will win more seats. The problem is the RINOS come with the package.
Barone weighing in on the state of the union.
I wonder if the DNC, Kos and the MSM would mourn and gnash their teeth if the wunderkinds of the Dem Party would assume room temperature: say M. Moore, G. Soros, Teddy the K, Pelosi?? Of course, they would cry and tell us all that the end has come. When critics of the USA die, they the black arm bands come out in full force.
Kos seems to conveniently neglect the fact that the Dems had a hot primary battle in his analysis. That was one reason they got so close in the 50th. He's harping on the dollars spent by the Pubs being almost double what the Dems spent.
Barone seems the more objective source of information. He's amazing on election night, he analyzes voting precinct by precinct and has an idea of the changes in precincts since the last election.
"I wonder if the DNC, Kos and the MSM would mourn and gnash their teeth if the wunderkinds of the Dem Party would assume room temperature: say M. Moore, G. Soros, Teddy the K, Pelosi??"
Is Ted Kennedy going to live forever?
Actually the war is what keeps W afloat
If he would at least admit he is wrong on immigration and do what is needed to correct the problem he would be pooled way above 50%
Going back to at least 1930 and perhaps before the nation has been made up of about 1/3 consevatives, 1/3 liberals and about 1/3 moderates. The moderates are often referred to as swing voters. They sometimes vote for Republicans and sometimes for Democrats.. they often do it in the same election.
In the united states there have been since about 1970 about 17 battleground states. Those states are nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans with the victors in every election determined by the moderates.
Since moderates determine the winners in those states it should be a surprise to no one that those moderate states almost exclusively elect some combination of RINOs and DINOS.
Typically the house will have about 145 Conservative members, 145 liberal members and 145 members who are some combination of RINOs and DINOs. The senate typically will have about 35 Liberal Members and 35 conservative members and about 30 members who are some combination of RINOs and DINOs.
When Democrat manage to elect enough DINOS to the house and senate and also hold the presidency they can work their will. That is what happened in 1964 and as a result LBJ was able to pass the Great Society progams. It was not hard, the Democrats had a nearly 2 to 1 margin in the house and the same in the senate. Republicans did not have enough votes to even filibuster.
Reagan understood that completely. He knew to get much of anything done he had to elect and work with a lot of RINOs. Who do you think Reagan was talking about when he said speak no ill of a fellow Republican? He was trying to prevent conservatives from trashing RINOS.
Reagan knew the only road to actual victory was to find a way to get RINOs to vote with him on important issues.
Ohio is the quentessential battleground State. It is the land where the RINOs and DINOs control election results.
In Ohio the latest University of Cincinnati poll of registered voters, shows that RINO DeWine is defeating Leftist Brawn by 52 to 44.. DeWine went from a 80 percent ACU rating to a 56 rating this year. DeWine figured out he needs to be a RINO to win. Therefore he is a RINO.
If one looks at the states and the voters who control the outcome there is no way to elect a congress with either a liberal or a conservative majority.
For much of the 1930s and again in 1964 Republicans tried to elect all the conservatives they could elect and defeat all the RINOS they could defeat. That gave the Democrats such a large number of DINOS that they had plenty of votes to do most of what they wanted to do.
Today we have about 35 conservatives and about 20 RINOs in the Senate. What we need are 25 RINOs in the senate.
What happens in that situation is the RINOs vote with you on cloture and then 8 or 9 of them vote against the bill on final passage. But final passage only takes 51 votes while Cloture takes 50, so the bill passes.
RINOS and DINOs have been voting for bills before they vote against them long before Kerry let the cat out of the bag.
The odds that voters will elect 60 conservatives to the Senate are slim and none. The only way is to elect enough RINOs and then find a way to work with them to get things done.
In sports and politics, you have to win with the players you have.
Democrats used to welcome every DINO in site. They worked to get the support of some RINOs as well. But today the Democrats are starting to Trash DINOS. Senator Joe Liberman is a case in point.
If enough Demorats start trashing DINOs and consevatives start trying to work with RINOs we might actually get a conservative agenda passed into law.
But I wouldn't bet a lot on it. Too many conservatives think they are a majority in battle ground states. They somehow think that 35 percent of the voters can cast 51 percent of the votes and they speak ill of fellow Republicans.
Perhaps deep down conservatives do not want to win and implement their agenda. They certainly act like that is their goal. The Good news is todays Democrats are doing the same thing.
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.