BLOODFIGHT FOR LIBERALISM (Book said to provide Left w/ intellectual framework for anti-jihadism)

The New York Post ^ | June 27, 2006 | DAN GERSTEIN

[Stoat]

OF all the meditations and dissertations that followed the Democrats' disastrous performance in the 2004 campaign, none was more compelling or important than The New Republic cover story by editor Peter Beinart that appeared a month after the election.

With clarity and candor, Beinart broke through all the noise about gay marriage and the Kerry campaign's message morass to pinpoint the party's ultimate electoral problem: Democrats had ceded to the Republicans the preeminent issue of our time, the threat of jihadist terrorism.

[samtheman]

I've been saying all along, and will say it again, that 9-11 is still THE issue of the past couple of elections and will be THE issue of this one--sorry illegal immigration ... groupies.

And "illegal immigration groupies" are saying that the biggest next-9-11 threat to the USA comes from our out-of-controlborders. And a growing segment of the populace agrees with them.

[tomzz]

We need runoff elections, so that some third party can rise up and replace the dems.

[samtheman]

The amazing thing to me about the Democrats in recent decades is that if they had just remained a centrist party they would probably have an unbeatable majority, either already have it or soon have it. The demographics are on their side. The Republicans can do well with Hispanics, but the Democrats will always have an edge with that fast-growing group.

So what did the Democrats do at the same time they were accruing this growing demographic advantage? They went insane. They adopted the the politics of treason and socialism. Like their friends the Palestinians, they are missing opportunities of historic proportions.

[Darkwolf377]

And "illegal immigration groupies" are saying that the biggest next-9-11 threat to the USA comes from our out-of-controlborders. And a growing segment of the populace agrees with them.

It's always interesting how people who usually disparage polls suddenly see the light when they find one that shows "a growing segment of the populace agrees with them"--for how else would you come to this conclusion after the issue's only been this hot for only a few months unless through some poll or other?

Simply put, those who think the border situation is going to suddenly usurp 9-11--yes, yes, we know, you've all been screaming about this at top-volume for six years, we all just were too busy digging through the tens of thousands of threads about this between Bush's election and May of this year to, uh, actually find them all--are dreaming. You WANT it to be The Issue--everyone wants their pet issue to be The Issue--but it isn't. Illegal immigration has cooled off from the sudden flare-up fed by the illegals and their racist "We're here, get used to it gringos" crap. Sorry, but it has, and November won't be about that issue if only because the Dems are quiet on it, and the issue will only re-ignite if the two parties are battling over it. They ain't. That may be a bad thing, but it's reality.

It's 9-11 once again, like it or not.

[samtheman]

First of all, I didn't say I was an "illegal immigration groupie", only that those who are have been pointing to the border as the number one 9-11-type threat to America so you might be right that 9/11 is still the number one issue and yet wrong that illegal immigration will not also be a number one issue. That's all I was saying. If you stop hyper-ventilating and get that I only want to discuss this and not get into a screaming contest here, you'll see that.

Second of all, I strongly support Bush, especially on the war in Iraq, which I do view as the number one front on the WOT and I think he's doing a great job and that the war has been conducted as well as can be expected given the fact that the Jihadists have poured everything into the anti-US effort there and we are constrained by the logistics and politics of the situation.

However, Iraq is not the only front. There is a home-front and an extremely important piece of home-front-lines on the WOT is the border with Mexico, which is open, porous and possibly being used as a highway to warfare by non-Mexican jihadists.

Calm down. Take a breath. Nobody is trying to make a groupie out of you. Just consider the threat. Open border. Arabs with evil powerful weapons walking through the desert. Not just the Iraqi desert.

Get it?

[Darkwolf377]

If you stop hyper-ventilating...Calm down. Take a breath.

It's always funny to me when people use that term. Since you can't tell if someone is calm through a typed post, you're merely projecting your own feelings of whatever.

I am perfectly calm. Sorry if you get so bent out of shape when someone actually thinks about the subject at hand, but that's the way I am, and I apologize to no one for looking at the facts and coming to my own conclusion, and don't just follow the herd of the moment.

Have a calm day.

[MarkL]

There are, unfortunately, a great many people who will NEVER 'get it" and they will die as old and unhappy Socialists having never "gotten it". Just as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but...... in this case we need to concentrate on those people who actually have a glimmer of intelligence and are not robotic, knee-jerk Socialists....some people are simply beyond hope and are a waste of time.

I'm afraid that you're right. For some reason, there are a lot of people with whom you can try to reason, and they even seem to agree with you on points you make, but then go back to their original ways. As a case in point, I had a discussion with my Aunt, who told me that if Hillary! runs for president, my Aunt's going to vote for her. I asked "why?" And she replied, "for the same reason that a lot of other women are going to vote for her. Because she's a woman."

My Aunt and I had this discussion before, during the 2000 election campaign, where she told me that while she was a "registered republican," she was going to vote for Sore/Loserman. When I asked why, she said "because Leiberman is Jewish." When I asked how that was any different from voting against Leiberman because he was Jewish, she looked at me rather sheepishly, and said, "you're right. But I'm going to vote for him because he's Jewish anyway."

Mark

[samtheman]

I notice that you address none of my points and you failed to acknowledge that you mischaracterized me in your first post. I am not an "illegal immigration groupie". Nothing in my first post said I was. You assumed I was, got angry at me and all such "groupies" (which is why I told you to calm down) and now, rather than see the words I wrote on the issue itself, prefer to only go with the personal.

What about what I said about the Mexican border and Arabs with dirty evil weapons walking across it? Is that, or is that not, a 9/11-type threat?

[EBH]

I too find trying to discuss this issue with 'good' friends is extremely difficult. Two of whom are self declared progressive and democrat.

The gist of discussions with them is they see the world as more dangerous because Bush escalated the problem.

When I bring up some very personal perspectives from my travels to foreign lands...well I am just a big ole ethnocentric bigot in their eyes.

Both of them still see the biggest threat to this country is not islam, but the christian right. They actually believe Bush is leading our country right into Armegeddon. When I point out the only one blatently talking about the end-times is Iran, I am met with the silence, uhmmss, and well...

These wacky perspectives are coming from two people who up until recently I have considered more moderate than what they recently displayed in discussion. Having calmly dispelled some of the myths they have embraced over dinner, I hope they realize just how 'crazy' they sounded.

[bcsco]

"...a true reflection of the vacuitiy of their souls."

Very well stated (your entire reply; not just this statement).

[bcsco]

"...who views the war on terror as merely a smokescreen for "big oil" to "rape Iraq"

I was listening to Rush in the car last week when a caller made that very claim to Roger Hedgcock. I almost swerved off the road. I couldn't believe that after all this time there are still people who believe that oil was the cause for going into Iraq.

As Roger pointed out, then why do we have $3.00 + a gallon oil? There are a lot of clueless people out there.

[bray]

The DNC is pure Communism and the Country is not. The only semi-hawk is Lieberman and look how popular he is in that asylum.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[bcsco]

Taken from your post (which pretty well sums it up): "The liberals simply cannot make themselves agree to any kind of coherent strategy because in their hearts they believe we deserve what's coming to us from the jihadists."

In other words, 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'!

[bcsco]

"So what did the Democrats do at the same time they were accruing this growing demographic advantage? They went insane. They adopted the the politics of treason and socialism."

I'm not sure they 'went' insane. The party was taken over by the far left fringes. Those of moderate temperament who remain have little say so in the party's direction.

The Democratic Party has been anti-war from virtually its inception. Even during the Civil War the Democrats preferred allowing the Southern states to secede rather than fighting to keep the Union whole. They even (at the time) were willing to allow slavery to continue. This makes the popularity of the Democratic Party among Blacks so very ironic.

I believe the seeds for the party's irrelevance had been sown a long time ago. What they've become is just a natural progression from what they've been all along.

[goldstategop]

There's no evidence the Democrats are listening to Beinart. To do so, the party would have to give up everything that has characterized it since Vietnam and the extreme Left is not going to surrender its life and death grip over the party. We'll witness the Democrats continue their slow slide to political extinction beginning with another election loss in November.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Jabba the Nutt]

"and will drag their once-coherent party down to irrelevancy as a result."

Well, no one's ever accused the Democrat Party of being coherent. Will Rogers said "I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a Democrat."

But, the Dems were never anti-Americans. Hubert Humphrey and other s kicked the commies out of the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota in the late 40's (at the same time Nixon was fighting communist influence).

Now, the Dem mainstream, Jack Murtha, future Majority Leader candidate, is anti-American. This is electoral death for the vast American majority. The Dems will elect more than their share, due to inertia and lack of alternatives, but this anti-Americanism is catching up to them.

[Dilbert56]

1. The Democrat Party no longer has guiding principles but is instead an alliance of grievances. It's a collection of one-issue voters. Abortion, the environment, "womens' rights", free housing for the poor, socialized medicine, "underpaid teachers" unions, and trial lawyers with a vested interest in the "little man's" ability to sue deep pockets.
2. At the heart of every grievance is the presumption that something is seriously wrong with the United States of America. This blinds their followers to what real evil is. They can't concede that keeping women from being murdered by the Taliban is a good thing if the President who led the effort doesn't fawn over their causes. Conversely, a President who gave lip service to their causes could violate the real rights of women with impunity.
3. You cannot take a bunch of people who believe the USA is evil and expect them to support that same country. They can't fly its flag, can't recite its Pledge of Allegiance, can't sing its National Anthem or recognize its defenders.

[Gritty]