Posted on 08/28/2006 8:56:25 PM PDT by Rawlings
There seems to have been a change in the political winds. They've been blowing pretty strongly against George W. Bush and the Republicans this spring and early this summer. Now, their velocity looks to be tapering off or perhaps shifting direction.
When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: "Events, dear boy. Events." The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic.
The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world -- and quite possibly in this country, too -- who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we haven't raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty or even because we're in Iraq.
They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden -- all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us it's still there.
We've had other reminders, too. For four years, Hollywood has seemed mostly uninterested in the war on terrorism -- in vivid contrast to its enlistment in World War II.
But this year, we've seen the release of "United 93," and, in "World Trade Center," Oliver Stone presents us not with one of his conspiracy theories but, instead, a story of heroism. On Sept. 10 and 11, ABC will devote six hours of prime time to "The Path to 9-11," a fast-paced, bracing docudrama that tells the story of the terrorists and the people who tried to stop them, from the first WTC bombing in 1993 to 9-11 itself. And this will be only one of many commemorations of the fifth anniversary.
As it happens, the London arrests came almost exactly 24 hours after antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, flanked by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, claimed victory over Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. The Lamont victory -- and the rejection of the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee -- sharpened the contrast between the two major parties.
One, it seems, would withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible without regard for the consequences -- an initially popular position for those who consider our effort there either misbegotten or hopelessly bungled. The other, it seems, would stay the course until we achieve our goals -- one that may become more acceptable if people come to think that withdrawal would not make us safe. The London arrests seem to have accelerated this thought process.
Polls since the London arrests suggest what has been happening. Bush's job approval was up significantly in the Gallup Poll, usually the most volatile of national polls, and the Democratic margin in the generic question (Which party's candidate for the House would you vote for?) was sharply reduced. There was a similar trend in generic vote in the Rasmussen poll, which is ordinarily much less volatile than Gallup.
Connecticut polls showed Lieberman, running as an independent, ahead of Lamont, with Lamont having strikingly high negatives for a candidate with such limited public exposure. It seems to be a fact -- remember the Paul Wellstone funeral in 2002? -- that when most Americans see the hard left of the Democratic Party in action, they don't much like what they see.
Of course, they don't like to see violence in Iraq, either.
But the sectarian killings that flared up in Baghdad in June and July have been reduced -- by 30 percent, says ABC News -- by intensive patrolling by U.S. and, more importantly, Iraqi troops. It's not clear, of course, whether the reductions will continue. Other threats still exist, like Iran's nuclear program.
Earlier this summer, I thought that voters had decided that the Republicans deserved to lose but were not sure that the Democrats deserved to win, and that they were going to wait, as they did in the 1980 presidential and the 1994 congressional elections, to see if the opposition was an acceptable alternative. Events seem to have made that a harder sell for Democrats. A change in the winds.
Are you always this misinformed?
|
Published on Saturday, November 6, 2004 by the Associated Press
|
|
Bush Stands by Rejection of Kyoto Treaty
|
|
by John Heilprin
|
WASHINGTON - President Bush is holding fast to his rejection of mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming, despite a fresh report from 300 scientists in the United States and seven other nations that shows Arctic temperatures are rising. This week, a four-year study of the Arctic will document that the region is warming rapidly, affecting global climates. Scientists project that industrial gases such as carbon dioxide will make the Arctic warmer still, which would raise the level of the seas and make the earth hotter. The world's atmosphere now includes about 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide, compared with 280 parts per million in 1800, according to scientists. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Kyoto international climate treaty last week, which puts it into effect early next year without U.S. participation. The treaty requires industrial nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases below 1990 levels. "President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Headed into his second term, Bush continues to believe he "made the right leadership choice" by repudiating the U.N.-sponsored pact negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, Connaughton said. |
I didn't say or imply that. The Democrats will not secure the border. But at least they're honest about it.
"It seems to me that every close market ought to be saturated with clips of lamont, sharpton, jackson, striesand, moore, conyers, pelosi, dean, reid and of course Hillary!, doing what they do and remind the voters it's not the local candidate they are voting for or against they are voting for the above group of traitorous nutbags to run the country."
Wall to wall, max dollars spent on running and re-running Reid gloating to comrades "We killed the Patriot Act."
"GW did not reject the Kyoto Treaty.
Are you always this misinformed?"
~~
Semantics. Bush is not King and doesn't seek to be. He can't bless Kyoto and make it law for the U.S. If the President could do so, Klintoon would have done it. When did Kyoto come up for a Senate vote under GW?
Perhaps it's you who is misinformed about Constitutional law in the U.S.
Actually, they're not handling it at all.
He CAN ask the Senate to reconsider it.
He didn't.
bump
"He CAN ask the Senate to reconsider it.
He didn't."
~~
Why in the world would GW ask the Senate to reconsider Kyoto after they blew it out of the water. GW doesn't want them to ok it; it's international law intended to accomplish one and only one thing -- handicap the US!!
Republicans have had plenty of chances to deal with immigration. They get what they deserve in November.
If the Republicans want to win in a landslide, all they need is to say:
1. We will stop the Islamofascist tide.
2. We will stop the illegal alien invasion.
Everything else (Social Security, taxes, the economy,) is just background noise that is too complex for the average voter to get wrapped up in. Those are the two big issues that address our very survival now and for the next generations.
But they won't. Except for the House, they are throwing in the towel on the illegal alien invasion, even abetting it, and they are not very articulate on the war against Islamist terror.
Tonight on Lou Dobbs the Republican Congressional Campaign chairman got into a boring litany on tax credits, job growth, blah-blah-blah, without once touching on the big issues that are on every American's consciousnous.
They expect to win on that?
People are worried about getting blown up on airplanes, or watching their jobs and towns being taken over by uninvited aliens. Focus, you party apparatchiks!
Geez, misinformed AND dense.
Quite a package, aren't you?
Right now it looks as if the Republicans will hold the Senate but lose the House. I agree with the Freepers that say wait until after Labor Day. I find it hard to believe that the country is willing to accept Speaker Pelosi.
Like to see you correct for two reasons:
1)To help keep our country safe
2) to see folks like Cokie Roberts and Pelosi and Carville go berserk.
The winds seem full of flatus IMO.
Just this week, the DNCC decided that Bos had enough funds on hand and also the power of the incumbency so they are not putting any more money into the Bos campaign.
I agree, Lamberti may very well take him out.
Heretofore, the only people fretting about the election has been the media. We all know what side they are on.
It's going to take more than conservative angst over spending and immigration to deliver power to the communists, oops, socialist, darn it all - I mean the democrats.
In order to say you are the party of change, you have to offer up a plan for what you want to change, and the Dems haven't done that. Until they tell the voters what they will do, they will be conDEMned to failure. Of course, if they told the voters what they really want to do, they would fail as well. They are on the wrong side of the creek.
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.