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.
"I have a bad feeling that some terrorist attack or some other extraneous thing will motivate them before election day."
__________________________________
It certainly would change perceptions.
Honestly, what does the conservative base have to get excited about? I think we are on the right track in the middle east and the WOT, but other than that nothing really substantive has been accomplished in six years.
If Chicago got homicides below 600 in 2003 for the first time since 1967, anything's possible.
(There were only 599.)
If we have a terrorist attack, the Republicans lose for sure. There is no way this can happen. Please don't even think it. It would be the worst possible scenario. The Republicans would be blamed by everyone even conservatives. It would be just plain awful. It would be the end of Republicans for the next two years for sure.
Iraq has calmed down there are less US soldiers dying that is why the media now reports the number of so-called civilian deaths
Spoke too soon...9 died today.
and 5 people were killed in New orleans yesterday.
the point remains the same there are less soldiers dying, but the lamestream media is still going to hype everyone of them its an election year.
"Oh, of course, judges, but other than that, what do we have to get excited about?"
Then there were the tax cuts. Don't forget the tax cuts.
"Granted, tax cuts, but aside from judges and tax cuts, what else have the Republicans done?"
Ah, Partial Birth Abortion ban?
"Fine, but besides PBA, judges, and tax cuts what was there?"
No Kyoto.
"Ok, ok, no Kyoto, plus PBA, judges, and tax cuts . . . ."
Monty Python nailed this attitude years ago.
While the Republicans have disappointed in several ways, don't kid yourself for one MINUTE that they haven't done important things in the last six years.
Your right. I was not doubting that just mentioning the coincident. I am on the side of war on terror that will win. I am in the military and was surprised that we had 9 soldiers die in one day was all I was trying to say.
The GOP has not been the party of leadership we were expecting. I admit that. BUT THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. A no vote is a vote for the Rats. Maybe nothing magical has happened in Congress, but nothing disasterous has happened in the Congress either. A Democratic congress spells disaster. The way to get things going the way you want is to work within the primary process. That's exactly what the Club For Growth is doing. That's the American way and it's the way we get conservative leadership. Also don't forget that we are a Big Tent party. We have to be okay with squishy GOPers like Arlen Spector because they win the states that hard-core conservatives cannot. And finally, the only issue on the table this year is national security. On that we've got solid votes from every Pub save Chaffee. I'm a major socon who wants to see major spending cuts. Notice how the deficit is finally going down after conservatives made their voices heard. Remember the whole Harriet Miers debacle? Conservatives won that too. They didn't, however, win it by staying home and lettin the Rats win.
MI Republicans are-and have been-on the offensive! MI is a conservative state-even if it blue. It's not like CA or ME. Stab-me-now is horrible on terror and immigration. I really can't see her winning in this climate-especially with a Republican who's a sheriff and knows what "illegal" means.
I'm glad to hear that others are optimistic about GOP fortunes elsewhere. It would really be horrible to finally get a GOP Senator and he'd be the minority party. And Carl Levin (yuck!) would be in the majority party. (Just thinking about it creeps me out!)
I disagree. 1) everyone expects it to happen, and is actually surprised that it hasn't; and 2) to the degree that it ever does happen, people will turn on the Rats like you've never seen before. They will look like the Federalists in 1816 after opposing the War of 1812.
Wow! That is great to hear. I would never have thought that. I am glad though.
This is a chronic, anorexic-like, glass-half-empty person in whose eyesight the glass never fills up no matter how much water you pour in.
"This is a chronic, anorexic-like, glass-half-empty person in whose eyesight the glass never fills up no matter how much water you pour in."
_______________________________
Well since its degenerated into the typical "you don't agree with me so your bad" argument there's no point in going any further.
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.