After the Thumping

Opinion Journal ^ | 31 Jan 07 | Charles R. Kesler

[rellimpank]

Conservatives blame Republicans for losing Congress. Are they right?

Conservatives are offering a curious explanation for the drubbing they took at the polls: they blame the Republicans. The 2006 elections were not a conservative defeat, you see; they were a Republican one, a rejection of a party that had strayed too far from the conservative path. John McCain put the point nicely: "Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us."

The corollary is that McCain--along with many other, more reliable conservative spokesmen--believes that most Americans remain quietly conservative. But this latent center-right majority, he argues, needs reassuring that in 2008 the GOP will once again hew to true-blue (pardon the term) conservative principles.

In their hearts, he knows they're Right.

[pollyannaish]

There is nothing more that I would like than to punch Harry Reid in the schnozz, even if it landed me in the slammer. However, all that would happen is that a minority of Americans would cheer while the media convinced a large majority that a crazed grandmother had attacked poor old Harry because he wanted to help kittens and puppies.

ROFL. Speaking of taking one for the team...I'd pay to see that. Please MM? Could you wear a quaint hat and carry a big corduroy handbag when you do the job? What a guilty pleasure that would be, watching him knocked flat.

[Miss Marple]

Tony Snow wouldn't get covered unless he was a liability to the president. Shouting wouldn't make any difference.

I agree that Hillary is increasingly moving to the left. That oil company thing isn't really very smart. I always say that if everyone hates oil companies so much, why was "Dallas" the number 1 TV show for so many years?

You are REALLY going to go ballistic when the president appears with Pelosi at a news conference this morning. However, I suggest you watch how he maneuvers her into behaving better than one would expect.

[DCPatriot]

Good morning! ;^)

[MNJohnnie]

"This misimpression has been heightened by the willingness of most conservative journals in this country to swallow their misgivings and follow the administration in its impromptu pursuit of democracy in Iraq. Yet conservative objections, not all of them honorable, reassert themselves in the wake of Iraq's intractable difficulties--and the American voters' impatience with the whole scene.


Utter absurd nonsense. Another mindless Dinosaur screaming his dogmas rather then give up his comfortable 09-10-01 illusions. Since the end of WW2 Conservative have always been for a strong National Defense. This author is not a Conservative but a Reactionary who mindlessly clings to the absurd notion that some how the world would just be perfect if he could convince enough Americans of the splendors of America Fristism and a policy of national Isolationism. Not only stupid policy appraisal but the author is appallingly ignorant about even the slight hint of a fact about conditions in Iraq.


Why Iraq

One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the "Anti War movement") of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US's National "News" media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.

Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.

To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.

The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.

Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).

Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.

There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.

Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" or dumbest of all "We are creating terrorists" then to actually THINK.

Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their "god" will reward them for killing us.

So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.

Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it

[Clintonfatigued]

"I always say that if everyone hates oil companies so much, why was "Dallas" the number 1 TV show for so many years?"

Because the American public enjoyed watching wealthy oil people suffering.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us."

Although I held my nose and did the right thing, this actually sums up the last twelve years pretty well. The GOP had ample opportunity to consolidate their majority status by engaging the mushy middle around the commonsense native American virtues of conservatism, as Reagan had. Instead they acted like the pigs in Animal Farm.

No wonder the middle went somewhere else.

[Cedar]

"The purpose of a political party is to serve the needs of its members, not the other way around."

Great point...as also are other comments you've made on this thread.

[slowhandluke]

The notion that a steady conservative majority exists, waiting only to be activated by the right Republican appeal, thus makes for bad GOP strategy. It lures Republicans into thinking their job is easier than it is, by disguising the hard truth that victory still depends on persuading, not merely reminding, a crucial segment of the electorate to think conservative and vote Republican.

The notion that persuasion before the election is enough has led us to a Democrat Congress and Senate. After 6 years of winning elections based on a victory because people were persuaded that the Republicans were conservative, the Republicans lost because the recent history is that they cannot be believed.

The bad GOP strategy is that of not governing as conservatively as they campaigned.

[LexBaird]

I saw on another thread that a very smart freeper (I've forgotten which one) made note of the fact that Newt's Contract with America didn't contain a single social issue. Not one.

Yes and no. The concrete proposals of the CwA addressed specific solutions based in social imperatives, such as strengthening traditional family units. There is a social philosophy inherent in the 10 points.

[Peach]

Social philosophy as it relates to responsibility, as I recall, but without specific mention of the social conservative's concerns regarding abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. The Contract for America didn't mention any of those.

[LexBaird]

Social philosophy as it relates to responsibility, as I recall, but without specific mention of the social conservative's concerns regarding abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. The Contract for America didn't mention any of those.

Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar in 1994. Abortion has been out of the hands of the House since Roe. The gun issue, I'll spot you, although that fight has been pretty much concentrated in the States, except for the AWB. But the individual proposals are rooted in social stands: personal responsibility, fostering family values, punishing crime, lessening governmental burdens, reforming the budget, etc. The GOP needs such a defining, cross candidate declaration of values now, so the name "Republican" means something.

[Snoopers-868th]

Read