Posted on 02/17/2007 9:22:00 PM PST by FairOpinion
"No, the author is making the point if the democrats were in control they would begin to appreciate the nature of the Islamic enemy we face."
How can anyone in their right mind believe it, after seeing the way Bill Clinton ignored terrorism, instead of fighting it. There were multiple attacks on us, and he didn't want to take Bin Laden, even when offered to him on a silver platter.
Excerpt from Bin Laden's Declaration of War on the US in 1996
"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia.
However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.
Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "
Wrong.
I think you are missing the point. Regardless of what you or I say or do, or who we may or may not vote for individually, many of us believe Rudy's liberal leanings and questionable background will not pass muster to the base and the grassroots conservative coalition. He will not receive the enthusiastic support required to win the election. Yeah, it's possible for him to pull in a majority or enough to win a primary, but if he can't turn out the base in the general he will lose. Even a small minority of lost votes from a few of the toss up states will give the Presidency to Hillary. We need to run a conservative that will pull together all of our conservative coalition and have a platform that will rouse the base and the grassroots. We can't have a lot of liberal baggage dragging us down.
I took his article to be somewhat tongue in cheek and more of a wake up call (sort of saying: "what are you guys thinking?")
"if you read alot of the FR political threads, you can see this theme evident right here."
Good point. A lot of "principled conservatives" through a hissy fit during the last election and gave the Dems the power to hold the war effort hostage and veto a strong conservative from being the next Supreme Court justice. That one judge could have tippled the balance on Roe v. Wade, for example, but it's not going to happen because of all those conservatives "staying true to their principles".
"We need to run a conservative that will pull together all of our conservative coalition and have a platform that will rouse the base and the grassroots. "
The problem is the WHO?
IMO Jeb Bush would have the best chance, if his last name weren't Bush. Newt did great in 1994, understand the issues, clearly a leader, but he didn't say he is running and I am afraid the Dem machinery would destroy him, the way they did, when he was speaker. Hunter has no name recognition and isn't likely to surge. So WHO?
Do you want to run? ;)
THose are your OWN points, nothing you attribute to Goldberg are points he was trying to make. He makes some very good points, however, which seem to have flown directly over your head. THe fact is, were a Democrat to win the WH, and incompetently handled the WOT to such an extent that with a year or so, another attack on our soil would occur, that would spell the end of their Party FOREVER. But if Democrats secretly hoped to lose the Presidency precisely because of such a scenario, they could also figure a way to re-establish a majority in Congress, which even lacking the Presidency, would put them in a very good position anyway. Goldberg doesn't make this point, but I do. The Dems will have to proceed in the next 20 months or so LOOKING like they are serious about gaining the WH, while keeping their fingers crossed that they WON'T get it.
Also, a Hillary or Obama administration will be even worse than Bill was in the 90s. We at least had a GOP Congress from 1995-2000.
If Hillary wins, she'd likely have a Dem House and Senate.
Bill had 45 dem Senators for much of his term. Imagine Hillary with 51-55 or more. Imagine Hillary with 250 dems in the House.
It'll be like it was during Carter or Johnson when the libs had near fillibuster/veto proof majorities.
For that reason alone, we need a Republican President.
Granted, it would probably take a dirty bomb or a nuclear attack, or something as big as that, and a lot of people will die, as well as the corresponding dip in the economy if this were to happen. (No comfort that the prime targets for such an attack would be in blue territory.)
No more Bushes!!
I am not saying I agree with the point, only that the point Jonah is making (that Democrats being in the driver's seat would wake them up to the enormity of the Islamofacist threat) is different from your point in post #1.
In my opinion, what Jonah advocates is far too big a risk.
I just can't believe the faith some people have in the Democrats. I did get the point Goldberg was trying to make, the point is that is IS preposterous.
He says:
"No, the argument, felt in places we don’t talk about at cocktail parties (vide A Few Good Men), is that the Democrats have been such irresponsible backseat drivers that they have to be forced to take the wheel to grasp how treacherous the road ahead is."
This is a major fallacy, that the Dems would grasp the real danger, if they were in power. Carter didn't grasp it, Bill Clinton didn't grasp it, what makes anyone think that they would grasp it now? If anything, Hillary would use it to declare her president for life.
See my post 31 also
>> Jonah Goldberg: Inherit the Wind. What if it takes a Democrat? (Maybe a Democrat should win),
We can't afford experiments like the one Goldberg entertains. Conservatives that support such ideas are a bit too comfortable in their thinking and don't give the impression of urgency.
Candidates don't "surge" by themselves, candidates "surge" when people get behind them and push their candidacy. This is what some of us are already doing. We don't waste time guessing about what could happen, we're too busy trying to make it happen.
Jonah has lost his mind
I understand your point and agree.
"Jonah has lost his mind"
That was my impression as well.
It's sheer insanity, regardless of the rationalization used, to get Dems control of the US.
I will not stay home, I will not vote for any democrat nor cut off my nose to spite my face.
If 911 did not cause the democrats to appreciate our enemies then a few thousand more dead American's certainly won't make a difference.
I also think Goldberg was tongue in cheek with this article.
I understand your point and agree.
===
I am certainly glad to hear that. :)
I was starting to feel, as if I landed in twilight zone.
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.