.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

This Issue May Kill Them At The Ballot Box, Again


Democrats' demands for a speedy military pullout from Iraq threaten to raise the soft-on-national-security issue and could hurt the party's chances in next year's elections, political analysts say.

Recent Democratic troop withdrawal initiatives in Congress, followed by a direct pullout call from Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean, have not only widened a split over the war among Democrats, they have raised fears among party operatives that the "get out of Iraq now" posture will help the Republicans keep control of Congress next November.

"The Democrats have been trying to erase this soft-on-defense-and-national-security label for years, and this is a potential setback in that effort. It sure handed Republicans some ammunition," said veteran elections analyst Jennifer Duffy at the Cook Political Report, which tracks House and Senate races.

"I think [troop withdrawal] probably plays well in the Democratic primaries, but it can be very problematic in general elections, especially in red states and swing states," she said.

Since Vietnam, the Democrats in this nation have been hostile towards our military. They've adopted the world's socialist viewpoint that the military is bad. "Can't we all just get along?" has been the rhetoric that we hear out of them frequently. Pres. Clinton maintained that he "loathed" the military, and that sentiment still rings true today for the modern Democrat Party. Only it's gotten worse. Not only do they abhor any situation that calls for the military's deployment, but they especially dislike it when America stands up for herself. They'd prefer we stay "humble" and listen to what the world tells us. The problem is that we've been the world's janitor long enough, and it's time for America to take a more pro-active role.

The cut-and-run squad amongst the Democrats are going to kill any chances they have at regaining a damn thing in Congress in 2006, and it could very well hurt them further in 2008. Even if we finish up the Iraq phase of this war by 2008, who are the Democrats going to put up against a strong GOP candidate? John Kerry? He would defer to the UN for permission before acting. The same thing goes for Clinton, Biden, and even poor old Evan Bayh. They'd rather the US be subservient to the world rather than a leader as the world's lone remaining superpower.

The Democrats' growing dispute over Iraq appears to be dividing them over the No. 1 issue in the country just as they are about to enter a pivotal election cycle, a veteran party leader said Friday.

"You have to be careful that you don't say things that fail to unify the party. What Dean said, frankly, created more divisions than unified the party over what we ought to do in Iraq," said Leon Panetta, former Clinton White House chief of staff.

Calls by Democratic congressional leaders for near-term troop withdrawals have drawn criticism from Democrats such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who said such a move would be tantamount to surrender before the Iraqi security forces are ready to fully defend their country from the insurgency.

The party's brewing political divisions over the war reached a boiling point last week when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, embraced calls for a quick pullout and Mr. Dean not only declared that the war was unwinnable, but also set forth a withdrawal plan that would redeploy most U.S. forces fighting in Iraq to other countries.

I hate to say this, but Panetta's right. Dean and the rest of the cut-and-run "Defeatocrats" are dividing the party in more ways than I can count. And the divisions are running deep. On one side, we have Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, and Murtha leading the retreat-first Democrats. On the other side are people like Lieberman and Hoyer that know what the consequences of an early departure from Iraq will mean. Leaving now would leave the fledgling nation at the mercy of the terrorists wirthin her borders now. And if these "Defeatocrats" think that when we leave everything will calm down, they had better put down the bottle and pay close attention.

If we left, the terrorists would pounce on a security force not yet ready to handle things on their own, and a military that's barely existent. That's not to say the Iraqis aren't moving in the right direction. They are, but as anyone knows who has served in this nation, or studied the military (like me), it takes time to make a soldier. It takes even more time if your're specializing that soldier to deal with threats like terrorists. Rome wasn't built in a day; a military can't be built in a year.

In the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he feared the party's troop-pullout posture would hurt Democratic candidates in key races. A growing number of Democrats, including Mr. Hoyer, distanced themselves from Mrs. Pelosi's remarks and some openly and bluntly criticized Mr. Dean.

"My words to Howard Dean are simple -- shut up," Rep. Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota Democrat, said last week.

In the Senate, Democrats publicly and privately said they disagreed with Mr. Dean's withdrawal proposal, including red-state Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida, both of whom are up for re-election next year.

Even Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, one of President Bush's harshest war critics, flatly rejected Mr. Dean's declaration that the "idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that, unfortunately, it's just plain wrong."

With comments coming from his own party like those above, I'd watch my back if I were "Howling Mad" Howie. There may be a "night of long knives" in his immediate future. Dean said when he became the new DNC chariman that he was going to define to America what Democrats stand for. He was "going to energize" the Democrat base. He's energized it, all right, but it's the wrong base. It's the extreme moonbat Left he's ginned up. These people don't represent the mainstream of Democrats in this nation. Hell, they're not even close to relating to mainstream America at all.

I expect to see more Democrats coming out against Dean as this next year heats up. 2006 is an election year, and there are quite a few Democrats that are up for reelection. There are fifteen seats up in the Senate alone. With the GOP holding onto their slim five seat majority there, the Democrats can ill afford to lose any of these elections. Dean may put the nails in his party's coffin if he keeps opening his mouth and swallowing his foot. He's done nothing but that since he was elected chairman of the DNC. From calling Republicans "evil," "crooked," and "liars" to constantly calling for the Democrats to undermine the president, he's slowly bleeding his party.

"I think that there's a chance of success," Mr. Levin said, "providing the Iraqis put their political house in order."

Mr. Panetta said he, too, rejected Mr. Dean's belief that the United States could not achieve its goals in Iraq.

"I really do believe that if we had a clear strategy we can ultimately provide sufficient stability in Iraq. I think that part is doable," he said.

"Dean's position is not universally shared within the party and all these folks are going to have to deal with this stuff," Ms. Duffy said.

Ladies and gentlemen this is a simple concept that Dena's missing: If you and your party disagree--especially those in the party that have been elected--the message has to change from one side or the other. Those voted into office aren't going to change their's; that's absurd. The chair will have to change his, and soon, otherwise his rhetoric will be like the chains that Jacob Marley is forced to carry throughout the remainder of his "unlife." Dean's words, his positions, will be those chains on any candidate running for office. Mom-and-pop Democrats respect our military. They always have. I've spoken to a few here in Arizona that aren't fond of the president, but they understand what this war is about, and why it must be fought.

They're not buying the moonbat fringe explanations for this war. They don't buy the "war for oil," or the "Bush wanted revenge" rhetoric. They remember 11 Sept. as if it were yesterday. They may disagree with the president's call to invade Iraq, but the troops are on the ground. Once the battle's commenced we will settle for nothing less than victory. Now, if these people aren't buying the pap the Democrats like Dean and Kerry are trying to peddle, what makes Dean think that they'll vote for an incumbant that he endorses? They'll equate that candidate with Dean's defeatist rhetoric. And they won't vote for someone who thinks that the best strategy is to cut-and-run.

The discord grew so great last week that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, urged his fellow Democrats to "limit their comments" on Iraq to areas where there was general agreement in the party.

Meanwhile, preliminary polling numbers showed last week that public support for Mr. Bush's stance on the war had inched up a few notches, pollster John Zogby said.

"His numbers are a little better," Mr. Zogby said.

It's pretty sad when the Minority Leader in the Senate has to tell everyone to shut up unless they are reading from the same talking points. And I'm guessing it's because these guys on Capitol Hill are catching hell over this sort of talk.People like Dean and Pelosi point to Murtha, and claim that so many people support his position for a troop withdrawal. I'd be willing to place a wager on that; I doubt the numbers are as they present them. Recently, Murtha said he was applauded at a speaking engagement over his comments regarding Iraq. That's not true. He was speaking about the pork spending in DC, and brought up his bill to withdraw the troops.

The room grew silent. People were unsure how to take those comments. When one is given a moment of pause, that usually means somebody just stepped in a big pile of s**t. Murtha's done just that. Many people, like myself, respect the man because he put on the uniform and served this nation. However, all the good he did wearing the uniform can't make up for the lack of sense in cutting the troops off at the knees. Nothing can make up for these "Defeatocrats" continued desire to undermine the president during a time of war.

The Democrats had better get on the same page, and right quick-like. 2006 could prove to be a watershed year for the GOP if Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi keep pushing this antiwar stance. The reason why it worked in Vietnam was because, on the whole, the war was unpopular, and a draft was in effect. There is no draft now. And the nation understands WHY we are at war. If the Left in this country doesn't wise up soon, they'll be joining Tom Daschle on the lobbyist tour. We, on the Republican side of the aisle, could only hope for such.

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product