Democrats Are Not Stupid, Though They Think Americans Are ...
And the above is a true statement. Democrats are not unintelligent, however those on the extreme Left are because they continually take positions contrary to the "mom-and-pop" wing that has served that party for so long. When the Democrats took their hard Left turn, they abandoned the side of them that held a proud heritage. It was the same side that supported FDR in World War II, and Truman who followed. It was the same side that wholeheartedly embraced JFK. But then the party turned, and its politicis shifted to such a great degree that the mom-and-pop types no longer recognize their own party; in essence, they feel like Reagan did when he realized his party had abandoned him.
Some may have finally seen the writing on the wall, or they are playing games with their constituents. All I know is what the WaPo has up today, and that is a story about Democrats distancing themselves from the unhinged Left that could not tell the difference between a French flag of surrender and American National Security:
Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.
Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.
The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.
"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit strategy.
To Mr. Murphy and the rest of the Democrats out there, I have this for you: The troops will ocme home when the mission is complete. And not a moment sooner.
People like John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Russ feingold, and even Joe Lieberman (who is echoing certain sentiments) have the wrong idea for Iraq. Cutting and running (do not let them fool you because that is precisely what they are advocating) will only cause Iraq to collapse into utter chaos, leaving them at the mercy (or lack thereof) of their neighbors Syria and Iran. If we would like to see another Somalia (circa today, not 1993, a la Black Hawk Down) then all we need to do is pull out of Iraq. In less than a year, it will enbd up being a civil war-torn country under militant Islamic control.
And while I will grant that some of the Democrats might actually NOT favor withdrawing troops, we need to remind ourselves that these people will say and do almost anything to get into power (unseating Republicans along the way), or to maintain their power. They have for many years, promising this or that, then delivering the opposite or a seriously watered-down version of their promises. And here is an example to emphasize my point:
With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq, some Democrats say the wisest political course is to blame Bush and the GOP for problems in Iraq but avoid getting drawn into a debate with Republicans over how they would go about dealing with the war.
"They want to give us this cut-and-run moniker and accuse us of a pre-9/11 mentality," said Diane Farrell, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). "I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by Karl Rove and company."
Democrats are pressing Republican lawmakers to defend Bush's war policies in the face of mounting troop and civilian casualties in Iraq, and to explain why the GOP-controlled Congress did not scrutinize mistakes by the administration and the military in prewar planning. Democrats say they would have held Bush accountable for what they deem his mismanagement of the invasion, occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. They promise rigorous oversight of the war if they take control of either chamber.
See, Ms. Farrell misses the point. The "moniker" of "cut-and-run" first popped up in 2004 with John Kerry's numerous gaffes surrounding the idea. Then the party just never gave it up after his loss to President Bush in 2004. Instead of tossing aside a platform point that obviously did not reflect well with voters, they latched onto the point, and made it a stple of the platform. And if the polls reflect that a majority of people believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, then why are these sixty, or so, Democrats running away from a party platform that seems to have backing in the party's base?
Simply put, they know the polls are skewed, and that a majority of Americans, while they may not be happy with the war, do not want our troops abandoning Iraq; a mjority knows what will happen. The Democrats obviously cannot graps the idea. As a matter of fact, not even Miss Cleo can help them see that. (Though I hear that Hillary is in constant contact with Eleanor Roosevelt over this subject.) All right. All Right. Quit throwing tomatoes; I know it was a bad joke.
The fact remains that the Democrats are facing a heck of a split in their party on this issue, which simply proves that they have no cohesive platform. These candidates know that if they stand on the issue of troop withdrawal that the only time they will see the inside of a congressman's office is if they visit it. And if they do not raise a stink about the war, the nutroots campaign led by the unhinged base will crucify them, as they did to Lieberman in Connecticut.
Most of all the Democrats are going to be one-issue voters in this election. The war and national security, both of which go hand-in-hand, will be the 800lb. gorilla in the room. And if that is the issue which they are running on, make or break, then so be it. But the base is looking at a national party in shambles with no solid, uniting message to their constituents. The message they want to adopt, other candidates are afraid to because they know it is a losing issue. Retreat and defeat will not work for them now, or in 2008.
With things coming to a head regarding Iran, and the public knows that Iran will be a serious point of contention in the months and years down the road. The bases in both parties understand what sort of world we live in, and it is not pretty. It is one where our enemies are ruthless and merciless, and show next-to-no pity for those innocents they kidnap or kill.
And in such a world a strong defense is needed to keep the wolves back. A national security plan is needed to protect this nation from harm. Like it or not, under the presidency of George W. Bush this nation has not suffered another attack since 9/11. That is commendable, but it is due to the programs put in place by the president and his colleagues in the House and Senate. It is not coming from the Democrats. On the contrary, they are fighting him on these measures that were put in place shortly after the attacks.
And whether you agree or disagree with the president's NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, the SWIFT financial tracking program, or how we are treating the prisoners in this (which is with virtual kid gloves right now), there is no argument in the fact that these programs are keeping us safe and secure. And in the end, when we go into the voting booths, there is one question we have to ask ourselves.
Do we want to trust a party that has butted heads with the president over issues of national security; the same party who celebrated "killing the Patriot Act," and celebrated Judge Taylor's unhinged decision to rule the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional? Or are we going to trust the president and his party to continue making progress on the homefront, in terms of preventing further attacks, and on the war front in taking the fight to the bad guys?
Personally, I will choose the latter this year because the Democrat's lack-of-a-plan is likely to get us killed. And if we lose this war, all the petty issues that are on the minds of voters--from gay marriage to immigration reform--will not amount to a hill of beans. This issue is the most important one facing us right now. And while some Democrats are running away from the unhinged moonbats in their party--and that is commendable--I do not trust them once elected.
Marcie
And the above is a true statement. Democrats are not unintelligent, however those on the extreme Left are because they continually take positions contrary to the "mom-and-pop" wing that has served that party for so long. When the Democrats took their hard Left turn, they abandoned the side of them that held a proud heritage. It was the same side that supported FDR in World War II, and Truman who followed. It was the same side that wholeheartedly embraced JFK. But then the party turned, and its politicis shifted to such a great degree that the mom-and-pop types no longer recognize their own party; in essence, they feel like Reagan did when he realized his party had abandoned him.
Some may have finally seen the writing on the wall, or they are playing games with their constituents. All I know is what the WaPo has up today, and that is a story about Democrats distancing themselves from the unhinged Left that could not tell the difference between a French flag of surrender and American National Security:
Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.
Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns.
The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the increasingly unpopular war.
"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit strategy.
To Mr. Murphy and the rest of the Democrats out there, I have this for you: The troops will ocme home when the mission is complete. And not a moment sooner.
People like John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Russ feingold, and even Joe Lieberman (who is echoing certain sentiments) have the wrong idea for Iraq. Cutting and running (do not let them fool you because that is precisely what they are advocating) will only cause Iraq to collapse into utter chaos, leaving them at the mercy (or lack thereof) of their neighbors Syria and Iran. If we would like to see another Somalia (circa today, not 1993, a la Black Hawk Down) then all we need to do is pull out of Iraq. In less than a year, it will enbd up being a civil war-torn country under militant Islamic control.
And while I will grant that some of the Democrats might actually NOT favor withdrawing troops, we need to remind ourselves that these people will say and do almost anything to get into power (unseating Republicans along the way), or to maintain their power. They have for many years, promising this or that, then delivering the opposite or a seriously watered-down version of their promises. And here is an example to emphasize my point:
With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq, some Democrats say the wisest political course is to blame Bush and the GOP for problems in Iraq but avoid getting drawn into a debate with Republicans over how they would go about dealing with the war.
"They want to give us this cut-and-run moniker and accuse us of a pre-9/11 mentality," said Diane Farrell, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). "I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by Karl Rove and company."
Democrats are pressing Republican lawmakers to defend Bush's war policies in the face of mounting troop and civilian casualties in Iraq, and to explain why the GOP-controlled Congress did not scrutinize mistakes by the administration and the military in prewar planning. Democrats say they would have held Bush accountable for what they deem his mismanagement of the invasion, occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. They promise rigorous oversight of the war if they take control of either chamber.
See, Ms. Farrell misses the point. The "moniker" of "cut-and-run" first popped up in 2004 with John Kerry's numerous gaffes surrounding the idea. Then the party just never gave it up after his loss to President Bush in 2004. Instead of tossing aside a platform point that obviously did not reflect well with voters, they latched onto the point, and made it a stple of the platform. And if the polls reflect that a majority of people believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, then why are these sixty, or so, Democrats running away from a party platform that seems to have backing in the party's base?
Simply put, they know the polls are skewed, and that a majority of Americans, while they may not be happy with the war, do not want our troops abandoning Iraq; a mjority knows what will happen. The Democrats obviously cannot graps the idea. As a matter of fact, not even Miss Cleo can help them see that. (Though I hear that Hillary is in constant contact with Eleanor Roosevelt over this subject.) All right. All Right. Quit throwing tomatoes; I know it was a bad joke.
The fact remains that the Democrats are facing a heck of a split in their party on this issue, which simply proves that they have no cohesive platform. These candidates know that if they stand on the issue of troop withdrawal that the only time they will see the inside of a congressman's office is if they visit it. And if they do not raise a stink about the war, the nutroots campaign led by the unhinged base will crucify them, as they did to Lieberman in Connecticut.
Most of all the Democrats are going to be one-issue voters in this election. The war and national security, both of which go hand-in-hand, will be the 800lb. gorilla in the room. And if that is the issue which they are running on, make or break, then so be it. But the base is looking at a national party in shambles with no solid, uniting message to their constituents. The message they want to adopt, other candidates are afraid to because they know it is a losing issue. Retreat and defeat will not work for them now, or in 2008.
With things coming to a head regarding Iran, and the public knows that Iran will be a serious point of contention in the months and years down the road. The bases in both parties understand what sort of world we live in, and it is not pretty. It is one where our enemies are ruthless and merciless, and show next-to-no pity for those innocents they kidnap or kill.
And in such a world a strong defense is needed to keep the wolves back. A national security plan is needed to protect this nation from harm. Like it or not, under the presidency of George W. Bush this nation has not suffered another attack since 9/11. That is commendable, but it is due to the programs put in place by the president and his colleagues in the House and Senate. It is not coming from the Democrats. On the contrary, they are fighting him on these measures that were put in place shortly after the attacks.
And whether you agree or disagree with the president's NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, the SWIFT financial tracking program, or how we are treating the prisoners in this (which is with virtual kid gloves right now), there is no argument in the fact that these programs are keeping us safe and secure. And in the end, when we go into the voting booths, there is one question we have to ask ourselves.
Do we want to trust a party that has butted heads with the president over issues of national security; the same party who celebrated "killing the Patriot Act," and celebrated Judge Taylor's unhinged decision to rule the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional? Or are we going to trust the president and his party to continue making progress on the homefront, in terms of preventing further attacks, and on the war front in taking the fight to the bad guys?
Personally, I will choose the latter this year because the Democrat's lack-of-a-plan is likely to get us killed. And if we lose this war, all the petty issues that are on the minds of voters--from gay marriage to immigration reform--will not amount to a hill of beans. This issue is the most important one facing us right now. And while some Democrats are running away from the unhinged moonbats in their party--and that is commendable--I do not trust them once elected.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home