GOP vs. Democrats In 2006: The War Will Remain The Top Issue
As election day draws closer, the arguments and debate rise in crescendo. Who will win? Will The GOP maintain its control of both houses of Congress, or will the Democrats pull a 1994 redux on the country, and take over control of both houses? Or will they only net one? This is the subject of a Finacial Times column on MSNBC's site, and it shows the strong divisions withint he Democrat Party. Of course the Democrats, in our humble opinion, will probably not retake either house, but they might make gains; paltry ones at that, but gains nonetheless.
For months opinion polls have indicated the Democrats are on course to win back at least one and possibly both houses of Congress at mid-term elections in November. Yet two unrelated events – the defeat of Joe Lieberman by Connecticut Democrats over the senator's support for the Iraq war, and Britain's foiling of an alleged airline terrorist plot – have put a spring back in the Republican step. ...
... "Mr Bush's ratings on his handling of terrorism are like the stock market," said Strobe Talbott, head of the Brookings Institution, a leading Washington think-tank. "If the headlines that day are about terror – say the arrests in Heathrow – then his stock rises. If they are not, his stock falls. The outcome in November rests greatly on what the headlines will be in October."
Republicans admit their best hope for retaining control of the legislature in November – and thus staving off what could be a furious backlash against the Bush administration from a Democrat-controlled Congress – is to ensure the public is thinking about terrorism. "This is about America's role in the world and how we fight and win," said a senior Bush administration official.
Many Democrats believe the best campaign response is to focus on the beleaguered US military presence in Iraq, which continues to go from bad to worse. But the party remains divided with some, including Hillary Clinton, who is running for re-election as senator from New York, arguing it would be irresponsible for the US to "cut and run".
Others, such as John Kerry, the losing 2004 presidential candidate, say the US must set a strict timetable for complete withdrawal of America's 132,000 Iraq-based troops regardless of whether it would trigger a full-blown civil war. Still others, such as Jo Biden, a Democrat senator and also a 2008 presidential hopeful, say Iraq should be partitioned along Balkan lines.
Finally, the Democratic "netroots" – liberal bloggers, whose hero is Ned Lamont, the man who defeated Mr Lieberman last week – demand an immediate, full withdrawal from Iraq. The net result is public confusion. "It is possible for the public to hold two contradictory thoughts in the same moment – that Mr Bush made a huge mistake in going into Iraq but that the Democrats cannot be trusted to handle the issue responsibly," admitted a senior Democrat.
Because of its heated divisions, the Democrats are finding it frustratingly hard to exploit an unpopular president's unpopular war to the extent many believe they should. "It is not enough to say that the war in Iraq is disliked," said Michael Gerson, Mr Bush's chief speech writer until last May. "The public also wants to know what the Democrats would do about it."
We know exactly what the Democrats will do if they win. It will be a replay of US foreign policy in the early seveties with Congress cutting the funding for the war, and bringing the troops home. This strategy, while it may be good for the antiwar nutters in Congress and America, would be a bad idea for the country, as a whole. With our departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and both nations facing an upswing in violence from the terrorists, those same people we have been fighting for five years will roll over the meager forces we have put together in both nations. That isn't to discount the security and military forces we have trained, but on-the-job-training is no way to prepare a military force to deal with barbaric, Seventh Century animals. They still need assistance from America.
The Democrats don't seem to comprehend this blatantly obvious fact. Retreat has never been an answer to any sort of terrorist. It was not the answer in World War II. It wasn't even close to being the answer during the Cold War, despite numerous attempts by the Democrats to undermine our efforts. They embraced the antiwar culture of the Vietnam era, and they also found that the Communists weren't as bad as they were portrayed by the government. President Carter wobbled in the face of radical Islam from Iran in 1979, and when President Reagan took office, they tried repeatedly to tie his hands when it came to constructing the arsenal needed to meet the Soviets head-on. Each time these fringe elements erupt from the Democrat Party it proves more and more that this party is one of appeasement and not of strength.
The divisions in the party are clearer than most imagine. The two men who wrote this piece (Edward Luce and Caroline Daniel) point out that Hillary Clinton is standing against any sort of cut-and-run strategy. If anyone thinks that this is what she truly believes, then they're smoking something and not sharing. Hillary is running to the center as fast as her political operatives can carry her there. She's doing it for votes, folks, and nothing more. Her hawkish stance on the war hasn't forced the other Democrats to turn their back on her as they did to Joe Lieberman, which is another telling sign that she's blowing smoke up someone's skirt. Unfortunately for her, the public isn't fooled. And her future plans of becoming president lie in the singular hope that if she is the nominee in 2008 that she can pull off a three-way race, as her husband did, and slide into the Oval Office with less than a majority, as her husband did.
John Kerry has returned to his 1970s identity, and is kowtowing to the antiwar crowd. His rhetoric has shifted to supporting the troops to demanding their return home; a stance that is embraced by the Mother Moonbat/Michael Moore/Daily Kos crowd alone, and could have serious repercussions come 2008 if he decides to run for president again. While the MSM continues to portray the war as "unpopular," support for the troops and their mission hasn't waned much. People still support the mission even though they may differ on how the war should be conducted. Armchair generals (and unfortunately we're a couple of them) believe that the US isn't doing what is necessary to win the war. However, our support of the president hasn't shifted. And the last time I checked having a differing opinion doesn't equate to disliking the man
But because the Democrats have this division, and it's an obvious one that the public can clearly see, people aren't likely to vote for a party that can't seem to find it's way through the forest. Their platform has similar divisions, as was evident in March story from the WaPo. In that story, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski relayed this little tidbit to the writers of the piece: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' " That is a telling statement for their party heading into mid-term elections with victory ion their minds, but no platform to present to voters.
Both Edward Luce and Caroline Daniel point to Michael Gerson for the money quote in the piece: "The public also wants to know what the Democrats would do about it." They have no plan for Iraq other than running away from it. Funny how they hyped up Colin Powell's statement about if you break it you have to fix it, yet they don't want to stay there any longer to finish fixing things. They'd rather allow the Iraqis to handle that, which is a disaster waiting to happen. With unrest in Iraq rising, and Moqtada al-Sadr still controlling his militia there, a US retreat from that theater could prove disastrous for the region. If the militants in Iraq watch us leave, the country will fall into all-out civil war. It will be a replay of America leaving Vietnam. Only this time it won't be Communists swarming over the border. It will be Islamofascists from Iran and Syria. And Joe Biden won't have to worry about "balkanization" for Iraq because our enemies will wipe out anyone who doesn't embrace their ideology. And the Democrats can ignore that all they want, but it'll be a sad truth should they regain power. The simple fact remains that when it comes to the war--the most important issue for the United States right now--the Democrats have no plan except to run and hide; a form of isolationism that will only be a detriment to the nation.
Publius II
As election day draws closer, the arguments and debate rise in crescendo. Who will win? Will The GOP maintain its control of both houses of Congress, or will the Democrats pull a 1994 redux on the country, and take over control of both houses? Or will they only net one? This is the subject of a Finacial Times column on MSNBC's site, and it shows the strong divisions withint he Democrat Party. Of course the Democrats, in our humble opinion, will probably not retake either house, but they might make gains; paltry ones at that, but gains nonetheless.
For months opinion polls have indicated the Democrats are on course to win back at least one and possibly both houses of Congress at mid-term elections in November. Yet two unrelated events – the defeat of Joe Lieberman by Connecticut Democrats over the senator's support for the Iraq war, and Britain's foiling of an alleged airline terrorist plot – have put a spring back in the Republican step. ...
... "Mr Bush's ratings on his handling of terrorism are like the stock market," said Strobe Talbott, head of the Brookings Institution, a leading Washington think-tank. "If the headlines that day are about terror – say the arrests in Heathrow – then his stock rises. If they are not, his stock falls. The outcome in November rests greatly on what the headlines will be in October."
Republicans admit their best hope for retaining control of the legislature in November – and thus staving off what could be a furious backlash against the Bush administration from a Democrat-controlled Congress – is to ensure the public is thinking about terrorism. "This is about America's role in the world and how we fight and win," said a senior Bush administration official.
Many Democrats believe the best campaign response is to focus on the beleaguered US military presence in Iraq, which continues to go from bad to worse. But the party remains divided with some, including Hillary Clinton, who is running for re-election as senator from New York, arguing it would be irresponsible for the US to "cut and run".
Others, such as John Kerry, the losing 2004 presidential candidate, say the US must set a strict timetable for complete withdrawal of America's 132,000 Iraq-based troops regardless of whether it would trigger a full-blown civil war. Still others, such as Jo Biden, a Democrat senator and also a 2008 presidential hopeful, say Iraq should be partitioned along Balkan lines.
Finally, the Democratic "netroots" – liberal bloggers, whose hero is Ned Lamont, the man who defeated Mr Lieberman last week – demand an immediate, full withdrawal from Iraq. The net result is public confusion. "It is possible for the public to hold two contradictory thoughts in the same moment – that Mr Bush made a huge mistake in going into Iraq but that the Democrats cannot be trusted to handle the issue responsibly," admitted a senior Democrat.
Because of its heated divisions, the Democrats are finding it frustratingly hard to exploit an unpopular president's unpopular war to the extent many believe they should. "It is not enough to say that the war in Iraq is disliked," said Michael Gerson, Mr Bush's chief speech writer until last May. "The public also wants to know what the Democrats would do about it."
We know exactly what the Democrats will do if they win. It will be a replay of US foreign policy in the early seveties with Congress cutting the funding for the war, and bringing the troops home. This strategy, while it may be good for the antiwar nutters in Congress and America, would be a bad idea for the country, as a whole. With our departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and both nations facing an upswing in violence from the terrorists, those same people we have been fighting for five years will roll over the meager forces we have put together in both nations. That isn't to discount the security and military forces we have trained, but on-the-job-training is no way to prepare a military force to deal with barbaric, Seventh Century animals. They still need assistance from America.
The Democrats don't seem to comprehend this blatantly obvious fact. Retreat has never been an answer to any sort of terrorist. It was not the answer in World War II. It wasn't even close to being the answer during the Cold War, despite numerous attempts by the Democrats to undermine our efforts. They embraced the antiwar culture of the Vietnam era, and they also found that the Communists weren't as bad as they were portrayed by the government. President Carter wobbled in the face of radical Islam from Iran in 1979, and when President Reagan took office, they tried repeatedly to tie his hands when it came to constructing the arsenal needed to meet the Soviets head-on. Each time these fringe elements erupt from the Democrat Party it proves more and more that this party is one of appeasement and not of strength.
The divisions in the party are clearer than most imagine. The two men who wrote this piece (Edward Luce and Caroline Daniel) point out that Hillary Clinton is standing against any sort of cut-and-run strategy. If anyone thinks that this is what she truly believes, then they're smoking something and not sharing. Hillary is running to the center as fast as her political operatives can carry her there. She's doing it for votes, folks, and nothing more. Her hawkish stance on the war hasn't forced the other Democrats to turn their back on her as they did to Joe Lieberman, which is another telling sign that she's blowing smoke up someone's skirt. Unfortunately for her, the public isn't fooled. And her future plans of becoming president lie in the singular hope that if she is the nominee in 2008 that she can pull off a three-way race, as her husband did, and slide into the Oval Office with less than a majority, as her husband did.
John Kerry has returned to his 1970s identity, and is kowtowing to the antiwar crowd. His rhetoric has shifted to supporting the troops to demanding their return home; a stance that is embraced by the Mother Moonbat/Michael Moore/Daily Kos crowd alone, and could have serious repercussions come 2008 if he decides to run for president again. While the MSM continues to portray the war as "unpopular," support for the troops and their mission hasn't waned much. People still support the mission even though they may differ on how the war should be conducted. Armchair generals (and unfortunately we're a couple of them) believe that the US isn't doing what is necessary to win the war. However, our support of the president hasn't shifted. And the last time I checked having a differing opinion doesn't equate to disliking the man
But because the Democrats have this division, and it's an obvious one that the public can clearly see, people aren't likely to vote for a party that can't seem to find it's way through the forest. Their platform has similar divisions, as was evident in March story from the WaPo. In that story, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski relayed this little tidbit to the writers of the piece: "One of the other governors said 'What do you think?' and I said 'You know what I think? I don't think we have a message.' " That is a telling statement for their party heading into mid-term elections with victory ion their minds, but no platform to present to voters.
Both Edward Luce and Caroline Daniel point to Michael Gerson for the money quote in the piece: "The public also wants to know what the Democrats would do about it." They have no plan for Iraq other than running away from it. Funny how they hyped up Colin Powell's statement about if you break it you have to fix it, yet they don't want to stay there any longer to finish fixing things. They'd rather allow the Iraqis to handle that, which is a disaster waiting to happen. With unrest in Iraq rising, and Moqtada al-Sadr still controlling his militia there, a US retreat from that theater could prove disastrous for the region. If the militants in Iraq watch us leave, the country will fall into all-out civil war. It will be a replay of America leaving Vietnam. Only this time it won't be Communists swarming over the border. It will be Islamofascists from Iran and Syria. And Joe Biden won't have to worry about "balkanization" for Iraq because our enemies will wipe out anyone who doesn't embrace their ideology. And the Democrats can ignore that all they want, but it'll be a sad truth should they regain power. The simple fact remains that when it comes to the war--the most important issue for the United States right now--the Democrats have no plan except to run and hide; a form of isolationism that will only be a detriment to the nation.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home