The Democrats' disarray

Townhall ^ | 12/22/05 | Ross Mackenzie

[HonduGOP]

The Democrats' disarray Dec 22, 2005 by Ross Mackenzie

Katrina, Scooter Libby, Tom DeLay, and Harriet Miers sent the national Democrats into paroxysms of joy. George Bush and the Republicans were history, as good as gone, dead meat.

Cindy Sheehan and Congressman John Murtha et al. piled on - citing the 2,000 mark of Americans killed in Iraq and launching a bring-the-boys-(and-girls)-home campaign reminiscent of nothing quite so much as the Communist-front enterprises of the 1950s and '60s. Bush's numbers plunged, and with it his own credibility and his administration's ability to accomplish anything during the next three years. And let us not fail to mention the dissolving Republican prospects at the polls.

Then came Veterans Day. Bush launched a rhetorical offensive to take back ownership of the Iraq question. Nearly half-a-dozen speeches laid out the issue - defending both the decision to go in and the determination not to fold 'em and get out before the dealing's done. The third successful Iraqi election in a year helped - big-time. Bush's numbers have turned. Happy days soon may be here again.

The ever-lovin' Democrats helped, too - as they have become so practiced at doing. They were determined to exploit Iraq finally to bring him down. But their incoherent performance regarding Iraq, so driven by their insatiable hatred of a good and decent man, is serving to bring him back.

The Democrats have fractured into essentially three camps on Iraq.

The Dean-Pelosi-Reid-Kennedy-Murtha-Kerry-Gore camp believes it's time - well past time - for the U.S. to confess to everything the terrorists require, declare defeat and vacate the premises in wide-eyed caterwauling.

The Rahm Emanuel/Steny Hoyer camp - Camp No. 2 - stands several steps toward the center from the fever-swampish Camp No. 1. Emanuel is a former senior White House aide to Bill Clinton. These days, he is the House Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman - and as such worries a lot about fund-raising and electing Democrats to the House next year.

Hoyer, the House Democratic Whip, shares with Emanuel the view that the group featuring his boss Nancy Pelosi and others could prove calamitous to the party: "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility." This camp houses the currently stealthy Hillary Clinton, about whom more below.

Camp No. 3, close to the true middle of the nation's ideological spectrum, boasts but one prominent Democrat - Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. (He has grown oh so much since his years of leftist intellectual extremism in the class behind me on our shared collegiate newspaper.)

Of late, Sen. Lieberman is saying about Iraq these things:

(a) What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory. And

(b): History will judge us harshly if we do not stretch across the divide of distrust to join together to complete our mission successfully in Iraq. It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

Most Democrats profess themselves appalled at Lieberman's deviationist moderation; some might prefer him out of the party. Yet his position on Iraq blends nicely with - these days - Sen. Clinton's. She voted to go in, yet: "If Congress had been asked (to authorize the war) based on what we know now, we never would have agreed." Now, in her programmed rightward rush, she rejects "a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

It is impossible to know where Sen. Clinton really stands - whether her position du jour is grounded in principle or politics. She alternates between sounding almost Liebermanesque and recalling John Kerry's incomprehensible remark a year ago that he voted for the war before he voted against it.

Kerry's latest pronouncement: "There is no reason . . . that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of th - of - the historical customs, religious customs."

Party Chairman Howard Dean is out screaming again, with some in his own party speeding away from him as fast as they are from Bush. The House emphatically has rejected calls for withdrawal twice in as many months. These two Washington Post page-one headlines reflect the Democrats' Iraqi disarray:

Dec. 5 - "Democrats Fear That Anti-War Remarks Could Backfire"

and

Dec. 7 - "Democrats Find Iraq Alternative Is Elusive."

No wonder Bush's numbers have turned. He is making the case for steadfastness at last. And what Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman terms the "retreat and defeat" Democrats, with no alternative plan in the realm of right reason, offer nothing but idiot teemings; next they may start groaning low about one, two, many Iraqs. Their reigning intellect may be James Carville, who has noted: "Sometimes, the problem with being a Democrat is being a Democrat."

Correct. And perhaps not least among the factors in the reversal of some of President Bush's numbers is this: Many Americans, however weary and impatient they may be about Iraq, are not lying awake at night thinking how much happier they would be with President Kerry or President Gore.

[Real Cynic No More]

To the democrats, the word "traitor" has nothing to do with acts against our country, but only acts against their party.

[wayoverontheright]

Bush has had a much more difficult time defeating our fifth-column within than the terrorists in Iraq.

Does anyone else see the conspiracy among the Democratic party, the NYT, and network TV, TO DEFEAT AMERICA IN IRAQ?

They have tried everything they could; calls for withdrawal, the attempt to stymie our eavesdropping, and the attempt to end the Patriot Act are all efforts to DEFEAT AMERICA.

They have realized that VICTORY in Iraq is DEFEAT for them all, and they are pulling out all stops in what they see is the fight for their own survival.

[GAB-1955]

No, I don't see a conspiracy, but I do see a common mindset among the leftist MSM and the leftist Dems. If they were conspiring to defeat our cause, they'd be more active in trying to stop funding for the war, impeding military recruiting, and so fort. Instead, I see a group of people with mutual ideological bonds which include a distrust of GWB and a distrust of the use of American military power overseas.

I was reading, ironically, in Rolling Stone, that there is a split in the anti-war movement. Some merely believe that the war is a mistake and want to end it as quietly as possible, but the main organizers, including ANSWER, want to see a humiliating defeat for the U.S.

The only factor they have is a dislike of GWB. I can see that. If you don't see his good qualities, his personal habits can be very irritating. He stays on message, he doesn't listen to his enemies' counsel, and he's not interested in what Europe or Canada think. He's a reformed drinker and he is not an articulate speaker. Of course he irritates his opponents, who still think John F. Kennedy was the epitome of the American Presidency.

So, I don't see a conspiracy, but rather a group mindset that jumps on every perceived error and tries to exploit it for political gain. It's hard to be the minority party for a decade; no one takes you seriously in Washington. In the same way, the MSM editors and reporters have the same social set, and that doesn't include Freepers, so they are getting garbage from their friends and neighbors about the Republicans.

The only source is to stay the course. What can the Dems to to GWB? They're like Dallas Cowboys fans; though they had a streak over their rival Redskins, they've lost the past two games against them in a humiliating manner, and they can't get over that. The Democrats can't impeach GWB because they don't have 67 votes in the Senate. They can't take back both houses of Congress, even if there are midterm gains. They can't stop judicial nominations. They can only hope that the Republicans self-destruct. Unfortunately, in the DeLay scandals, they have some seeds of winning marginal seats. All politics are local in that sense.

If the Democrats were conspiring, they'd be much more effective in this opposition.

[clee1]

...in what they see is the fight for their own survival.

That is the crux of the issue, FRiend. They'll do ANYTHING to keep even a semblance of power.

The Rats have already been relegated to 3rd class status. Rush is right; they ARE even more ludicrous when they're out of power. I have wished that his other prediction was equally correct: that many senior Rats would retire when they discovered that they would not quickly return to power. Shizzle; it's been over a decade.

[FreedomPoster]

We are fighting a two-front war, one against the leftover Baathists and the Jihadis, and another againsts our own media and Leftie politicians.

Unfortunately, this latter front was largely ignored for years.

[Candor7]

#1 "They were determined to exploit Iraq finally to bring him down. But their incoherent performance regarding Iraq, so driven by their insatiable hatred of a good and decent man, is serving to bring him back."


Not only that, the polls are conducted by Liberal Dimwit Mavins like Zogby. The Presidents numbers are likely much higher that they are reported.Why? Because the Dems use poll results to establish their strategies, and it makes them invariably prdictable. The Pubbies base their strategies on facts and promises made, giving them a strategic upper hand. Bush is a good man and now the more he is bashed, the more he is burnished, like polished gold or brass. Delightful!


#2

"Many Americans, however weary and impatient they may be about Iraq, are not lying awake at night thinking how much happier they would be with President Kerry or President Gore."

Not only are they not laying awake at night thinking how much happier they would be with a Gore, Kerry , but also a Clinton or a Leiberman. The average American now has learned to see past the wiles of middle road imagery to the hidden left wing agenda of all democrats. The middle roaders will lose big time in the next election cycle. This includes the RINOs. The American voter has seen our President stay the course and will want more of the same. None of the Dems, virtually NONE, have anyone who can fill that bill. The American public are " Thanking their lucky stars they do not have a Gore, Kerry, Billery, or a Leiberman as president, for it would mean the end of US influence in the world, and a resultant devolving economy.
Most Americans are astute enough to know this.

The president needs to groom a Republican Successor: this is rarely done in US politics, but Tom Delay would be one who would make a good president. He is a political genious.

[Soul Seeker]

And perhaps not least among the factors in the reversal of some of President Bush's numbers is this: Many Americans, however weary and impatient they may be about Iraq, are not lying awake at night thinking how much happier

That line had to hurt the Dems. Yet it's true. Americans, except the far out left that is a small minority, are not crying in their pillows every night that we didn't have those two for President. Neither are Republicans weeping that they didn't choose McCain. Whereas a vast majority say a prayer of thanks for G.W.B. everytime their reminded of what we could have had.

[Ouderkirk]

Of course ...we all see it. The MSM was opposed to the use of force and they have stuck to that template tooth and nail.

I have stopped reading the local paper, stopped watching the local news, network news and the news channels including Fox. I find what I need right here on FR.

Screw the media..they are dead to me.

[sr4402]

It is impossible to know where Sen. Clinton really stands - whether her position du jour is grounded in principle or politics. She alternates between sounding almost Liebermanesque and recalling John Kerry's incomprehensible remark a year ago that he voted for the war before he voted against it.

My Position is perfectly clear. As a woman, it is whatever I want it to be. The mainstream press will get it out for me and you have no choice but to believe it. On Iraq, I can say my vote was a mistake and you will forgive me for it by making me Queen over America.

/Sarcasm OFF

[Ouderkirk]

The president needs to groom a Republican Successor:

But not DeLay. I like Delay in the House as Majority Leader....maybe as Speaker. The Question then becomes who? Who would be the best man/woman to advance a true conservative agenda? I like Condi Rice, but I don't think she's a true believer. Jack Kemp? I have no idea who it's going to be...but someone needs to step out from the crowd soon.

[txrangerette]

What about Talk Radio?

[Candor7]

We lucked out with Bush, a man whose greatness was called forth by events which were beyond anyones control. Dubyah rose to the ocassion, coming into office with a high critique factor, silver-spoon-in-mouth reputation.He has avoided many pitfalls, including the advice of his dad on bi-partisanship, something Bush was unwilling to have at the cost of our soldiers lives and safety. Kudos to him. I believe he has been created and has become a truly great man. He must stay the course.




Now who has those tough qualities, and a true heart of patriotism able to withstand the slings and arrows of the left wingnuts? That strength necessarily lurks below the surface, or else it becomes a lightning rod! Look not in the front Pubbie Ranks for such a man or woman. He or she is sitting in the second row, or at the back of the room, quietly sharpening themselves. I hope Dubyah knows who that person is, and he can say little about it until the time is ripe. The next President desperately needs to be Republican, one who is a reconstructionist and a patriot.

[2nd Bn, 11th Mar]

One of the most accurate comments about the Democratic Party was made by a Dem polster (whose name escapes me) several years ago.

His comment was that "the Democratic Party had been taken over by a conspiracy of gangsters".

Semper Fi,