Democrats and Waterboarding: The party will lose if it defines itself as soft on terror

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 7, 2007 | ALAN DERSHOWITZ

[Aristotelian]

....Now the Democrats appear to be making the same mistake as they move toward what seems to be an inevitable retaking of the White House. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates are seeking partisan advantage from what many Americans see as the Bush failures in the war against terrorism and especially its extension to Iraq and possibly, in the future, to Iran.

This pacifistic stance appeals to the left wing of the democratic electorate, which may have some influence on the outcome of democratic primaries, but which is far less likely to determine the outcome of the general election. Most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided--want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.

...That is why Rudy Giuliani seems to be doing surprisingly well among many segments of the electorate, ranging from centrist Democrats to Republicans and even some on the religious right.

....

Unless the Democratic Party--and particularly their eventual candidate for president--is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey. . . .

[Aristotelian]

Most Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents or undecided--want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.

Forget Iraq. The 2008 presidential election will be decided on the issue of terrorism and national security -- plus, to a lesser degree, taxes -- and here the GOP candidate will have the advantage. And I agree with Dershowitz when he says that this is the reason Rudy Giuliani is doing so well. All things considered, Rudy would be the GOP's most formidable candidate.

[goldstategop]

The Dersh is a sane liberal. He does not like the direction the Democratic Party is moving in. I don't expect him and Ed Koch to back Hillary for President.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Names Ash Housewares]

“...will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.”

If it stopped an American city from being nuked, would Americans give a damn that if it took unlawful power?

[goldstategop]

The Dersh always saves the best for last. He writes in his conclusion:

Unless the Democratic Party--and particularly their eventual candidate for president--is perceived as strong and smart on national defense and prevention of terrorism, the Bush White House may be proved to have made a clever partisan decision by refusing to make the war against terrorism a bipartisan issue. The Democrats may lose the presidency if they are seen as the party of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich and those senators who voted against Judge Mukasey because he refused to posture on a difficult issue relating to national security. They will win if they are seen as just as tough but a lot smarter on how to deal with real threats to our national interests.

Look for the lunatic Left to come out railing against The Dersh. There's a good argument to be made for non-lethal forms of torture to preserve American lives. Today's Democratic Party prefers to coddle terrorists than to responsibly defend America's national security. Hillary Clinton does not have the gonads to stand up to her party's moonbats or do what it takes to keep America safe from danger.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Just Lori]

The Democrat party has been taken over by anti-American idiots. FDR, Truman, and JFK are long forgotten... Very sad.

[goldstategop]

Yep. The Democrats sound more unhinged every time they rant against America.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Aristotelian]

The Dems still want to treat terrorism as a criminal matter rather than a defense matter. They want arrests and trials and incarceration rather than military combat and victory. It’s the same old anti-military, anti-war Democratic Party. If terrorism is a criminal matter, then they don’t have to build up the military, etc. They can let it languish.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. After all, the trial lawyers are their biggest campaign contributors. They don't get that kind of money from active servicemen. Follow the piper and you'll find out who the Dems reward.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[boop]

I’ve been thinking about that recent book where it theorized that the democratic party was ruined on 11/22/63. I never grasped the true meaning of that until recently. There just don’t exist any nationally prominent dems that I would trust with national security. Maybe Joe Lieberman, but even he isn’t a dem anymore.

[Just Lori]

When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it rights itself.....eventually. We just need to help it along. Did everybody VOTE today?

[truth_seeker]

I’d say Alan is a member of the Joe Lieberman branch of the democrat party.

Liberal on most issues, but tough on national security.

[JennysCool]

Dershowitz has been talking sense since 9/11. It’s amazing he’s still a member of the “I saw it on television, so it must be true!” party.

[JLS]

I would expect them both to back Clinton. Clinton is the most centerist of the Dims running this time.

[I still care]

Alan, they can’t help it. It’s their nature.

[weegee]

Ted Kennedy as the cheerleader against SIMULATED drowning.

Don't make me puke. He KILLED a woman because he was DRUNK and WAITED a very long time to report the "incident".

Ted you will burn in HELL for your crime against Mary because you are an unrepentant sinner.

[jmaroneps37]

Al, baby it IS the party the terrorists support and vice versa.

[TNCMAXQ]

Dershowitz has usually been a bit more of a common sense liberal, much like Ed Koch. Though if I recall correctly Koch already said he was supporting Hillary in ‘08. This makes no sense. If he really were concerned about American security and the war on terror he would have nothing to do with her. How does her loser platform differ from kerry’s, who Koch refused to support?

[Arrowhead1952]

From the Today's Toons thread.

[petercooper]

bttt

[dervish]

Dersh supported Kerry and sent a letter to Jewish voters in Florida urging support for Kerry.

I’m sure he’s backing Hillary. He opens the article saying the Dems have a lock on the WH, and then expresses his fears they will lose.