Democrats and the Desire for Defeat,2933,294245,00.html

There's been a lot of buzz lately about the troop surge in Iraq finally producing results. This is a great thing for the US. It means that we're finally getting things turned around over there. Troops are commenting about how they can walk around towns without needing to carry their guns and wear body armor all the time. Reports are coming in of more and more Shiites and Sunnis cooperating to turn in more and more Al Quaeda members. More and more provinces have been turned over to Iraqi control. There are even several Democratic representatives and senators who are visiting Iraq to see for themselves, and reporting back honestly on what they're seeing. Overall, it's starting to look fairly good.

So why is the Democratic party still trying to find a way to cast Iraq as a total defeat? I think this statement from James Clyburn says it all: if the surge were successful, it would be "a real problem for us". That to me reeks of them finding any possible way to label Iraq a defeat before the 2008 election. Let's face it. If Iraq settles down into a viable democratic state with a strong military and strong US support the Dems don't stand a chance. Iraq is their only issue and their entire political future depends on us failing there. But this doesn't seem likely to happen and that has them all in a panic.

Most if not all of the people I talk to are already dead set against electing a democrat for president. From the vast array of socialistic policies to the open border crowds to the anti-military rhetoric they spew daily, there's plenty for them to hate. They spend most of their time crying and whining about Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush is a racist, a Nazi, a fascist, and is the devil himself. They throw around investigation after investigation, hearing after hearing. They're slowly picking off his cabinet one by one, along with his advisers. There's even continued talk of impeachment when there's no legal grounds for any of it. They've spent their entire occupation of Congress doing absolutely nothing else except passing an increase in the minimum wage. Oh wow. That's progress folks.

This isn't the first time they've done this though. Back in the early 70s they launched a wildly successful media campaign and convinced the world that we lost Vietnam and were forced to retreat with our tails between our legs. They hung this around Nixon who they then saddled with Watergate to keep him from being able to effectively defend against the political tide against him. Back then we didn't have Fox News, talk radio, or the internet to expose these kinds of vicious lies. So they got away with it and wrote history in their own words with nobody to contest it.

Today though, we have Fox News. We have talk radio. We have the internet. So these kinds of lies and transparent tactics get challenged before they go far enough to do any real damage. We can see them for what they are. Socialists and Communists with one goal in mind: Sending us down to defeat. We can't let them get away with it this time.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« ICE, ICE, Baby!
Where to Live After Retirement »

Posted on Aug 23, 2007 1:20 pm by Samson in: | 12 comment(s) [Closed]
Actually, my own opinion and recollections of Mr. Bush's term in office and the current congress' term in office yield a couple of noteworthy items that you have omitted.

As far as negatives for Bush, his only really bad mistake that I've been aware of was illegally wiretapping folks and then when taken to task for it declaring that he was immune to the courts due to national secrecy. :( - Personally, I have a real problem with that. Yes, I'd very much like to see our troops brought home (and frankly the majority of the middle east turned into a plate of glass (or a pillar of salt?), but that's not really something I can blame Bush for. His daddy maybe, but.. separate issue.

As or congress, I don't see raising the minimum wage as a necessarily good thing.. but they did mandate that SUVs and pick-up trucks will need to start having reasonable fuel economy, which is a good thing. They also raised the interest rates, in a manner, and whittled away our presidential cabinet and exposed the secret services of our government.. I'm not convinced those were all good things too. Though it is possible that by making these little mistakes they're helping to bring public awareness up to the fact that we're long overdue for a full scale revolution, but the American people are a bit lazy when it comes to challenging what we've come to want to believe is the perfect system.

For the record, the whole "Bush mentions Vietnam" speech is here:

And it brings to mind that old Thomas Friedman quote of which some of us are so fond: "Some things are true even if George Bush believe them." Because, you know, he's right. Pretty much 100% of that speech is right on. And as much as his administration may have horrendously bungled the details, and it seems very obvious now that they did, I think he's pretty much right and always has been on the big picture. The Islamic extremists are bad, they need dealing with, and pulling out of Iraq leads to a bad, bad place for everyone except the extremists.

What bugs me about that is, it's not rocket science. Both Bush and I have pretty much been saying that same thing since the start.

What IS troubling is that we've all been saying there needed to be more troops since, oh, right after the original war plan came out, but at least they're there NOW.

That aside, I'm fairly positive that, unless they somehow screw it up royally, we'll end up with a Democrat as president in '08, and that will happen because A, everyone is tired of Bush, and B, lots of people really want out of the war. Both reasons have points to them that have some legitimacy, and some that are...not so much. Either way, the Democrats have seized on both, are convinced that they can ride that to electoral victory, and have good reason to believe that they're correct.

Being, as I am, someone who has never thought much of Bush, and yet supports the War On Terror in all its guises, there's a lot about both the original post and what I just wrote that's deeply troubling to me:

1. A political culture that has become so polarized that we just shout past each other without anybody hearing anyone else. We've come to a point where we're so busy demonizing the other side, it's seriously impeding getting anything done. We saw that with Bill Clinton, and that whole series of trials and hearings and an impeachment of ludicrous proportions. We're seeing it now with Bush, and the Democrats taking every stab they can at him to bring him down. There's a lot of blame on all sides, here, and it's dragging us down. The best I can say is that at least the Republican vitriol against Clinton was more or less petty compared to trying to drag down Bush by dragging down a war and a country.

2. As a liberal on most things, it has always seemed to me that the Democrats had it right on a whole host of subjects, and that the Republicans, quite frankly, had no soul. It is, however, a tragedy that while the whole "nuke 'em till they glow and shoot 'em in the dark" sentiment seen amongst so many of the Republicans I've known has gained little traction and for good reason, there is a corresponding left-wing view that we can all sit around in circles and sing songs and love each other that, while just as clueless, actually has gained support. And every time it does, going straight back to Vietnam, more people end up getting screwed than the other way around.

3. We have, as a culture, a real issue with finishing the damn project, starting roughly with Korea, continuing with Vietnam, and heading straight on to Iraq #1 and Somalia. And I cannot begin to tell you how enormously tired I am of that.

4. Which is of course coupled with an astonishing lack of foresight, either in utterly not seeing the consequences, or of utterly ignoring the possibility of their existence, even when obvious.

I think there's a rant somewhere inside me waiting to get out that notes that while our society needed a lot of softening from what it was in the 30s and 40s, the tide of 60s radicalism has damaged us enormously, far outweighing whatever good may possibly have resulted from it. But I'll pass for now.

I also wonder, in that spirit of politicians, how many of the Democratic candidates really, honestly want to withdraw us straightaway from Iraq, and how many of them are just saying it because they know they'll have to. I suppose we shall likely see, but I have my suspicions.

On a rather more minor note, let us not criticize the bringing down of Nixon too harshly. Because, whatever the merits of his presidency, and they were there, if ever a president deserved to be brought down, it was him. He lost his soul, and he deserved what he got.

Now, personally, I'm all for a ticket for '08 consisting of Zombie Theodore Roosevelt and Zombie Truman. In either order. Alternately, Zombie Lincoln could get a lot done, simply because it would take everyone about 5 years to get over the awe.

On the other side of that, I keep wondering. If they reanimated Zombie Neville Chamberlain, and if reanimation made him an American citizen, and if they ran him for President, how many votes would he get? I imagine the whole peace in our time thing would go over great.

Ah, politics. Gotta love it.

I'm fairly positive that, unless they somehow screw it up royally, we'll end up with a Democrat as president in '08

If this happens, it won't be because Hilary is right and just on the issues. It'll happen either because we're still in a shithole in Iraq and nothing got better - or because whoever we nominate as a candidate isn't worth a crap as a conservative and masses of Republicans stay home instead of voting against Hilary. Yes, you can rest assured that you guys will be nominating her. Obama doesn't stand a chance and Edwards is a lunatic. On our side the only one with a real shot in hell is Thompson and he hasn't declared yet which is frustrating. He's the only one I could vote for and be comfortable with. Anyone else I'd be voting against Hilary. As would most other conservatives and "independents" I've spoken to about this. We may all be sick of Bush but we're not prepared to commit to 4 years of liberal socialist policies either.

Re: Point 1:

There's a lot of divisiveness to be sure. That's our biggest problem right now and the Democrats have only themselves to blame for it. They're the ones spending all their time out there bashing Bush and not giving him credit for anything he's done and relishing every chance to tear him down both as a political figure AND as a person, which is just plain wrong. Impeaching Clinton may have been a contentious issue but we were in the right on that because he did break the law pretty clearly. And if he didn't then neither did Scooter Libby.

Re: Point 2:

All I can say is I disagree. All of the oppressive stupid laws that have been passed in California in the last 10 years have been driven by a Democratic legislature out of control. Everything from in-state tuition to illegal aliens to the gestapo-like campaign against cigarette smokers. When a shortfall occurs in the budget, the knee-jerk reaction is tax tax tax instead of the responsible approach which would be to trim waste and make needed cutbacks. But God forbid we should "take money from the children" which is what the battle cry becomes without fail. Republicans are not evil. The media has simply painted us that way.

Re: Point 3:

On this I think we can agree. We should have poured into North Korea in the 50s and driven them all back to the Chinese border and then asked them to make peace. We should have told Congress to go to hell and fought a proper war in Vietnam - and told the media to go to hell too. Reagan should have ordered bombers into Iran and blew them all back into the stone age back in 1981. Daddy Bush should have rolled over Baghdad 17 years ago, then we wouldn't be where we are now. Clinton should have deployed thousands of Marines to Somalia and crushed the muslims like eggs instead of leaving our men behind to be killed like dogs in the street. He also should have followed through on his own commitment to liberate Iraq instead of using it as a distraction from Monica. About the only thing we did right so far was crushing the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although even that's starting to turn south - largely because Pakistan won't finish the job.

I'm not sure what point 4 was so I'll leave it alone :)

What you have today is a disaster in the making. Democrats are playing the role of the appeasers, just like their counterparts did back in the late 30s in Europe. This allowed Hitler to rise up and take power. Osama bin Laden may not be quite the same, but Islamic fascism is still fascism and if the dems don't wise up REAL QUICK we're going to be doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Despite all of the things Bush has done wrong during his presidency, especially on illegals and the border, the one thing he's done fabulously right is having the guts to face the evil of our time on their turf instead of waiting for them to roll over us at home. Peolsi and Reid should stop and really listen to what the man says instead of plotting his impeachment all day long.

Well, I'll vote almost anyone in before I vote for Hillary. :(

What are your thoughts on this Ron Paul person I've been hearing about recently?

What's with all the "your" and "we" words in that post? :( I'm more republican than anything else, in fact, my voter card calls me one, though in truth I generally vote independently of parties. *shrug*

Ok, the gestapo-like campaign against us smokers is a very bad thing, and what's worse is that it seems to be spreading throughout the country. :(
"Take money from the children"?? What money do children have to take?? :(

I'm with you on points 3 & 4...

A disaster in the making? You mean it's not already a disaster trying to get worse? :(

While I agree that he doesn't need to be impeached, I still think the whole thing with the wiretapping was pretty bad.. I also think we've still got plenty of troubles in our own backyard and we should just use nukes to finish the mess in the middle east so we can get back to cleaning up our own house. :(

Ron Paul is a libertarian running as a Republican ( for those who may not know ) and were it not for his dangerous isolationist foreign policy I'd quite possibly vote for the guy.

The "your" is most likely directed at Dwip. Since he's most definitely left leaning in case you hadn't yet noticed :P The "we" probably just meaning in the usual sense, Dwip and I. Unless you meant something more?

I take it you guys back east don't hear the same kind of "don't take money from our kids" crap we get out here? It's the classic line used by the left to make fiscally responsible people feel guilty about lobbying against tax increases for socialized health care and such. Goes hand in hand with labeling Republicans as racists for opposing open borders and illegal immigration.

While I may support drastic measures to put an end to the problems in the Middle East, I don't really think turning the place into an Ocean of Glass will do anything other than goad Pakistan, India, and China into returning the favor over here. Which would mean we'd have to escalate and turn them into molten goo, which would mean the Russians would get involved, which would mean.... yeah. War Games anyone? Great movie :)

I'd heard a bit about him, but wasn't really sure what to make of what little I'd heard/seen, on the surface he sounds like a pretty decent candidate for a change, but I know you keep up better than I do with all the politics in general so I figured no harm in asking.

No, I'd just wondered whether I should be feeling excluded in that or accused or what. ;)

I avoid politics in general enough that I don't hear most of the crap, though I'm sure our politicians spread mostly the same fertilizer around here as out there, though certainly with slightly different cants/slants given the general differences of folks' opinions and such. Even with an explanation it still sounds pretty ludicrous to me.. it's not like cutting taxes will hurt the children, they don't have money (or a vote, incidentally) to begin with, if anything it'd give parents more money to be able to use to properly provide for these children. As for racism over border issues and illegal immigrants, man, if that's racism, call me a racist! *L*

Hey, it was a good movie!
In all honesty, the whole full scale escalation threat only works when folks are certain that neither side will engage because of the threat of the other side engaging. If we actually wiped out Iraq with a full nuclear strike, aside from the fact that Pakistan would be wiped out in the process anyway, I don't think India, China or Russia would "strike back" but would rather run to the UN and beg for everyone else to help them hide so we didn't hit them next in our obvious madness. *LOL*

Taxes pay for schools, is what it boils down to, Conner. So when you cut taxes, you cut education funding, thus taking money from our children.

All politicians are evil. :)

Yes, I'll agree that all politicians are evil.

I won't agree that cutting taxes automatically equates with cutting education funding, because that's an absurdity. Taxes are allocated to pay for everything the government does which, while that does include educational funding, educational funding is actually a very small percentage of those allocations. One could just as easily argue that cutting taxes is taking food from children because it could result in lowering welfare benefits and the argument would be just as ridiculous.

I was just explaining what they meant by taking money away from the children... ~_~

Ah, I see. In that case, no offense taken I hope.

Someone hasn't seen the California state budget :)

Our state budget routinely allocates >50% of its money directly to education. That's billions upon billions of dollars being fought over. The argument has been used that any cut in this spending is an attack on our children because it would deprive them of the opportunity for a good education. They even steal highway funds from that part of the budget to make sure they don't cause a deficit. Nevermind the fact that the more money they throw at it, the less effective the results. There's got to be some kind of inverse spending law in play here :P

You might also think it ridiculous to argue that cutting taxes deprives children of their welfare benefits too, but that argument also gets raised and us fiscally responsible types are routinely accused of intentionally wanting to starve the kids, in addition to being labeled as racists for daring to suggest welfare cuts. I'm still not sure how that one works.

No, I am entirely unfamiliar with California's State Budget, and reasonably happy about that fact. ;)

That's just a crazy amount of money for educational funding, I can't imagine what our teachers would do if Virginia allocated it's budget that way.. probably all die from heart attacks. *shaking his head*

Geez, you folks out there really need a serious dose of reality... well, okay, obviously not all of you, but the ones stupid enough to raise those sorts of arguments and set that sort of budget.

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31