For months now, the Democrat party has become increasingly divided as to who will be the best nominee to knock the Republicans out of the White House this fall. With all but the Clinton camp now believing Barack Obama to be the presumptive nominee, everyone’s trying to figure out how to reunite the Democrats. The Democrat leadership insists that once a candidate is selected the whole party will instantly become one big happy family behind that candidate, even though many polls suggest otherwise. Some in the party are saying the best way to mend the rift is simply to talk the two current contenders into being on the same ticket, thus creating the Hill-Billy ‘Bama ticket.
Make no mistake, this would be a shotgun wedding in the extreme. Reports indicate that the two camps, understandably, just don’t get along, even if the two candidates are able to kiss and make up. Few industries are as territorial as in politics, and with that kind of competition, it’s a safe bet that few will be happy when the two teams attempt to merge. It will be predictable gridlock, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to postulate that such gridlock would carry into an administration run by these three.
On the other hand, sometimes a shotgun wedding is the only way to form a family, albeit reluctantly. Perhaps marrying a Hatfield to a McCoy would be the best way to encourage peace in the valley. After all, European monarchies of old were always marrying into each other’s families as a way to create mutually beneficial alliances, though they didn’t always last very long.
Of course, a Hill-Billy Bama ticket likely won’t turn feuding cousins into kissing ones overnight, and therein lies a major part of the problem. How much time will the Dems need to become a single clan after suffering such a deep rift? How credible will it be to the voters, especially independents, that seemingly overnight these two feuding candidates are suddenly playing public kissy-face? How can the voter trust that the motives of either candidate is pure when both are so willing to sacrifice their principles for the sake of Party unity?
This is particularly destructive in light of the fact that Obama, necessarily, continues to preach a united America, rather than a united Democrat party, though it’s hard to image how we can have one without the other. While his alliance with the Clintons (and rest assured, it will be BOTH the Clintons in office) may assuage the hurt feelings of the Clinton supporters and thus unite the Party in the short-term, it will only raise more questions as to the truthfulness of both.
Once again, the Democrats are facing an election that is apparently theirs to lose. The short-sightedness of the rules committee, who created the primary and super-delegate rules system only to be surprised and dismayed that they might actually have to follow those rules, will become legendary after this election cycle. Whether they will learn from that lesson next time around remains to be seen.
It would seem the beneficiary of all this, naturally, is John McCain and the Republicans. The only question remaining is whether or not they can capitalize on it.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The Power of "Just Words" Must Never be Underestimated
What an amazing event! He stood before a waiting crowd, who practically quivered in anticipation of his first words. When at last he began, he started out softly, personably, finding common ground is their mutual plight of a useless government and a country heading for disaster. Gradually, his words moved faster, more emphatically, urging the crowd forward, helping them to imagine a future of hope, change, the recovery of past greatness, and the expansion of their nation’s influence in the world.
He hit every hot button along the way: the diminishment of the reputation of the country in the eyes of the rest of the world by a government that’s lost its way; the folly of going to war unnecessarily and the destruction it caused at home, the deterioration of the middle class, and the collapse of the economy under the poor judgment of the current leaders.
Then he turns to the future, and what is necessary to change course. He says that, if elected, his new government will be one that "will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built." He outlines plans to reorganize commerce and trade, to reduce unemployment, to take care of the sick and aged, to encourage the entrepreneur, support the armed forces, all along the way using "unity as our tool."
It is exactly what the audience wants to hear. They are uncontrollably swept up with enthusiasm, screaming and cheering at the vividness of the future he is promising, like a phoenix rising from the ashes of a failed state. By the time he nears the end of his speech, the crowd is mesmerized, waiting with breath abated for his final words to ring so that they may erupt in the wave of support they can barely keep contained. At last, his final words come. "May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany. "
This was Adolph Hitler’s Proclamation to the Nation speech of February 1, 1933 after he was named Chancellor of Germany. If you thought it sounded like somebody else, you’re not alone.
The point here is not that I am comparing Hitler to any contemporary politician. The point is to insure that we all understand that the art of oratory is a learned skill that can be mastered. Successful speeches invariably contain the same elements, the same emotions, the same means of getting an audience charged up, regarding of what the actual specific issues are. Yes, good words can be used inspire us, but they can be used to do bad things, too.
Many people have often scratched their heads and wondered how the German people could have let themselves be duped by Hitler. We must recognize, however, that a master orator can mesmerize any audience on any subject at any time, and that under the circumstances, their response was quite natural. Hitler was not the first to accomplish this, nor, unfortunately, will he be last. But no matter how many times we say "Never again," all bets are off when a Master Orator seizes the opportunity to whip a crowd into a frenzy that could propel him to great power. Caveat emptor all great orators.
He hit every hot button along the way: the diminishment of the reputation of the country in the eyes of the rest of the world by a government that’s lost its way; the folly of going to war unnecessarily and the destruction it caused at home, the deterioration of the middle class, and the collapse of the economy under the poor judgment of the current leaders.
Then he turns to the future, and what is necessary to change course. He says that, if elected, his new government will be one that "will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built." He outlines plans to reorganize commerce and trade, to reduce unemployment, to take care of the sick and aged, to encourage the entrepreneur, support the armed forces, all along the way using "unity as our tool."
It is exactly what the audience wants to hear. They are uncontrollably swept up with enthusiasm, screaming and cheering at the vividness of the future he is promising, like a phoenix rising from the ashes of a failed state. By the time he nears the end of his speech, the crowd is mesmerized, waiting with breath abated for his final words to ring so that they may erupt in the wave of support they can barely keep contained. At last, his final words come. "May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany. "
This was Adolph Hitler’s Proclamation to the Nation speech of February 1, 1933 after he was named Chancellor of Germany. If you thought it sounded like somebody else, you’re not alone.
The point here is not that I am comparing Hitler to any contemporary politician. The point is to insure that we all understand that the art of oratory is a learned skill that can be mastered. Successful speeches invariably contain the same elements, the same emotions, the same means of getting an audience charged up, regarding of what the actual specific issues are. Yes, good words can be used inspire us, but they can be used to do bad things, too.
Many people have often scratched their heads and wondered how the German people could have let themselves be duped by Hitler. We must recognize, however, that a master orator can mesmerize any audience on any subject at any time, and that under the circumstances, their response was quite natural. Hitler was not the first to accomplish this, nor, unfortunately, will he be last. But no matter how many times we say "Never again," all bets are off when a Master Orator seizes the opportunity to whip a crowd into a frenzy that could propel him to great power. Caveat emptor all great orators.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Caucus Should Signal End of Affirmative Action
More than 90% of the population of Iowa is white. Just over 2% are black. Yet in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, the only black candidate in the race enjoyed a resounding political victory. What more proof do we need that for all intents and purposes, racism against blacks in American is dead and gone?
Following the civil rights movement in the sixties, the Boomer generation was rightly reeducated that all Americans are created equal, regardless of race or gender. Older generations were harder to convince, but most of them have passed on now, leaving the previous prejudices that supported American apartheid long gone.
In more recent decades, whites have been doing their best to prove that they are fair to minorities, and, other than a few isolated criminal cases, have been predominantly successful in doing so. The only ones not buying it seem to be the aging Civil Rights leaders, who recognize that if they declare victory (as they should do, particularly in light of recent events), they’re out of a job. Unfortunately for the nation, there’s not much likelihood of that happening anytime soon.
The Civil Rights movement was about equality, about everyone starting on a level playing field and having an equal chance to succeed or fail as their talents allowed. It was never supposed to be about one group getting special treatment over another, or about whites and blacks changing places as to who was the oppressor and who was the oppressed. Nor was it meant to guarantee that all blacks have happy and successful lives, any more than it’s possible for all whites to do so. It was only meant to give everyone the same opportunities to succeed.
Affirmative Action, that poorly-defined practice of discreetly using racial preference (even when it meant having to settle for less qualified applicants) in order to prove our fairness by the numbers (NEVER to be called a quota, of course), should not have been implemented in the first place. It contradicted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equality. Quite simply, racial preference is racial preference, regardless of which side of the coin you’re on. There’s no such thing as "reverse discrimination," only discrimination.
With the success of black Barack Obama in white Iowa, all Americans should be celebrating the death of Affirmative Action, and the confirmation that all of our nation’s efforts to distance ourselves from our racist past have, at last, succeeded. This is a watershed moment, the moment that our hard-fought battle has finally been won. It’s a wake that should be one heck of a party, and one all Americans should celebrate together.
It’s been a long time coming. We’ve waited impatiently for an entire white generation that didn’t want to give up their privileges to die off. It would be a shame and a disappointment if we have to wait for the current generation of equally intransigent black leaders to pass on or fade away into obscurity before the real celebration can begin. It would be positively legendary if they instead claimed victory and joined the party!
Following the civil rights movement in the sixties, the Boomer generation was rightly reeducated that all Americans are created equal, regardless of race or gender. Older generations were harder to convince, but most of them have passed on now, leaving the previous prejudices that supported American apartheid long gone.
In more recent decades, whites have been doing their best to prove that they are fair to minorities, and, other than a few isolated criminal cases, have been predominantly successful in doing so. The only ones not buying it seem to be the aging Civil Rights leaders, who recognize that if they declare victory (as they should do, particularly in light of recent events), they’re out of a job. Unfortunately for the nation, there’s not much likelihood of that happening anytime soon.
The Civil Rights movement was about equality, about everyone starting on a level playing field and having an equal chance to succeed or fail as their talents allowed. It was never supposed to be about one group getting special treatment over another, or about whites and blacks changing places as to who was the oppressor and who was the oppressed. Nor was it meant to guarantee that all blacks have happy and successful lives, any more than it’s possible for all whites to do so. It was only meant to give everyone the same opportunities to succeed.
Affirmative Action, that poorly-defined practice of discreetly using racial preference (even when it meant having to settle for less qualified applicants) in order to prove our fairness by the numbers (NEVER to be called a quota, of course), should not have been implemented in the first place. It contradicted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equality. Quite simply, racial preference is racial preference, regardless of which side of the coin you’re on. There’s no such thing as "reverse discrimination," only discrimination.
With the success of black Barack Obama in white Iowa, all Americans should be celebrating the death of Affirmative Action, and the confirmation that all of our nation’s efforts to distance ourselves from our racist past have, at last, succeeded. This is a watershed moment, the moment that our hard-fought battle has finally been won. It’s a wake that should be one heck of a party, and one all Americans should celebrate together.
It’s been a long time coming. We’ve waited impatiently for an entire white generation that didn’t want to give up their privileges to die off. It would be a shame and a disappointment if we have to wait for the current generation of equally intransigent black leaders to pass on or fade away into obscurity before the real celebration can begin. It would be positively legendary if they instead claimed victory and joined the party!
Monday, October 22, 2007
Some Speech is More Equal Than Others
If you’re reading this commentary in your favorite publication, consider yourself fortunate, because it means that the resident Opinion Editor is one of just a very few fair-minded individuals willing to let all opinions be heard, even the ones that might be critical of the industry that provides them with their creature comforts.
That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.
Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.
Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.
That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.
Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.
Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.
That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.
Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.
Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.
That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.
Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.
Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
What is Congress Thinking? Limbaugh is an Entertainer, Not an Elected Official
Politainment strikes again. Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative radio talk show jock, said something that offended some people the other day (is that surprising?). In response, the theoretically august body of the Congress (not the Democrat Party, mind you, but members of our duly elected Congress) offered up a demand for an apology from Limbaugh’s employer, Clear Channel Communications. Let’s say that again. The Congress of the United States wants an unelected (and unelectable) private citizen whose job it is to entertain people using whatever thought-provoking and often insensitive methods at his disposal to apologize for his "unconscionable" personal remarks on a political issue.
Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.
On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.
When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!
This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.
Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?
Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.
On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.
When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!
This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.
Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?
Saturday, September 1, 2007
"Politainment" a Real Danger to the Future of our Nation
In this craze to get people "engaged" in politics, we have turned down the extraordinarily dangerous path of mixing politics and entertainment in ways we have never before witnessed and which can’t possibly benefit us in the end.
Watching Hillary Clinton interviewing with Dave Letterman Thursday night was the last straw, albeit just a precursor of the election year to come. Do we really want our political leaders to behave like stand up comedians? Must we insist the minds of our candidates be diverted away from their serious job of being a leader to the opposite job of keeping us entertained? Don’t we already have enough professional performers to do that? If the only way to compel the voting public to become involved with politics it to turn our candidates into amateur entertainers, it’s a pathetic prospect for the future of our nation.
The trouble began when political operatives misinterpreted a whole lot of signs and concluded that being liked was the key to winning votes. That is a wrong assumption. The key to winning votes is to have a leader we respect. Ronald Reagan didn’t earn the votes of the opposition party because they liked him, they voted for him because they respected him. The fact that he was an amiable man was just frosting on the cake.
President Bush is an unfortunate case in point. His handlers worked overtime during his campaigns to make him a likable guy, the sort of guy you could have a beer with, like the guy next door. The point that the politicos have missed is that we don’t want the guy next door as president, we want someone better than that. We want someone who looks and behaves like a president. We want someone who wears the mantle with confidence, and who represents us around the world as the epitome of what an American should be. We want someone that everyone will respect, even if we disagree with their views on certain issues. In that, George Bush has failed miserably.
The same trap awaits the stable of presidential candidates as they face the coming year. Those same politicos (or their progeny) still haven’t learned their lesson. They are still insisting their candidates be "down to earth" in order to be liked by the common man. Worse, they think the way to do that is to turn their candidates into amateur entertainers, to keep the audiences laughing, thus proving their candidate is liked.
We need to maintain the separation between entertainment and politics, and recognize the difference between the two, even if we happen to see them both on the same TV. Otherwise, one day we’re likely to look up and find ourselves with a President whose only skills are in entertaining, and not governing, and that would surely be the beginning of the end of us as a respectable nation.
Watching Hillary Clinton interviewing with Dave Letterman Thursday night was the last straw, albeit just a precursor of the election year to come. Do we really want our political leaders to behave like stand up comedians? Must we insist the minds of our candidates be diverted away from their serious job of being a leader to the opposite job of keeping us entertained? Don’t we already have enough professional performers to do that? If the only way to compel the voting public to become involved with politics it to turn our candidates into amateur entertainers, it’s a pathetic prospect for the future of our nation.
The trouble began when political operatives misinterpreted a whole lot of signs and concluded that being liked was the key to winning votes. That is a wrong assumption. The key to winning votes is to have a leader we respect. Ronald Reagan didn’t earn the votes of the opposition party because they liked him, they voted for him because they respected him. The fact that he was an amiable man was just frosting on the cake.
President Bush is an unfortunate case in point. His handlers worked overtime during his campaigns to make him a likable guy, the sort of guy you could have a beer with, like the guy next door. The point that the politicos have missed is that we don’t want the guy next door as president, we want someone better than that. We want someone who looks and behaves like a president. We want someone who wears the mantle with confidence, and who represents us around the world as the epitome of what an American should be. We want someone that everyone will respect, even if we disagree with their views on certain issues. In that, George Bush has failed miserably.
The same trap awaits the stable of presidential candidates as they face the coming year. Those same politicos (or their progeny) still haven’t learned their lesson. They are still insisting their candidates be "down to earth" in order to be liked by the common man. Worse, they think the way to do that is to turn their candidates into amateur entertainers, to keep the audiences laughing, thus proving their candidate is liked.
We need to maintain the separation between entertainment and politics, and recognize the difference between the two, even if we happen to see them both on the same TV. Otherwise, one day we’re likely to look up and find ourselves with a President whose only skills are in entertaining, and not governing, and that would surely be the beginning of the end of us as a respectable nation.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Good News in Iraq is Bad News for Democrat Leaders
When two harsh critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war came back from an eight-day trip to Iraq and printed an op-ed article with the title "A War We Just Might Win" (NYTimes 7/30/07), most Americans cheered, grateful to see some progress, daring to dream that perhaps we could achieve some semblance of peace and cooperation in that worn-torn country.
But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.
It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.
Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.
On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.
Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.
But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.
It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.
Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.
On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.
Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
