Democrats

Posted on Conservatives, Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

why conservatives won’t abandon the GOP

let me say right up front that i am very disappointed with the performance of the republican majority on important areas like spending and illegal immigration. they also could have used their majority to implement needed reforms in programs like social security. they did not. the most stinging indictment i have of the party in power is that they have lost the political will to make tough decisions and fight for policies that are unpopular. they need to be more conscious of doing what is right than doing what is popular with their friends on the Hill. i don’t approve of the way they handled the foley scandal and i think more follow-up was necessary to ensure that foley did not continue contact with those pages. the story of this current congress is missed opportunities. if they retain control, it won’t be because they deserve it.

we are annoyed with republicans for these and other great reasons. is there a viable alternative for fiscal and social conservatives? i don’t believe that there is. if we stay home, here’s the reality that we will have to deal with. if we actually cast votes for democrats, this is what will happen:

  • there will be no spending cuts or tax cuts. there is no reason to believe that democrats will hold the line on spending, and you can kiss any tax cuts goodbye. neither party has the discipline to control spending. i don’t know what would change this.
  • forget any future progress on immigration reform. the republicans haven’t had the political will to do anything substantial on this. we won’t see even token committment to reform under democratic leadership.
  • social conservatives will be even less pleased with the democrats than they are with the republicans. mark foley or no mark foley, the democrats are still the party that generally supports gay marriage and abortion. there is no excuse for how the foley situation was dealt with, as i said, but the democrats have no reason to expect that social conservatives will now embrace the democratic party.
  • we will surrender control of our congress to a party that supports weakening the patriot act, giving increased civil rights and protections to people who want to kill us, and a party that opposes spying on terrorists. in this increasingly scary world, is this the party you want in charge?
  • do we really want the democrats making decisions on judicial appointments? that will be the case if we allow them to regain power.

the republicans haven’t shown that they deserve re-election. the democrats haven’t shown that they deserve power. but conservatives will get much more of what they want by keeping congress in republican hands.

i’m simply going to echo something rush said…if the democrats lose this time, they might as well blow up the party and start over, because the situation has never been more favorable for them.

tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

ammo

both political parties have some explainin’ to do when members of congress face their constituents back home this election year. for the republicans, it’s the excessive, wasteful government spending and their weak committment to dealing with illegal immigration. they also aren’t willing to take unpopular positions and to do what is right for the people they represent. there are too many examples of this.

i believe that most of this can be blamed on the republican leadership, especially senator frist, who has been more than willing to defend the president’s amnesty policy for illegals. i know that in his position, it is hard for him to go against the president of the united states. that’s not a good excuse in this case, however, and when senator frist came here to do a fundraiser, we told him exactly how we felt about this issue. i believe that he got the the message, and the public pressure has forced the changes in policy we are now seeing. is it perfect? not yet. there is still work to do.

for the democrats, they are on the wrong side of quite a few issues. many of them oppose the patriot act, support giving terrorists geneva convention protections and access to american courts, and they also aren’t in favor of spying on suspected terrorists or tracking where their money goes. that’s quite a resume there. many democrats also make very good boogeymen/women…like pelosi, murtha, feingold, harry reid, and john kerry. those are some SCARY democrats, and they haven’t shown that they deserve power either. i’m sure i will hear the argument that not all democrats hold the positions mentioned above. that’s true. it also doesn’t matter because their leadership does hold these positions, and they are the ones controlling the message.

some of my friends on the right are suggesting that all these new republican scandals are conveniently timed to maximize the negative impact it could have on this november’s election. that’s entirely possible. so what? so what if the democrats sat around in a big room somewhere and planned all this? it’s our job to STOP GIVING THEM AMMO to use against us. mark foley made serious mistakes, and he paid the price for them. he did the right thing by resigning. other republicans have made even more serious mistakes, and they have resigned too.

as far as we know, none of these scandals have been made up by the democrats. while the democrats will most definitely use these revelations for political advantage, these things did happen, and those responsible for ethical violations should be held accountable for their behavior. republicans and democrats should expect more of their party and the members of that party representing them in d.c. we have to hold both republicans and democrats to a high standard, and expect them to meet that standard…or they will hear it from us, whether it’s an election year or not.

tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans

the case against losing

david hogberg at the american spectator makes that case. read it all here.

Would Bush and a Democrat-controlled House be an improvement over recent years? Doubtful. Bush is, at best, a squish on fiscal restraint (and that’s being charitable). Last week, House Democrats voted overwhelmingly, 147-45, against a modest earmark reform bill. Sure, Bush might get serious about spending once the Democrats took over, but what would his argument be — that the Democrats were trying to undo all the fiscal restraint he imposed? Indeed, the press would portray him as a cynic, only caring about spending now that the opposition is in power. Since the White House doesn’t seem to have the stomach for such a fight, a more likely scenario is Bush and the House Democrats cutting budget deals resulting in spending increases as bad, if not worse, than what we have now.

There are other areas where the Bush Administration could cut deals with House Democrats that should disturb conservatives. With the Democrats in charge, a Senate-style immigration bill — i.e., amnesty — is far more likely to pass the House. From there it is a quick trip through the Senate to Bush’s signing pen.

Yes, conservatives, myself included, are rightly disgusted with Congressional Republicans’ profligacy. But that disgust is beginning to get through, with Congress recently approving an online database to track spending and the House passing the aforementioned earmark reform. Such efforts will surely stall should Democrats win control of the House. The answer is to keep up the pressure through the grassroots and blogosphere efforts like Porkbusters.A GOP loss of the House in November is just as likely to create more problems for conservatives than it is likely to solve, proving once again that, in politics, there is little virtue in losing.

i think that the grassroots and conservative blogs have made a serious difference in changing the priorities of congressional republicans. (it doesn’t hurt that there is an election coming up either.) will conservatives get everything that we want by keeping republicans in power? the answer is probably not, but we are more likely to get what we want with republicans in charge. there is no reason to believe that democrats will enact strong immigration reform (border security first, no amnesty), make a serious attempt to control spending, or make specific proposals to make it easier to protect our country from terrorist attacks. if those are issues that we care about, the better risk is voting for republicans.

tags: , ,

7 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

it’s just that simple

mort kondracke nails the big question in the november elections. will it be decided by views on iraq or on the war on terrorism? i believe that the answer will determine which party will be left standing at the end.

Republicans think they gain by calling the Democrats “defeatists” on Iraq and by asserting that Democrats are “weak” on terror because they opposed the NSA wiretap program and had qualms about efforts to track terrorist finances through the international banking system.

Who’s actually gaining in this struggle is hard to tell. Traditionally, Republicans lead Democrats in public trust on fighting terrorism by margins of 25 to 30 points, but recent polls have shown that advantage dropping to single digits.

A Pew poll last week showed that more Americans, 69 percent, are concerned Republicans would get the United States involved in new wars than the 57 percent who are worried that Democrats are weak on fighting terror.

This week, however, a Gallup Poll reported Bush’s overall approval rating rose to 42 percent from 37 percent over the two weeks since the London plot was stifled and, for his handling of terrorism, to 55 percent from 47 percent.

But for handling Iraq, he remained mired at 36 percent. And a CBS/New York Times poll showed Americans, by 51 percent to 32 percent, don’t think Iraq represents a “major part” of the war on terror.

If the election hinges on “terror,” Republicans may win. If it’s “Iraq” and things keep looking grim there, it’s a Democratic advantage. That will frame the argument through November.

that’s the disconnect. americans don’t see iraq as a major part of the war on terror. the bad news for president bush is that he has been unable to sell this connection, since saddam didn’t directly order 9/11 and there’s no concrete evidence that he knew about bin laden’s plans. it is an unwinnable battle trying to explain to the american people why iraq was a legitimate target even if it didn’t have a direct link to 9/11. so i’m not going to make that attempt.

this disconnect actually benefits republicans, since bush’s ratings on the overall war on terror vastly exceed his numbers on the war in iraq. that’s why the way the debate is framed makes a huge difference. of course there are other valid criticisms of the party in power, and we all know what those are, but iraq and the war on terror will still be the primary debate going into this midterm.

the final outcome of the iraq war will determine how aggressive we will be as a country in prosecuting the war on terror, and how future and current bad actors will view the resolve of the united states in dealing with threats to its security. you can argue about whether it was part of the war on terror in the beginning, but it certainly is now. our success or failure in iraq will have major consequences for the rest of the region. can we leave iraq a better place than we found it? what will our enemies say about us when the united states military finally leaves iraq? will they be convinced that we are serious about fighting terrorism? those are questions that we will answer, and the world is watching us.

this should not be a partisan snipe-fest. republicans and democrats alike should be equally committed to giving our government the tools it needs to fight this war on terror effectively and to protect us here at home. we should support candidates who take this view, and reject those who don’t.

tags: , , , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Democrats, Liberals

pot.kettle.black

guess who said this in a chris matthews interview(comments in bold):

I served with George Allen when he was governor. I don‘t think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you. There are Republicans who are capable and smart, thoughtful people, and he‘s not one of them. So you know, the people in Virginia are going to do what they want to do, but I…

Q. You make him sound like a knucklehead. Is that what you think?

I‘m not going to use those kinds of words.

Q. In other words, you‘re saying he doesn‘t belong in public service, because of why?

Because he‘s always shooting from the hip. He never thinks through what he means, and he caters to the wrong instincts in people. And I think using derogatory terms to people of color is certainly something that a public servant might not do.

this makes sense. our public servants should always think before speaking, cater to the best instincts in people, and always be careful not to use racial slurs. too bad howard dean doesn’t follow his own advice. yes, that’s howard dean, chairman of the DNC, lecturing senator allen on how he should behave. you know what they say about people who live in glass houses. if senator allen, who has apologized for what he said, isn’t fit for public service, then neither is howard dean.

until i heard these comments from howard dean, i was undecided about senator allen’s possible presidential run. if any success for allen annoys howard dean, i’m all in. 🙂 seriously, though, i am not going to make any unofficial or official endorsements this early in the game. the field is wide open for the republicans, and senator allen will have more than enough time to recover politically, and be a major player in ’08.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq

lieberman: rummy must go

from face the nation sunday night (8/20): (pdf)

BOB SCHIEFFER: Tell us what you would do right now that is different than what the president is proposing.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Yeah. I think there’s–three years ago in October on this show you asked me and I said that I believe that it was time for new leadership at the Pentagon. I think it’s still time for new leadership at the Pentagon. With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq. We also have to put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain the sectarian violence that is there and stand up their ministries of defense and interior security. And then we’ve got to get the other Arab countries and hopefully some of the Europeans in with us to help to reconstruct Iraq. There is still hope in Iraq, and so long as there is, we cannot just pick up and, and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and that would compromise our security in the war against terrorism.

SCHIEFFER: All right. All right.

JIM VANDEHEI: In five or 10 years, that’s fine?

Sen. LIEBERMAN: I don’t believe it will take five or 10 years.

SCHIEFFER: OK. I’m sorry. We have to let it go there. Thank you very much.

there’s that gutsy lieberman all those crazy republicans adore. i bet they just love that he called for the head of donald rumsfeld. i’m guessing this is not something karl rove told him to say. this is no different from what some of his fellow democrats have been saying, but lieberman is a little late to this bandwagon, even though he may have said something similar to this in the past. he is fighting an uphill battle if he thinks that he can win back those lamont voters with this suggestion. he has already lost them, and there’s nothing he can say to convince them that he is against this war or against anything the bush administration is doing.

i agree with most of what lieberman is suggesting here, although I’m not as optimistic as he is that we can get the europeans to help us with the reconstruction. they seem to view iraq as our mess to clean up, and i don’t know what incentives would change their minds about that. so we are where we are. we do need to re-think our current strategy there, because what we are doing now is not working. if we leave iraq without finishing what we started there, the situation will get worse, not better. that’s the reality.

i hope lieberman is right when he says that he doesn’t think that it will take five or ten years to stabilize iraq. there have been some estimates (one from the atlantic monthly) that paint a more gloomy picture of our progress in iraq and what it will take to complete this mission. unless the american people see significant signs of improvement in iraq, they won’t support five or ten more years there. the american people are unconvinced that we are winning in iraq. unless that changes, it will be difficult to keep our troops there much longer.

tags: , ,

15 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

unserious

the democrats can’t have this both ways. they can talk all they want to about having a strong and smart foreign policy and a better strategy for dealing with terrorism, but their actions don’t suggest that they are serious about implementing one. from opposing common-sense measures like tracking money transfers and bragging about “killing the Patriot Act” to supporting the candidacy of ned lamont, the democrats now controlling the message haven’t found the right one yet. i realize that on some level, the democratic leadership had to support their senate nominee in connecticut. it’s traditional and all that. there’s something else going on with their support of lamont. ned lamont says what the rest of the democrats are afraid to say. it’s a way for the democrats to look more anti-war than they are without making an actual commitment to do what those like ned lamont want to do. this won’t work with the left wing and it doesn’t really work with me.

that’s because the left wing of the democratic party doesn’t believe the war on terror actually exists. they want to harp about the “politics of fear” and so forth. that’s a problem for the democrats if they want to take the battle to the republicans on national security. terrorism is real. it existed before bush. it will exist after bush is gone. you can hate bush all you want to and oppose his iraq policy all you want to, but at some point someone will ask the democrats how they could improve on the current fight against terrorism while taking away some of the very tools used by the brits to stop the recent terror plot in their country. i doubt their answer would reassure voters that they can improve on the record of the bush administration. i am also amazed that many polls rate democrats ahead of republicans on national security when it’s not even clear that the dems have a credible alternative plan on iraq. iraq is a struggle right now, i will admit that, but the democrats can’t figure out how to fix it either.

Continue reading →

18 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

it’s on

congratulations to the nutroots and to their chosen one, howard dean…i mean ned lamont. it’s not the blowout they wanted, but it was a lamont victory. now many in the democratic leadership are lining up behind connecticut’s new flavor of the month. they are using ned just like their left-wing supporters did. if anyone thinks that a lamont victory in november would change the way the democrats vote on iraq withdrawal, think again. unless they get the majority back in congress, it’s not gonna happen. look at how the democrats react to similar proposals by kerry, kucinich, and russ feingold. the democrats can talk all they want to about withdrawing troops from iraq, but until they actually vote to do it, that’s all it is.

it was interesting to watch lieberman’s reaction to his loss – like it was merely a temporary setback to his victory in november. that’s far from a sure thing. if the majority of the democratic leadership support lamont, then it will be rather lonely out there on the campaign trail. when you have rahm emmanuel not only supporting lamont, but calling lieberman bush’s “love child”…that’s not a good sign. there’s also no guarantee that the independents and moderate republicans will support lieberman in a three-way race, regardless of what the polling may indicate. i’m not sure how lieberman keeps the support he already has AND gains votes after losing the primary.

on the other hand, lamont didn’t give a normal victory speech. he sounded like howard dean when dean was giving the “scream” speech. there was nothing conventional about what lamont said. he tossed out plenty of red meat to the fierce partisans in the crowd, and that was about 90% of the speech. there was nothing gracious about what he said. there was no sign of a positive agenda. if lieberman could be called a sore loser, then it’s equally true that lamont was a poor winner. is this kind of message the one that the democrats want to promote as their “new direction for america”?

all i have to say is: be careful what you wish for.

tags: , ,

8 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

that’s one way to protest

when connecticut voters go to the polls on tuesday and choose between ned lamont and joe lieberman, it’s hard to predict what will happen next. it’s very possible that lieberman will lose to lamont, but even though this may happen, i don’t think that this will determine the national mood of the country. there are several reasons why i believe this. the first reason is that lieberman’s campaign staff is almost as incompetent as john kerry’s was during his race for the presidency (and that’s really saying something). it’s safe to say they have made a couple serious mistakes, the most glaring of which was the debate advice they gave him. attack your opponent if you see a weakness. seize the opportunity to emphasize your experience and qualifications. all that makes sense, but it’s not necessary to be condescending, rude, or arrogant as you sell yourself to the viewers and the audience. if the viewers saw it the way i did, i can’t imagine that lieberman gained anything by acting like that. it only plays into that out-of-touch washington insider stereotype that his detractors are trying to suggest.

the second reason is that lieberman has been unable to sell the rest of his liberal resume and his commitment to most causes beloved by those at daily kos and huffington post. even daily kos’ second favorite democrat, bill clinton, can’t seem to convince the locals that joe lieberman is the right man to represent their interests in washington, dc. lieberman has a serious image problem and there’s no easy way to fix that.

then again, it’s not about joe lieberman. it’s not even about what a great guy lamont is. the netroots are using ned lamont. it’s a way to cast a protest vote against someone they can’t get rid of just yet…george w. bush. it’s more than iraq. these people want to send the message that agreeing with george w. bush on anything, no matter how small the issue may be, is unacceptable, and that such behavior should be punished. i don’t believe that lieberman opponents would have any serious objection to most of his voting record, but the debate over the war in iraq has become so vicious that there’s bound to be a few political casualties along the way.

the voters have a right to make up their own minds whether lieberman or lamont could best represent them. both of them are too liberal for me, but not too much for connecticut. what a lamont victory would lead to is not some kind of political tidal wave where all the iraq war supporters are drummed out of congress, but a deep ideological struggle between the netroots crowd and the DLC for control of the party’s message. that could be dangerous for them. i can understand why the centrist dems are nervous about this race, because while a lamont win may not have any national implications, it still could cause some ideological chaos within the ranks. if that chaos splits up the democratic party, it will hurt them in november.

tags: , ,

13 Comments Posted on Democrats, Liberals

he’s not a conservative

if the voters of connecticut really want a change from the senator they have now, then they would have to vote for…a republican. lamont is only different because he opposes the war in iraq. while it’s true that lamont can claim outsider status, and that he is not tied to any special interest groups, on policy issues there’s not many areas where lieberman and lamont disagree. consider this sampling of groups that lieberman has supported (according to his voting record): planned parenthood, naral, aclu, nea, now, uaw, afl-cio, all the big ones. these groups don’t give endorsements out lightly, but lieberman’s record shows that he deserves those endorsements.

this may come as a shock to conservatives…but joe lieberman is not one of us, hannity’s endorsement not withstanding.

from california conservative:

Lieberman has voted either outright against every Republican initiative or, as in the case of Soc. Security reform, has hedged his bet but still on the negative side of the issue. Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.

In measuring Lieberman’s record, the American Conservative Union has given him a rating of “0? for calendar year 2004, only an “8? in 2005, and a low “17? for his lifetime in Congress based on his votes in the Senate. (By contrast, much as my Conservative friends may not like him, McCain’s ACU rating is 72, 80 and 83 respectively.)

He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alito’s Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.

Lieberman is not a “conservative” Democrat. It’s just that simple.

there are several objections to re-electing joe lieberman, and none of them are very convincing. the main objection to lieberman is not that he is too conservative, it’s that he’s not liberal enough. he doesn’t oppose bush enough for the liberal netroots. he supports the war in iraq…although he’s backed off somewhat from what he has said/written previously. there is also the unpardonable sin of condemning clinton’s actions during monicagate(which the former president has somehow forgiven him for doing).

i’m not going to predict what’s going to happen next, because anything could happen when the voters of connecticut ultimately decide this. it sure does seem that lieberman isn’t handling this challenge all that well. i watched some of the debate a few weeks ago, and even though lamont may not have had the best answers, this time it didn’t matter.

i don’t know what joe’s advisors have been telling him…but looking angry and defensive doesn’t work for him. he looked like some kind of angry dad, instead of someone who was confident about his record and willing to defend the positions he has taken. it was a side of lieberman that i certainly didn’t expect to see, and it was an ugly display. ned lamont may not have won the debate, but i don’t think lieberman helped his own case either.

there is no reason other than iraq that connecticut conservatives (especially republican conservatives) should give lieberman their vote. in my view, that single issue is still not enough to overlook his entire career record. he should be liberal enough for the rest of the state. it all depends on how much the netroots is willing to sacrifice to make an example out of joe lieberman.

tags: , , ,