Here's An Idea
I see from a story in Tuesday’s Washington Times that Democrats are trying to find a way to improve their image in, and thus their ability to get votes from, the military community.
Apparently a meeting of Democrat staffers was held in the basement of the Capitol Building in which this very topic was discussed. It is no secret that the military vote has favored Republicans for some time now and went overwhelmingly to President Bush in the most recent national election. It is understandable that Democrats would want to try to make inroads in this very important constituency.
But amongst all the discussion that took place in the Capitol’s basement earlier this week, I feel safe in saying that perhaps the most important underlying reason for their travails in this regard was not discussed. That is, the hatred and rage that so many Democrats, even among the leadership, feel toward Republicans generally, and George Bush specifically. I cannot recall a time in my life in which a party was driven by sheer rage to the extent that the Democrats are right now.
It’s in evidence when Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says he hates Republicans because he knows that’s what his audience wants to hear.
It’s clearly on display when Sean Penn blames George Bush for his return to smoking or when a lawyer in Virginia writes a piece for the Washington Post in which she blames the President for her decision to have an abortion.
It’s unmistakable when New York State Comptroller, and Democrat, Alan Hevesi praises a Democrat Senator for being the kind of guy who would put a bullet between President Bush’s eyes if he could get away with it.
For some time now, the only clear and consistent message that national Democrats have offered in order to try to sell themselves to the populace is that they hate George Bush – I’m just waiting for “I hate George Bush” to turn up as a candidate’s official campaign slogan – and their whole agenda revolves around defeating him at every turn, regardless of what that might mean for the country on a given issue. A defeat for the Republicans is viewed by Democrats as a victory for themselves, even if it is also a defeat for the nation as a whole.
Where the military is concerned during time of war, it means that Democrats stand in opposition to George Bush as the Commander-In-Chief of the military and hope that his policies and deployments of military forces fail. That translates to working to undermine the war effort, and literally hoping the body count of the good guys continues to rise because of hoped-for negative political results for the President and his party.
Think about it, how often in recent weeks have you heard the Democrat-friendly media report on the number of terrorists killed or captured by our guys? That would seem to be a logical thing to report, in order to give a balanced view of the war effort, and allow them to make logical, objective decisions regarding their support for it. The problem is that it would undermine the left’s efforts to undermine Republicans. Thus, the only time we hear about American troops actually doing the killing and capturing are the aberrations at Abu Grhaib and Haditha. To the Democrats, these are the norms and not the exceptions. The message coming from the left is fairly obvious, our guys, commanded by a Republican, mind you, are the bad guys, and thus they probably deserve the licks they’re taking anyway.
As surprising as it may be to many of the elite national Democrat leaders, who view the men and women in uniform, and their families, as ignorant hayseeds who had to turn to the military only because they couldn’t find a real job – like acting – these families can see these efforts to undermine Republicans at the expense of their loved ones for what they are. The left is not going to make serious inroads in the military community as long as the military community sees the left as being hostile to the well-being of their loved ones in harms way. And it’s difficult to see the left shedding that image as long as their whole agenda is driven by a hatred for their political opponents.
Apparently a meeting of Democrat staffers was held in the basement of the Capitol Building in which this very topic was discussed. It is no secret that the military vote has favored Republicans for some time now and went overwhelmingly to President Bush in the most recent national election. It is understandable that Democrats would want to try to make inroads in this very important constituency.
But amongst all the discussion that took place in the Capitol’s basement earlier this week, I feel safe in saying that perhaps the most important underlying reason for their travails in this regard was not discussed. That is, the hatred and rage that so many Democrats, even among the leadership, feel toward Republicans generally, and George Bush specifically. I cannot recall a time in my life in which a party was driven by sheer rage to the extent that the Democrats are right now.
It’s in evidence when Democrat National Committee Chairman Howard Dean says he hates Republicans because he knows that’s what his audience wants to hear.
It’s clearly on display when Sean Penn blames George Bush for his return to smoking or when a lawyer in Virginia writes a piece for the Washington Post in which she blames the President for her decision to have an abortion.
It’s unmistakable when New York State Comptroller, and Democrat, Alan Hevesi praises a Democrat Senator for being the kind of guy who would put a bullet between President Bush’s eyes if he could get away with it.
For some time now, the only clear and consistent message that national Democrats have offered in order to try to sell themselves to the populace is that they hate George Bush – I’m just waiting for “I hate George Bush” to turn up as a candidate’s official campaign slogan – and their whole agenda revolves around defeating him at every turn, regardless of what that might mean for the country on a given issue. A defeat for the Republicans is viewed by Democrats as a victory for themselves, even if it is also a defeat for the nation as a whole.
Where the military is concerned during time of war, it means that Democrats stand in opposition to George Bush as the Commander-In-Chief of the military and hope that his policies and deployments of military forces fail. That translates to working to undermine the war effort, and literally hoping the body count of the good guys continues to rise because of hoped-for negative political results for the President and his party.
Think about it, how often in recent weeks have you heard the Democrat-friendly media report on the number of terrorists killed or captured by our guys? That would seem to be a logical thing to report, in order to give a balanced view of the war effort, and allow them to make logical, objective decisions regarding their support for it. The problem is that it would undermine the left’s efforts to undermine Republicans. Thus, the only time we hear about American troops actually doing the killing and capturing are the aberrations at Abu Grhaib and Haditha. To the Democrats, these are the norms and not the exceptions. The message coming from the left is fairly obvious, our guys, commanded by a Republican, mind you, are the bad guys, and thus they probably deserve the licks they’re taking anyway.
As surprising as it may be to many of the elite national Democrat leaders, who view the men and women in uniform, and their families, as ignorant hayseeds who had to turn to the military only because they couldn’t find a real job – like acting – these families can see these efforts to undermine Republicans at the expense of their loved ones for what they are. The left is not going to make serious inroads in the military community as long as the military community sees the left as being hostile to the well-being of their loved ones in harms way. And it’s difficult to see the left shedding that image as long as their whole agenda is driven by a hatred for their political opponents.
posted by JeffreyH | 9:09 AM
4 Comments:
Michael Savage would cringe at your labeling of him as a Republican, as do I.
And while, I agree with most of what Ann Coulter believes, I willfully acknowledge that her means of communicating often leaves something to be desired. I wonder if you're willing to say the same about the intemperate remarks made by many within your party.
And last time I checked, Ann Coulter held no official position within government or the Republican Party.
Just one for now.
Howard Dean: "I hate Republicans and all that they stand for."
For the record, I don't listen to Sean Hannity and find his talent as a debater to be average at best, relying far too much on pure emotion.
It's amusing to me to see how you liberals believe the conservative movement is monolithic and attribute a conservative's viewpoint to mere brainwashing, in this case by a guy I don't even listen to.
I've already acknowledged that I often am uncomfortable with how Ann presents her viewpoints, although they are usually grounded in facts. You obviously believe they are not grounded in facts. Can you provide some examples of comments she has made that are outright falsehoods?
Still waiting for your response to my Howard Dean quote.
I don't recall how you got the idea that this discussion was about comments about the troops or putting them in danger. It was about members of one party making hate-driven comments about members of another. It was not about questioning policies of other administrations (which both liberals and conservatives should reserve the right to do). It was not about pointing out facts regarding how other nations and their institutions are responding to comments made in America.
Since my time to devote to this "discussion" is limited, I'm not going to follow this tangent.
With regard to Ann Coulter, if you're not going to provide the comments themselves here, it may be a while before I have the time to look up what's on the links you provide - I've got other obligations to meet that are competing for my time. If you reconsider and decide to provide the quotes themselves, it might facilitate things better.
With regard to your "Sean Hannity" quote, the larger point is that you don't score any credibility points when you dismiss someone with an opposing point of view as someone who has merely been brainwashed by more clever people, and refuse to give them credit for simply interpreting the evidence out there for what is true and correct differently than you.
How on earth could anyone read my recent post on flag-burning and think I'm just parroting Sean Hannity?
It suggests to me, and probably to the three or four people who actually read these comments, that you are not approaching the person with whom you are discussing the matter - in this case, me - in a respectful, and therefore respectable, manner. If you continue to approach this with such an attitude, there's really no reason to continue. So I hope you'll drop the presumptuousness so that we can continue (if you feel continuing necessary).
How would you like it if someone wrote in and said you were merely being brainwashed by the Al Frankens and Randi Rhodes of the world?
Okay, Thomas.
I see at least two places where you have left comments using what I, and others, would consider to be vulgar terms. Not that I'm surprised, but your tendency in that direction, coupled with your personal attacks on me - a person whom you've never met - have led me to decide that I will no longer engage you.
And as a side note, you should know that such terms do nothing to establish any intellecual bona fides on your part.
Have a good life. And I hope your vocabulary improves.
Post a Comment
<< Home