Republicans might be Toast in '08
By kyle8 Posted in 2008 — Comments (79) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My reading of the public mood is that for many years now, the vast middle of the ideological spectrum in this country has wanted the Republicans to offer them something of substance.
Most of these people, ranging from moderate left to moderate right have long realized the incompetence and sometimes insanity of the American left. However, there are some things they will not put up with for very long from Republicans.
(1)A far right wing cultural philosophy. This scares many people who either do not understand conservatives or have heard some extreme voices and been frightened.
(2)Incompetence, overspending, and unethical behavior in Washington. If they had wanted that, they would just elect Democrats.
(3) War. This is the big one, we have to come to grips with the fact that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO SUSTAIN A CONFLICT OF ANY KIND, FOR ANY REASON, MORE THAN ABOUT EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
Now, as to the elections, I don't think point number one is in play here, no one is running on a strong platform of the so called "social issues". Point number two is definitely in play due to the many screw ups of the last Republican congress, but it is manageable because the Democrats have done nothing since elected.
But point number three is the killer. Mark my words: If we do not begin a very large scale back of US Troops by the end of THIS year, it will be another Republican bloodbath in all elections, no matter what or who the Dems run.
So the surge, has only a very little time left to do its job. If things do not get better, very quickly let be me be blunt about it. We will be looking at permanent minority status again for a generation.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Is that the GOP has won 3 of the last 5 Pres. elections with candidates with only marginal command of the English language. That's one reason I'm more optimistic about '08 than most. All of the major GOP candidates are reasonably good communicators.
My thoughts on 2008 are very similar. I would say that the chance that the GOP wins back either house of congress are almost nil. I think though that their one saving grace vis a vis the white house might be the democratic nominee.
What a horrible collection of contenders the democrats put on the stage for that debate last week. What an unlikable bunch. I would judge any of the republican front runners as superior candidates. I could easily imagine Giuliani or McCain winning even while the GOP lost seats in both houses. I have, over the last decade, become quite a fan of divided control of government so that's the outcome I'll be pulling for in any case.
-exits
Enjoying it now?
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
When he talked about unnecessary foreign entanglements. Perhaps we should have listened.
these days that ever rises above mere diplomacy. All the bad guys of the world are networked and cooperating to some extent and now even trans-national forces like Al-Qaeda can achieve more than nations ever could before. A Scud or Shehab missile, a warhead and a cheap freighter 12 miles from the US shore is all the WMD capability they would need to destroy an entire city in this country.
You could say that there are only two categories of people and nations we deal with these days: those we can always buy off, if it comes to that, and those whose jihad can't be bought for any price.
The jihadists declared war on us. On that, there is no debate. There's debate about the exact date as to when (my vote is 11/4/1979). But I think that just comes from the entirely asymmetrical nature of not just the warfare we're in, but of the enemy himself. It's not exactly like Pearl Harbor where we can say we were "suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
Sadly, for our collective psyche, the current enemy isn't as easily defined or grasped.
In '79, the "enemy" was Khomeini's new Shiite Islamist government. In February of 1993, it was Sunni extremists Ramzi Yousef and Omar Abdel Rahman. On other occasions, it's been other players. Is our enemy Shiite? Sunni? Sovereign? Stateless? Arab? Persian?
The answer is yes to each one of those questions.
But Saddam wasn't exactly part of this network of jihad, right? And we did, after all, attack him unprovoked.
So, on the surface, you could make the argument you were making. But I think that all changes when you look at the liberation of Iraq as a sideways offensive against the jihad.
The thing that always befuddles me when I discuss this with folks like you who think it was a diversion, irrelevant, unwarranted, unnecessary, etc....is how you guys can keep ignoring the reponse of the jihadists themselves!
While you may not think the fight over Iraq bears any importance in the larger conflict with the jihadists, it seems apparent as can be from their words and actions that they do. They're doing everything they possibly can to prevent the establishment of a permanent, jihad-hostile government in Baghdad. And, frankly, I don't blame them.
So why should I take your word for it when our (agreed upon) enemy's actions belie something quite divergent from what you claim?
Am I the only one old enough to remember the four decades of the Cold War? Yes, we vacilated in strategy and effectiveness over that time, but we did prevail. Three thousand casualties per four years is about what we suffered in non-combat deaths in the military over that time. Just the deaths in Korea and VN added up to ten thousand per four year period. My God, are we not made of as stern stuff?
We changed political leadership several times, but the country supported the struggle until the end. By my count, the Islamists have been at war with us for almost three decades already, and they're likely to last that long again. Regardless of who wins in '08 or'10 or'12 the conflict will continue. Get used to it, folks.
When I was a kid, I got into an argument with an avowed pacifist. He responded to being proving wrong by attacking me physically. Somedays it doesn't pay to win. The point of the tale is if you scratch a pacifist a good portion of the time you find a bully.
What we have in the press these days are pacifist bullies. They all saw Citizen Kane and read about Randolph Hearst, then took them as how to guides. So while in the cold war we endured casualties the media didn't have the will or the position yet to wage a campaign of breaking down the will of the people.
In the current period the MSM is little better than an agitprop arm for our enemies. You toss in a political party that has decided that winning or losing a war is irrelevant, you have a failure of national will.
This is the real problem with the Democrats as a party in this country. Currently they have a very shortsighted viewpoint and do not care what damage is done to achieve their objectives. The Republican party either needs to effectively start countering them or expect to go away.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...so be it. But I highly doubt that we will see a Democrat in the white house any time soon.
will also keep my kids safe from terror this time around. Rudy Giuliani can also win the election in 2008 which is something that the others might not be able to do. I hate to say it but the war is destroying John McCains chances to win in the general election although I believe he is right.
You are also right about the American people only supporting a winning war I remember Patton saying this about the public in the movie thats why from now on we must go in with overwhelming brutal force just like the Nazi Germans did in Poland in 1939. As Patton said the American people will not tolerate a loser thats why all of these coaches and managers get fired every year in sports.
our nation. The liberal press has ensured this to be the case. We also won the Tet Offensive in Vietnam however it was portrayed as a loss in the news media. To win in Iraq we must turn this around very quickly sadly the truth is most of the American people no longer have the patience for it. If we do leave we will certainly have to go back in eventually to clean out the mess that is left behind.
was exactly the "honorable end" that Nixon promised, and it preserved South Vietnam as a sovereign nation. The only sense in which we "lost" is that we didn't honor our commitments to defend against new North Vietnamese aggression from 1974 onward, and because winners don't quit.
cost roughly five million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians their lives. That's blood on the hands of the old Left.
Now the new group wants their share.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
by Nixon and Kissinger allowed NVA units to remain in South Vietnam, thus insuring an eventual loss of sovereignty for the South Vietnamese.
The South Vietnamese were stabbed in the back by us in Paris, as they knew it would be just a matter of time before they were totally abandoned.
"tipping point" strategies that are so much in favor these days - fail - especially against a determined enemy.
Nothing turns hearts and minds like focused destruction and overwhelming force.
Hi-tech toys don't win wars.
It looks like the public prefers to hide in ignorance (Clinton strategy) and hope the bad guys go away. If that becomes our strategy - like the Dems were suggesting during their debate - we will be attacked again fairly soon. Leaving Germany after WWI concluded was a tragic mistake. Likewise, leaving Iraq in the next few years before it is stabilized, will result in a much stronger and more capable Islamic terrorist force - one that will be able to attack us here as well as anyone who opposes them in Europe.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
It looks like the public prefers to hide in ignorance (Clinton strategy) and hope the bad guys go away. If that becomes our strategy - like the Dems were suggesting during their debate - we will be attacked again fairly soon.
I firmly believe that if we fail in Iraq, we (meaning the West) will be utterly destroyed within 50 years (and probably much sooner).
Anyone who belives otherwise is truly, and completely, fooling themselves.
If there was even a 0.1% chance that you could correctly predict geopolitics of this magnitude over the next 50 years, you would be a wealthy and powerful person.
I'll leave it to you to determine whether you are.
The reality is that you have no idea. Nor do I.
It is the height of arrogance to presume you know how things will play out over the next 50 years while "anyone" (including those who've spent their entire careers specializing in the middle east, military strategy, and foreign diplomacy) who doesn't see things your way is "completely fooling themselves".
That is utter silliness. You have no idea.
...and think that he was not only presumptuous by also hyperbolic, I don't think his basic contention can't be dismissed out of hand.
I don't necessarily think what happens in Iraq in the coming few years will dictate the fate of Western civilization. But Western civilization is under a dire threat -- and it's generally not acting like it realizes that.
And that's problematic.
I think we have a real opportunity to strike a hard blow to the jihad by accomplishing our goals in Iraq. If that doesn't happen, I do think their hand will be significantly strengthened.
Either way, I've resigned myself to the troubling reality that most Americans (and even more Western foreigners) are not going to share my conclusion about this threat until it reaches up and bites us even worse than it did on 9/11.
At some point, I think we'll realize what's at stake and act accordingly. If we don't ever realize this, then this poster may well turn out to be right.
We'll have those who say this was our fault for our illegal invasion of Iraq, mistreatment of prisoners, etc., so it doesn't really count as their attacking us - the answer is for us to become more understanding and pay reparations for our past misdeeds.
Either way, I've resigned myself to the troubling reality that most Americans (and even more Western foreigners) are not going to share my conclusion about this threat until it reaches up and bites us even worse than it did on 9/11.
[while] he was not only presumptuous by also hyperbolic, I don't think his basic contention can't be dismissed out of hand.
I agree with you. I don't think his contention should be dismissed out of hand either. Nor do I think the contrary opinion held by a vastly larger set of the population should be dismissed out of hand as he did. That's exactly my point.
I don't know what's going to happen 50 years from now. He doesn't know what's going to happen 50 years from now. And I'm guessing you are self-aware enough to know that you do not either.
Setting aside whether he is right or wrong or even has any geopolitical expertise from which to make such a wild, extreme statement of fact, dismissing the vast majority of people who disagree with your opinion (not fact, but opinion) as "anyone who belives otherwise is truly, and completely, fooling themselves" is just an arrogant, insulting, and non-constructive way of addressing what is both a critical and complex debate this country and others should be having.
To Thomas who pings me later in this thread for my "tone", I recognize my tone was on the edge and I apologize for that. But I think when someone else starts off a thread in the tone of "anyone who belives otherwise is truly, and completely, fooling themselves", they deserve a sharp rebuke, and in a similar tone.
I trust Thomas was as irritated by the tone of the original poster as he understandably was with mine. And I will dial back mine going forward.
...and think that he was not only presumptuous by also hyperbolic, I don't think his basic contention can't be dismissed out of hand.
I have no idea how I was being presumptuous, but I was certainly not hyperbolic.
At this point in time, all it would take to alter Western Civ. (as we currently know it) to the point of being unrecognizable (i.e. "destroyed") would be a complete cutoff of oil (economic strangulation), and about 2-7 well-placed nukes, a la the TV show Jericho.
Most people live in this bubble of "So it has been, so shall it be", but I really don't think people realize how precarious the foundations of Western Civ. are to the exact threat we face now.
What underpines our personal freedoms is our economic freedoms, and if you give the Jihadists 10-20 years, they can take out the economic ones (via an oil cutoff), while finishing off the personal ones with a couple of "WoMaD" attacks.
It amazes me how few people (apparently even around RedState (and, note - I'm not putting you in that category LH!)) get this.
A) We're not that reliant on foreign oil and even less reliant on Middle Eastern Oil. We produce 40% of our own and import another 30% from Canada (our biggest supplier) and Mexico and about half the rest from South America (have you noticed the concerns over Chaves?). Bring on a global oil embargo of the US. We can sustain ourselves (though a temporary scarcity situation would arise).
B) "2-7 well-placed nukes" are certainly enough to shake America a bit, but not enough to bring her to her knees. You apparently forget just how geographically HUGE the USA is and how redundant her government is.
C)It's plainly scary how few people know their economics, geography, and American Civ well enough to know this.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
issue with length. If it's too many characters, it automatically truncates. I'm guessing yours truncated.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
So I am just manually completing it every post. I like it too much to switch right now and it doesn't shorten well...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
And usually only when we are in power.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A) We're not that reliant on foreign oil and even less reliant on Middle Eastern Oil. We produce 40% of our own and import another 30% from Canada (our biggest supplier) and Mexico and about half the rest from South America (have you noticed the concerns over Chaves?). Bring on a global oil embargo of the US. We can sustain ourselves (though a temporary scarcity situation would arise).
The point is not just that a ME oll cut-off would substantially crimp the U.S. economy - the point is that it would *strangle* Europe, Japan, and now likely China. (Esp. a sustained cut-off - the Jihadists wouldn't care how many of their own people would starve, as long as the destruction of The West was the result. Assuming a "temporary scarcity" if the Jihadists take over Saudi Arabia, et al. may be a naive assumption.)
The direct result of this would be a world depression.
Combine a depression, with a steady beat of major terrorist attacks (up to and including WoMaD's), and you'd be looking at a very, very different world than you're looking at now.
Make no mistake - if the U.S. retreats from the ME now, this scenario is probably more likely than not. At least, in my opinion...
Incomplete reasoning is just as bad as, if not worse than, incorrect reasoning.
The Middle East cuts off all oil to the West. The West goes into a temporary decline due to oil sarcity. China and Russia become REALLY important, Canada starts exporting even more oil. Mexico gets more money for their oil. South America and the USA start drilling LOTS more and perhaps even making use of the Oil Shale deposits, Coal-to-oil procedures, etc and suddenly, the world realizes it can get along without the Middle East.
Also, terrorist attacks are horrible. They are deplorable. They must be prevented to the detriment of those who would perpetrate them. They can be lived with with minimal damage to our economy or our nation. Even with the assistance of WMDs.
Both situations simultaneously would create a very difficult period for the West, but not one we could not overcome in short order. And the end result is that the Middle East would break itself.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Dial back on the tone. Now.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Transformed, prehaps, revolutionized, but not destroyed. Unless our enemy gained control of the entire Russian nuclear forces, they can do nothing more than hurt us badly, a hurt from which THEY will not be able to recover.
Suppose we pull out, and there is a terrorism spike against American interests, even regular attacks inside the US. This can do nothing more than hurt our economy (and as we adjust to the new world, the hurt will lessen), and kill several thousands in a country of 50 million.
Then suppose the absolute worst happens, and Islamofascists detonate nukes in five major US cities. Once order was restored, the American people would be calling for blood, and the ugliest side of human nature would emerge as concern for collateral damage fell by the wayside in the face of such carnage. The Middle East would be reduced to a nuclear wasteland. Islam would go from the world's number two religion to about number 8.
Even in the Worst case senario, the West would survive. Only one side has the means to utterly destroy the other, and it isn't the Islamofascists.
What is this, the cut and run, we give up thread? This isn't the Daily KOS.
And as for point #1, please define "far right wing cultural philosophy". Last I checked, the "far right" meant fringe groups like the KKK, Aryan Nation, etc.
On the other hand, if you're all for things like abortion-on-demand, gay marriage, and legalized cocaine, I hear the Libertarians are looking for people.
I can't speak for anyone else but for me, creationism was, I think, the tipping point with respect to my ability to reconcile my own positions with those of the self identified social conservatives. I have a feeling I'm not alone in this.
-exits
But, um, a lot of social conservatives -- probably the majority, though I can't vouch for that -- aren't creationists.
I don't want to get in the way of what was apparently a very self-satisfying act, or its memory, but I did want to put the record straight.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I understand that not all social conservatives are creationists (though I have no idea whether a majority are or not). But the first issue in the original post was about the affect on the electorate in general of extreme voices on cultural issues. My perception is that the recent flareup over teaching creationism in public schools as well as the Schiavo ordeal are examples of situations where social conservatives have hurt the GOP in the greater electorate. They had that affect on me in any case.
-exits
Though I'm not a creationist as the term is usually used myself, I note that an overwhelming majority of Americans are.
I end the quibble, merely to note that being irritated with social conservatives for this is according us too much power, or too much a share of the populace.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
But the evolution only people through quirk of fate are actually less scientific minded than the creationists. Those that argue that evolution should be taught as an unproved theory with alternatives are correct.
Science isn't answers its about the process of finding them.
P.S. The same goes for any scientific theory. You shouldn't teach Galilean kinematics without explaining what they superseded and why.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In fact, I'm generally bored stiff by any debate between evolutionists and creationists -- because, personally, I find both theories to be fatally flawed. And, what's more, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that one or the other must be true.
Ann Coulter did a really good job highlighting the general problems with the theory of evolution in her book "Godless." The biggest problem, of course, is the fossil record. And even some of the most ardent supporters of the generally accepted view of evolution concede this is problematic to their argument.
But, frankly, I don't think any argument skeptical of evolution is necessarily an argument for some doctrinal view of creationism.
I'm not being sarcastic. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between believing that God created this earth and everything in it, which the overwhelming number of Americans and others believe, and believing that God created the earth from nothing in 7 24-hour periods approximately 6,000 years ago, which very few people believe.
I believe in the former but not the latter assertion.
If you think that believing in a God who created the world is somehow an "extreme" belief, then it is you who are at odds with the mainstream of America, not social conservatives.
I believe in creationism because its obvious. Even the scientific Intelligent Design movement is taking hold for those reasons.
I also believe in the biblical account because I believe Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and he said the account was true. Since he was there, I'll take his word on it.
I have a lot of political disagreements with others, but when it comes to politics, I never took their view of creation into account, (except when it comes to what is taught in schools where it is applicable).
Very interesting that this is you "tipping point" on social conservatives.
You may well be right that Republicans could in for a rough time at the polls. I really don't know. As it stands, our frontrunner bests all the prospective Democrat candidates for president....at a time when the generic D vs. R polls are still bad for the GOP, the current Republican occupant of the White House is unpopular, and the Dems just swept to victory in Congress.
So, I'm just not sure that it's quite as bad as you think it is.
But I would like to address your key points.
(1)A far right wing cultural philosophy.
This begs for some details. How exactly would you define this? Do you think the GOP currently reflects a "far right wing cultural philosophy"? If so, how so?
I'm a full-fledged proponent of gay marriage, personally. But I realize that I'm in the minority in most places not called San Francisco, Provincetown, Key West, and Berkeley. What's more, the GOP used this issue pretty well in the '04 cycle. So, as compared to the center of political gravity on this issue, I don't think it's fair to say the GOP is "far right."
What else? Frankly, I think social issues are among the best winners for the GOP -- if it's smart about it (which it often isn't).
(2)Incompetence, overspending, and unethical behavior in Washington. If they had wanted that, they would just elect Democrats.
Well, yeah. But, as you say, the Republicans are fortunate that their rival party is the Democratic Party. Of course, Democrats are supposed to be the party of overspending, bureaucracy, expanding the welfare state, etc.
So...no quibble from me on this, I s'pose.
(3) War. This is the big one, we have to come to grips with the fact that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO SUSTAIN A CONFLICT OF ANY KIND, FOR ANY REASON, MORE THAN ABOUT EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
Yeah, this is the big one. And, while I don't (exactly) think you're wrong, I'm still going to take issue with you....well, not you so much as "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."
If you don't mind, I'm going to put forth a corollary to your thought here -- because I think it's critically important while discussing this.
I don't think the American people will support the sustain of a conflict for an extended period of time when they lose any sense that the conflict is necessary for our security.
And the fact of the matter is that many people think that the jihadist threat itself is overblown, that establishing a decent government in the region is irrelevant to fighting the jihadist threat at best (or worsening it, at worst), that it's a diversion from the real war, that we can resolve the conflict through peaceful means, etc.
I think they're wrong on all those counts, of course. But it doesn't matter what I think as far as elections go. It matters what the collective electorate thinks.
But, then, history doesn't care what any of us think. It doesn't care how long we're willing to sustain wars. It doesn't care about political footballs. History is shaped by events -- and we're wise to be as certain as we can to impact those events to affect history in a way favorable to our interests. Because events will still happen.
We're 5.5 years removed from 9/11 -- and I think we slide more each day back towards the complacent and blissfully ignorant state of awareness that plagued us on 9/10.
I'm not sure what it will take to convince the American people that we don't have a choice here and that the war is happening whether we like it or not. But I fear quite profoundly that it's going to take something catastrophic.
The war was declared on us and there will be a winner and a loser when it's all over. And I'm about as certain as I could possibly be that it isn't going to follow some politically convenient timeline.
And that's why we need leadership -- even if it tells us things we don't really want to hear.
Edwards actually leads Giuliani by greater than the MOE according to Rasmussen 49-43 on 4/9 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Matc...
and unoriginal. I also am pretty sure you are very wrong.
McGovern ran in 1972 agasint a war even more unpopular, and with no alternative media to report.
He was creamed in an historic defeat.
Corruption?
Excpet for lack of reporting the dhimmies are surpassing the Republicans in that are in every regard.
While I don't think that America wants a Michael Savage culture, the last time I checked he was not a spokesman for the Republican party.
We do need a President willing to really sell the war and keep it sold. But the reality of the war is that we cannot walk away, and most Americans, when actually asked to think about it and not simply answer manipulative sound bite questions, agree.
Corruption?
Excpet for lack of reporting the dhimmies are surpassing the Republicans in that are in every regard.
With the opaque filter of the MSM, few more than present company will ever know that. Unless, for example, you can email something like THIS to every voter in battleground districts.
wow, first time one of my threads was recommended. First let me clarify because several asked. What I mean by right wing cultural issues is not the average republican consensus but rather the hard core (no compromise) people. That would include a hard stand against any abortion, gay marriage, drug decriminalization (even medical marijuana), euthanasia. It would include prayer and creationism taught in public schools. etc.
Now most republicans would be aligned to some extent with this agenda(myself included), but when you have people who are pushing it in a no compromise form it will scare off a very large chunk of the electorate, in fact the very part which are called the swing voters.
Scottbomb completely misunderstood me. I don't want to cut and run, no matter what happens at the polling place, but if Dems take over completely it will happen anyway.
I stand by my statement that Americans will no longer support a sustained conflict. Well I suppose if we were actually invaded by a foreign army that might not be true. This is a new age, and we are not exactly the same people we were even twenty years ago.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And, consequently, the American appetite for war was nearly insatiable following it.
But, of course, it wasn't a sustained attack. So, our tolerance has predictably waned the farther we've gotten from said invasion. Of course, 9/11 was actually deadlier and more destructive than Pearl Harbor. But, as you suggest, this just isn't the same country that it was in 1941. And, likewise, the nature of the enemy is quite different now than then.
Understand, I don't necessarily think you're wrong that American voters won't support any sustained conflict in the current environment. I think they're (we're) wrong for not understanding more about what's going on.
The notion that we have some kind of option as to whether or not we fight this war that's been declared on us is abhorrent to me. How we fight it is, of course, a different discussion altogether.
And, moreover, as I said above, so far as electoral politics goes, it doesn't matter what's right or wrong...all that matters is what sells at any given point in time. Obviously, I wish the Democrats wouldn't be so opportunistic about something as consequential as our nation's security and survival. But c'est la vie.
give in on abortion, give in on gay marriage, give in on drugs,
give in on euthanasia. Absolutely no prayer, except for those willing to bow down and face Mecca 5 times a day. No defending our nation, no US military ever allowed to win. No more secret ballots.
What else do we stand for; small government, not that the Democrat leaders would ever allow that.
So we've compromised, and what will we now stand for? Nothing.
If you are unwilling to compromise on anything, and your views are shared by only about 25-35% of the electorate, then how do you get anything accomplished?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You run on the aspects of your philosophy that are popular, and then deliver on those aspects. Limited government, less taxation, anti-corruption, advancement through merit, free enterprise, the Second Amendment, opposition to abortion on demand, etc. All of these Conservative positions are widely popular, and strangely most of them have been abandoned by much of the party establishment over the last few years.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
everything and the other side has compromised on nothing.
A few Americans said they didn't believe in God. Now Christian
prayers aren't allowed.
A few Americans said they wanted mothers to have the right to kill inconvenient children. Now we have abortion for everyone. Can't have teenagers notifying their parents they are going to have abortions, it restricts their freedom. Not one thought about whether the unborn child want to be aborted.
Gay marriage is demanded by a few, now we have whole states allowing it, why? Is there nothing that has been considered
wrong, that won't be allowed?
The same on drugs. A few criminals want them, so we have Americans saying; let them have their drugs, so we'll have fewer criminals. What kind of sense does that make?
A few Americans wanted to surrender to the North Vietnamese, America surrendered. No cost at all to the Americans who helped the North Vietnamese to win. Only the US military members who were killed, had their bodies and minds shattered, the families and friends of them and the millions of natives who died or had their lives ruined paid the price.
Today, every American knows that Western Civilization is being subjected to horrendous pressures by terrorists who have sworn
to destroy us. So what does the left want to do? Surrender, give the terrorists what they want. Set down and talk with them, maybe they'll learn to like us.
Can anyone name any issue which the left has ever compromised on?
Compromises from the right are "a good starting point" or "a good first step".
Compromises from the left are ... well they are pretty much non-existent is what they are.
My determination, along the points of the article:
1) Republicans have a bit of wiggle room in terms of cultural philosophy, and the majority of the American people seem to be closer to our side than that of the Democrats, who seem completely unwilling to waver on issues like abortion and gun control, where they seem to be in a very vocal, but not very large, minority. Being able to effectively communicate a center-right cultural strategy can win votes, and I think that's something progressives won't do. When social issues come up, Republicans typically win. The biggest trip-up is on embryonic stem cell research and AGW, but they're more junk science than actual social concerns, and somebody needs to be able to communicate that.
2) From my perspective, corruption isn't a Republican or a Democrat issue, but rather a Washington issue. What we need is a standard-bearer who is outside of the typical Beltline establishment. If the Democrats succeed in that, they could have quite the success with this strategy as well (provided said standard-bearer isn't a complete policy buffoon like John Edwards or Howard Dean, their most recent attempts at this approach). On the GOP side in 2008, I can think of either Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee as solid choices in this regard. If the Dems can't get corruption to stick at the top, the rest gets that much harder.
3) I call BS on this one. The people will support a longer war, so long as we fight to win. If we are fighting such a battle, we need to show the American people that we are fighting to accomplish a decisive victory, not just putting boots on the ground for the enemy to shoot at. Iraq, despite Sen. Reid's proclamation, is far from lost, and a couple of major security sweeps could do a lot to help out in the area. That being said, it is extremely hard to fight asymmetric warfare, and it may end up meaning that a lesser civil war in Iraq may actually be needed to help flush some of this hostility out (to say nothing of bringing more of the radical militias out into the open, where American soldiers can practice peace through superior firepower).
As seems pretty obvious, I'm not willing to throw in the towel on anything, and I don't see any reason why any of us should either. This might not be the best of situations for us, but it's not our worst nightmare, either. The economy (in 49 states) is strong, crime rates are falling; in short, there's a lot to be thankful for at home. We have a lot of problems facing our society in the not-too-distant future, but our side has shown itself to be capable of coming up with ideas, where our opposition buries its head in the sand, hoping those problems don't materialize. That is how the issue needs to be framed, and it can be done extremely successfully if we are able to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of progressive, left-wing policy thinking.
This is, after all, a battle we can win.
"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."
I have been thinking along the same lines as far as time lines go. Our success in Iraq rests half on Iraq itself and half on U.S. politics. If we loose in either of these battles, we loose the war. If there is no perception of progress in Iraq by the end of 2007, the war will be lost. At that point the 2008 election campaign will go full force, and it would take a miracle in Iraq to change American voter attitudes in time for the November elections.
I will disagree with you on the ultimate outcome, however. The longer we can hold out in Iraq the greater the chance it could survive on its own. I would rather we stay on until survival is certain, but pulling out - even now - does not guarantee failure.
Also, if Democrats were to gain control of the White House and Congress, they would not necessarily retain control. Four years of Democratic rule will likely result in enough pain that most Americans will look to kick the bums out in 2012. If you think gas prices are bad now, just wait until A.Q. is pulling the strings of an Iraqi government.
Two bloodbaths in a row are highly unlikely, simply from an historical perspective. The only ones that come to mind are the Republicans' triumph in 1864 and 1866, or the Democrats' triumphs from 1932 through 1936.
Query--for the elections in your lifetime, how did things look in the spring of the year before election years? Let's take a look in reverse chronological order:
Spring 2005: Hah! I was dreaming, as were many here, of a 60-seat Republican majority. I don't believe ANYONE said with a straight face that the Democrats would win control of the Senate in 2006.
Spring 2003. Bush's approval ratings in the 60s, topping off at 70% around May 1. It did not look like Bush was gonna hold on by the skin of his teeth for reelection.
Spring 2001. Bush was barely above 50%, disputed election. Jeffords thought for sure that by switching, he would stay in the majority come 2002-03. One of my great satisfactions was seeing him proved wrong.
Spring 1999. Republicans demoralized (or at least I was). But Clinton with baggage. I'm guessing that a nailbiter DID seem likely.
Spring 1997. No great contrast here as well. Clinton comfortably re-elected. One could reasonable have predicted no major changes in Congress in '98.
Spring 1995. Clinton low in the polls, Republicans flying high. (REmember those days). But by Nov. 96, Republicans were lucky that Clinton's comfortable re-election did not also mean a loss of the House.
Spring 1993. The VERY dark period (for me at least). Would ANYONE have predicted a Republican takeover at that time--with Clinton with nice numbers, and the Dems in control of the House for over a generation?
Spring 1991. Bush was doing so great that Thurgood Marshall retired in despair. Shoulda held on.
Spring 1989. NO big contrast
Spring 1987. Reagan's approval down in the 40s, Dems triumphant return to power in the Senate. But in '88, Bush Sr. stomped Dukakis.
Spring 1985. Reagan massively triumphant. A Democratic return to the Senate did not seem likely.
Spring 1983. Reagan's approval rating was in the 30s. Hardly foretold a massive landslide.
Spring 1981: Reagan, after the assasination attempt, pushes massive legislation through Congress. Republicans were talking about getting the House in 1982. Ha!
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Great post. Put it in a diary. A lot of people (and an awful lot of "professional" pundits) are missing your point right now.
For the past few days I've been reading the dispatches from Jeff and Victoria and comparing them to what's coming out of the MSM and other places, and thinking deeply about our prospects for 2008 and I've gotta say, kyle8, this is the time to have some courage and not worry about bailing over the war.
The people who are adamantly opposed to the war have been adamantly opposed to the war since before the day it began, and the only thing that has happened in the interim is that their justifications for their point of view have become more elaborate. There's no convincing them that in any way this is a just cause -- or was a just cause -- or will ever be a just cause.
I had conversations with law professors right after the initial invasion of Afghanistan when the Chicago Sun Times was running headlines like: "Powell Ramps Up Invade Iraq Talk" and their view even at that early moment was that they would do everything in their power to oppose the war and prevent it from happening. I had people who were Deans of law schools tell me that this whole war was about oil and the military/industrial complex and paying off Dick Cheney's friends. They weren't brooking any debate back then and they're not about to start now. Nobody is going to convince the Juan Coles of the world, and nobody is going to convince Teree Foster of DePaul University College of Law, even in the afterlife.
And my view of it is: "Who Cares About Them?" There are a few moderates I've been able to persuade by showing them examples of the kind that Victoria and Jeff are providing which has given them a different perspective on this thing than the one officially offered by Robert Kaiser of the Washington Post and the collective force of the NYT-loving intellectuals throughout this country.
If people in this country can't find some reason to have some courage and some real resolve after everything we've seen, we deserve to lose. And if we lose, it's a lead-pipe cinch that everyone on this side of the fence is going to have to wear it like an albatross for the rest of their lives, but to me that doesn't matter. Nor do the short-term political machinations matter.
The Democrats have bailed out on the war because that's their prerogative and birthright as a party, especially in modern times. They're the party of polls, they're the party of shifting according to the winds like a weathervane and doing what some idiot from Zogby or somewhere else tells them the "majority of the people support." If Zogby told them that the majority of people polled wanted to walk around naked in the halls of Congress, the Democrats would draft legislation to allow it, and go on the campaign trail for Naked Democracy.
We're a long way from this election thus far and I don't think your gloom is warranted. I'm really becoming interested in Fred Thompson as a candidate and at this point my opinion has changed: I think we've got a stronger field of candidates than the Donks.
This is a tough game and all of us take punches and deal them back on a daily basis. But we're fighting in Iraq so that the Iraqi people themselves have the right and the ability to do the same thing by determining their own future. Is it always pleasant? No. Does it make you think of trying to escape to Candy Mountain? Sure. But we're there because we had to try and I think just beneath the ugly media patina we're doing a good job.
People in this country need to get a grip. There's no map to Candy Mountain, and there never has been.
I, in no way, wish to leave before the job is done, even if it cost us elections. But what I am saying is that it WILL cost us elections if this surge does not to a great extent pacify the trouble spots, and it has to work quickly.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't think we can categorically assume that the American people will not stand a long committment. What they won't withstand is a long committment to what they with some justification perceive to bumbling, stumbling prosecution of the war, a feckless ally in the Iraqi "government," and continued casualties with neither a result, nor an end, or even an improvment in sight.
Now we can argue about how much of that perception is fact and how much was the result of what I believe to be cynical calculation by the Left, the Democrats, and their media lackeys, but God knows the administration has given them a fair bit of fodder, has been almost silent in its own defense, and has received precious little support from Republicans in Congress or out in the Country. Even with that perception, if the question were squarely put as "cut and run now," the People would overwhelmingly answer in the negative outside the really, irredeemably Blue places.
We on the right do our own version of Vietnam-style quagmire thinking when we dismiss the public will on prosecution of the GWOT by thinking of the opposition to the Vietnam War. There is no draft! No young men are getting that "greetings and salutations, you are hereby ordered to report" letter as a HS graduation present and no parents are seeing their young man yanked away from his or their life plans to be a part of "bumbling, stumbling prosecution of the war, a feckless ally in the [Iraqi] Vietnam "government," and continued casualties with neither a result nor an end, or even an improvment in sight." We should never underestimate the effect the draft and all its unfairness, think 2-S deferments, had on the national will.
The GWOT quickly weeded out those members of the armed services who had joined for the signing bonuses or the education benefits and thought they'd never have to face combat. The vast majority of our servicemen and women are dedicated to their jobs and have supportive families, though I do fear that some of that support is in danger; I know it is in my house. I really don't want my infantryman son's life in the hands of a Democrat government, and if it looks like one is in the offing, it will take all I can do to refrain from discourageing his re-enlistment; facing four years of reserve committment under Democrat misrule is bad enough.
To the main point, the American people expect success; they expect to be winners. Their perception is that there has been precious little success and nobody in the Administration or the Republicans in Congress can even give a functional definition of winning.
In Vino Veritas
Achance, You spell out what is on the minds of many:
" I really don't want my infantryman son's life in the hands of a Democrat government"
"Their perception is that there has been precious little success and nobody in the Administration or the Republicans in Congress can even give a functional definition of winning."
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
" no parents are seeing their young man yanked away from his or their life plans to be a part of "bumbling, stumbling prosecution of the war, a feckless ally in the [Iraqi] Vietnam "government," and continued casualties with neither a result nor an end, or even an improvment in sight."
Absolutely. The American people are only weary of being told we are losing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I also think, the majority will not support this type of pacification campaign for very long even under the best of circumstances. We need to come to grips with what decades of public schooling, Hollywood values, and Opra touchy feelyness have wrought.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
We should stick with the principles of staying on the offense against the militants and bringing democracy to the Middle East. We can’t leave the field in Iraq to the extremists.
The militants haven't and won't strike at us at home because they fear a unified America determined to take aggressive action. They are trying to divide us (with some success) to make us quit and give up. If at some point they are convinced our government will not respond forcefully to an attack they will take the opportunity to strike.
Unfortunately it may be that our fellow citizens have to learn the hard way about dealing with the real word.
I firmly believe if the Democrats win the presidency they will lead us to a day or days much worse than 9/11. Hopefully, at that point the differences between their principles and ours will be very clear. That is as long as we haven't sacrificed our principles for political expediency.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE...
Thoughts?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
In 08 we will dump the current administration and there will be a new political calculus.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is that Buckley is just grouchy that his brand of conservatism has gone the way of the dodo. Neoconservatism has taken the place of Buckleyesque/Reaganesque conservatism. Buckley, like Reagan, liked big guns and big armies, but for the purpose of intimidation, not for use unless absolutely necessary.
I, like Buckley, like the old brand better, but the Republican Party is hardly dead because he didn't get his way.
in that he will be able to support the mission in Iraq but he will be able to bash much of the decision making (which probably deserves to be bashed). I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Buckley, but I wanted to get feedback. Hopefully neo-conservatism will go the way of the dodo after 2008 too. We need another Reaganite!!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
but if Neoconservatism does go the way of the dodo, and we do get another Reaganite, I may just start voting Republican again.
I think the measure of progress in Iraq is the problem. If, like Buckley seems to be suggesting, the measure is the daily reports of bombings, then it will go up and down. If, on the other hand, the measure is who is holding and controlling territory, who is winning the hearts and minds of the people, or how secure it is in Baghdad, then you have to say the new strategy is working.
However, apart from all this nothing changes the fact we have no choice but to see the effort through in Iraq. To leave the field to Al-Qaeda and the other militants is just plain wrong and cannot happen.
I would agree in principle with the premise of this thread. But lets not pull any punches...the republicans lost in 2006 because of the negative results in Iraq. And unless the situation in Iraq dramatically improves in 2008, the GOP will lose more seats in congress, and possibly the White House.
My belief is that any republican candidate who is aligned with GW Bush on the Iraq war will be a big drag on the party in 2008. That means Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Mitt Romney supports Bush's Iraq stance, but Romney can easily distance himself from Bush on the issue if need be. And another potential candidate - Fred Thompson - supported the original Iraq resolution, but left the senate long before the crap hit the fan. Thompson is wise not to get in the race until summer. Only then will he know what the ground situation is inside Iraq months after the surge. If Thompson joined the race now and started running around the country cheerleading like John McCain and Rudy, it would marginalize his campaign.
I strongly feel that John McCain has put himself in a box which he will not be able to get out of because of his unwavering support for Bush's Iraq surge policy. But having said that, the democrats, (Clinton or Obama) can sit back and let the republicans take all the heat for the mess inside Iraq. The only policital way to counter that would be for the republicans to offer an "outsider" as the nominee. That means Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney.
And if my Aunt had a pair, she'd be my Uncle!
and if there is another terror attack somewhere...
and if...
and...
I absolutely love absolute type statements
Sarcasm will only get you so far David. It would have been nice had you offered something of an informed rebuttal.
The mainstream press will do all that it can do to maintain the gloomy atmosphere about the Iraq War and to help the Democrats at every political level to gain political power from now on. The mainstream press will completely avoid ever putting on a "positive face" on the Iraq War and on anything that would ever be positive for the Republican Party and for conservatism.
But lets not pull any punches...the republicans lost in 2006 because of the negative results in Iraq.
Except for the part where they lost for a whole host of other reasons.
In elections, as in life, there's not usually a simple A=B explanation for things.
And unless the situation in Iraq dramatically improves in 2008, the GOP will lose more seats in congress, and possibly the White House.
Except for one thing - eventually someone in a Presidential debate is going to ask the Dem candidate, "OK, so you're going to pull out of Iraq in January 2009 - Now what?!"
The deafening silence (or the incoherent rambling - same difference!) that will result from this question will cause many in electorate to at least conclude, "OK, I don't like the Republicans, so I'll leave the Dems in charge of Congress at least. But I just can't trust these Democrat guys to keep our country safe."
IOW, once everyone realizes that pulling out of Iraq won't really solve any problems (in fact, it will just create many more serious new ones), the "shiny! new!" tag applied to the Dem nominee will likely fade in a big way. Just as it did for John ""Reporting for Duty!"" Kerry.
First of all, he's reasonably looked on as the "father" of the surge, not Bush. Second, amongst folks who will be voting in the primary, a strong stance on Iraq will not be a minus.
The political counter to the current policy in Iraq is to demand a plan from the Dem, not necessarily to nominate an outsider. And what the heck, if we're nominating an outsider, Rudy certainly qualifies. And he'll be around a whole lot longer than the Mittster.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Mbecker, I'll give you credit. No matter how ridiculous your war cheerleading looks, and even though the majority of Americans oppose the policy you support, you hold to your beliefs anyway. That takes guts.
The problem is, if the republican candidates follow your lead, we will be looking at a President Clinton in 2009.
Another great communicator or at least a pretty good communicator. That can establish some discipline in congress while hi-lighting the conservative legislative program.
If we could have someone actually achieve a small government goal or two that would help ever so much.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777