Thread: Good start for the Democrats

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ne ... 718289.htm

Posted on Fri, Sep. 23, 2005


NATIONAL SECURITY
Good start for the Democrats

BY CAL THOMAS
www.calthomas.com

Fifteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives have produced a document and a strategy that they hope will convince substantial numbers of voters who don't trust them on national security to begin trusting them again.

Led by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Ensuring America's Strength and Security: A Democratic National Security Strategy for the 21st Century is an attempt by Democrats to reclaim this issue from Republicans and return the Democratic Party to majority status.

Defending the country

Hoyer, a liberal who voted for the Patriot Act, tells me that during Bill Clinton's presidency, ''We didn't do enough to fight terrorism.'' But he praises Clinton for deposing former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic from his genocidal power without many American casualties. (That was because Clinton mostly employed high-flying bombers instead of ground troops.) He also calls the United Nations ``feckless.''

Hoyer adds, ''We got it.'' What did he get? ``If we don't convince people we are capable of defending the country, we'll never get to other issues.''

A Republican might conclude this is merely a repositioning of the party so it can get back to its big-government, big-spending ways, and maybe it is. But Democrats have not always been the party of peace-at-any-price and never seeing a war or an idea for which they would fight. Vietnam and President Lyndon Johnson changed the party's direction on foreign policy, radically jerking it leftward.

The late Sen. Henry ''Scoop'' Jackson of Washington was a leading congressional Democrat known for putting his country's best interests ahead of partisan politics. While much of the rest of his party embraced liberalism during and after the Vietnam War and favored negotiation instead of confrontation with the Soviet Union, Jackson clung to the belief that communism is inherently evil and should be opposed and ultimately defeated by American power.

What about Iraq?

Democrats may not yet be born-again Jacksonians, but this line from the Hoyer document indicates that they may be getting around to understanding their primary problem with the national-security is sue: ``We must use every tool at our disposal -- including military force -- to capture, kill or disrupt international terrorists who are intent on attacking our homeland and our citizens, as well as our interests in other parts of the world.''

What about the Iraq war, about which Democrats have been mostly critical? The Hoyer document says, ''We must win the war in Iraq and will do what it takes to achieve victory there.'' And to address present and future threats, the 15 House Democrats propose ``an increase . . . of 100,000 troops, along with enhancements to recruiting and retention.''

Several proposals should appeal to some voters beyond the Democrat base. They include ''adopting a risk-based formula for disbursing homeland-security funding'' and ``enacting a comprehensive border-protection plan that prevents terrorists from entering our country.''

Democrats have indicated they might make illegal immigration a major issue in the next two campaigns because they see the Bush Administration's vulnerability on it. Whether they will risk offending the Hispanic-voter base they -- and Republicans -- have tried to attract by doing more to reduce illegal immigration remains to be seen.

Details should follow

Possibly the least credible position is the document's assault on what it calls the ''fiscal recklessness'' of the Bush Administration. While the administration can be faulted for not reining in the cost and growth of big government, Democrats gain no political points on this issue since they have long been the party of more programs, more spending and higher taxes.

Still, the Hoyer document is a good start for Democrats. If they are serious, the devilish details should follow. If they are really serious, they may give Republicans something to worry about in the 2006 congressional races and the 2008 presidential contest.

Democrats have indicated they might make illegal immigration a major issue in the next two campaigns because they see the Bush Administration's vulnerability on it. Whether they will risk offending the Hispanic-voter base they -- and Republicans -- have tried to attract by doing more to reduce illegal immigration remains to be seen.

Illegal immigration is on a silver platter for the Dems to take. Nobody in the party seems to have the gonads to seize the platter. And they wonder why they can't win elections? They are out of touch with the majority.

Originally Posted by dataman

Democrats have indicated they might make illegal immigration a major issue in the next two campaigns because they see the Bush Administration's vulnerability on it. Whether they will risk offending the Hispanic-voter base they -- and Republicans -- have tried to attract by doing more to reduce illegal immigration remains to be seen.

Illegal immigration is on a silver platter for the Dems to take. Nobody in the party seems to have the gonads to seize the platter. And they wonder why they can't win elections? They are out of touch with the majority.

Yeah if the ole Dems wants to get the people back on there side.

(1) they need to get Dean out of the Pic (stupidity and politics don't mix. Like oil and water)

(2) Make a strong stance on Illegal Immigrants and get the jobs back for the American People.

To me it is Hypocritical to stand up and say your for the American Worker and want to improve the Average American workers wages and in the same breath say your for Amnesty.

Originally Posted by Scubayons

To me it is Hypocritical to stand up and say your for the American Worker and want to improve the Average American workers wages and in the same breath say your for Amnesty.

Not if that breath was of Nitrous Oxide.

Oh yeah. Taking a strong stance on illegal immigration would pull them back into the center immediately, instantly wiping out any gains that Republicans have made in recent years. The true shame in it is that the RNC was trying to court the radical left of American Hispanics and not their mainstream voters, which betrays exactly how much they really knew about the population in '00 and '04 (not much).

The one foil in the Dems' plan? Tom Tancredo. The issue belongs to him, hands down. He was the first person from either party to take a strong stance on illegal immigration and how it relates to national security and well being. If the Dems do take a strong stance on it, expect Tancredo to be the nominee. Don't laugh, either. The GOP would be forced to abandon Frist, McCain, Rice, and any other "mainstream" nominee for going along with the administration.

The alternative is for Bush to pull a complete about-face on the issue for the good of his party. But if there's one thing that Americans have learned about George W. Bush, he won't admit when he's made a mistake.

That's my Dick Morris rant. Good night.