Results 1 to 5 of 5
Thread: Good start for the Democrats
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
09-23-2005, 07:01 PM #1
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.Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn
-
09-23-2005, 07:14 PM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Posts
- 1,365
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.http://www.alipac.us Enforce immigration laws!
-
09-23-2005, 07:34 PM #3Originally Posted by dataman
(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.http://www.alipac.us/
You can not be loyal to two nations, without being unfaithful to one. Scubayons 02/07/06
-
09-23-2005, 08:03 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Location
- Lonetree, CO
- Posts
- 543
Originally Posted by Scubayons"I can because I will, I will because I can" ME
-
09-23-2005, 08:05 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jan 1970
- Posts
- 571
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.
Arizona GOP pushing tough, new border policies, but faces strong...
05-05-2024, 10:24 AM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports