Friday, November 10


Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that both European governments and the muslim extremists are PLEASED with America's midterm election results?

I feel much safer when Europe is uncomfortable with American leadership. I'm more confident when the terrorists are afraid of our President, rather than calling him a 'lame duck.'

Meanwhile, amongst all the pomp and circumstance of Tuesday, it already seems that we've forgotten all about terrorism, the most important issue of our generation.


Blogger Lisa said...

I really want to be wrong about this, but I agree with you. This is more than disturbing. It's terrifying. I don't even want to know what is going to happen next if the terrorists decide to test our new Congressional leadership. I hope they are up to the task. But I haven't seen the evidence of it. Could this just be saber-rattling by Al Qaida and Iran? Of course. But what this says to me is that they are not afraid of us anymore. I don't like the direction that conclusion would lead the terrorists in.

Now is the time for the Dems to step up and prove us all wrong. For the sake of the country, I hope they do.

7:08 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

There is really no reason to relate a Democratic sweep of the American government as solace to terrorists. It gets us no where, and you have no proof of any of it. This is the very same kind of politics an overwhelming majority of Americans voted against on Tuesday.

As a quick run down, of the 30 plus new Democratic members of congress 9 are veterans, including an admiral. One is former secretary of the Navy. Our Congress in January will be more pro-military than it has since the '50s.

I find it very hard to believe that the Republicans who have had over 5 years to capture or kill the person responsible for 9/11 take the terrorism threat serious at all.

12:05 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

The reason we talk about how feckless the Democrats are on national security is simple. They are feckless on national security and on foreign policy and on Iraq and on taxes and on missile defense and on energy and a host of other issues. And now the enemies of America are openly discussing the election results and celebrating them! Very dangerous.

I'm not sure what scares me more, the fact that the Democrats, newly elected, still lack plans to protect the country from al Qaeda or that Americans, battle weary and fact averse, voted for them.

Of course, Americans who voted for Democrats last Tuesday didn't vote for the same attack dog style of politician that has been the hallmark of the so-called Democratic party for the past six years. Rather, Americans voted for 'conservative,' 'blue dog,' or 'moderate' Democrats, because regular Dems are unelectable.

In previous years I'd say it was yet another case of false advertising. This time around I say that Schumer and Emmanuel have finally learned the hard lesson that if the Dems really want to win and really want to hold onto power, they are going to have move more to the center.

Bush and the GOP have done a magnificient job on counter terrorism, five years without an attack. Regardless of the disdain I hold for Democrats in my bones, for the sake of the country, let's hope they, learning on the fly, can say the same thing in two years.

2:36 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, you have nothing to back your claims of fecklessness up with. Show me anywhere in American history where a minority party has had the ability to rule, much less enstate plans to lead the country.

But, you are nearly absolutely wrong about the recent elections being an affirmation of modern American conservatism. It's just not true that the Dems elected on Tuesday are conservative, at least not how we use the term today. Like I did on Jaz's blog , I'll do the rundown here too.

"Yes some centrists were elected on Tuesday, but that doesn't make them "conservative" in the sense that they are really Republicans. Of the new 27 Democratic House members who unseated 27 Republicans on Tuesday every one supports a raise in the minimum wage, a change of course in Iraq and oppose efforts to privatize Social Security. 25 of the 27 support embryonic stem cell research and all but five are pro-choice. Hardly what we would consider to be belonging to a conservative agenda today. Again, I guess it depends what we consider conservative to mean."

I don't know how anyone can label the recent success on Tuesday as being anything but a progressive movement. I suppose Republicans will say whatever they can to spin their latest defeat. But these Dems are not Republicans running on Dem tickets.

I would say in years past the Republicans have proven nothing if they haven't proven yet that movement neoconservatism is gone.

3:50 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

I can only speak for myself here, but I'm not laying all the blame on the Democrats for this perceived weakness. I think that the timing of the Rumsfeld firing sent the message that Bush was willing to cave on principle to get along with Democrats, even on foreign policy. Without question, something like that would attract the wrong kind of attention as well. I just don't like this whole combination of events and I am afraid that the Democrats don't have the right approach for dealing with foreign policy. That's why I voted against them (that, and we had a strong conservative running in our district).

Like I said before, I want to be wrong here, because there is more at stake than who wins the next election. We are talking about the future of our country.

I am not at all suggesting that firing Rummy was wrong, just that the timing was bad, and that it contributed to sending the wrong message to our enemies. Have Republicans made mistakes? Sure. I have acknowledged it. Kent has acknowledged it. But I still think that most of their strategy for the war on terror (excluding Iraq) has been the right approach.

5:13 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Tuesday elections were an affirmation that the country is a conservative one.

The evidence? As I said before, Democrats cannot be elected when they are honest about their intentions. You know this to be true. Phil Angelides was a terrible gubernatorial candidate but I salute him for being honest about his intention to raise taxes had he been elected.

Walter Mondale? Same thing back in '84. That's why Democrats run as phony conservatives. That's all they can do.

Also, the exit polling data Tuesday told an interesting story. Six out of ten said they favored 'smaller government' and 'fewer governmental services,' while four in ten said they preferred 'larger government' and 'more services.' So 60% want smaller government and they voted for the 'conservative Democrats' on the ballot simply because the Republicans didn't really offer a stark enough contrast this cycle.

And I'm not spinning.

Regarding Rumsfeld...I can't comment or criticize Bush for this. Either way, he loses. Had he canned Rummy three weeks ago the CW on it would have been 'oh, the President and his party must really be desperate, to fire the Defense Secretary this close to an election...'

I am really sorry to see Rumsfeld leave because I'm a huge fan of the man. But when thinking about what the next two years are likely to bring, it wasn't going to be a productive use of his time to be chronically testifying on Capitol Hill over already asked-and-answered bullshit investigations. It's pretty clear that he wasn't going to be given the latitude to do his job.

Given the election results, it makes a great deal of sense to have a clean break and a fresh start as we go into 'bipartisan mode' and attempt to finish the mission in Iraq. But I don't like this Bob Gates much, but that's another story entirely...

10:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0