I sat through most of the Democratic Debate from Detroit (try saying that ten times fast!), and I was less than impressed. Actually, my thoughts can be condensed into one phrase:
Is that it?
Seriously, the answer to every question is “I don’t know what the hell I’d do, but I really hate George W. Bush.” I’ve seen Twinkies with more substance than that debate. The Democrats are stearing straight into political oblivion with their radical anti-war stance. Does anyone with half a clue really believe that the UN would do anything in Iraq other then surrender with a speed that would have the French green with envy? Does anyone believe that a stance that would keep our troops from the materials they need to finish the job in Iraq is supporting our troops? Does anyone buy this idea that if George W. Bush had just prostrated himself to the Axis of Weasels a few more times they all would have suddenly jumped on board?
Sadly enough, there are some people who would buy that load of crap – thankfully there aren’t enough for the Democrats to have a shot at winning. 2004 is going to be 1972 all over again.
I’d suggest that you stick with the 1984 comparisons, rather than the 1972 ones… since we all know what happened to THAT president in his second term… 😉
The difference between 1972 and today is that we now have a Republican Congress that would protect Bush no matter how egregious his misconduct has been or will be. Bush could murder a nun in Central Park at high noon and I promise you his Congressional cronies would protect him at all costs. I like to think that a fairer-minded Republican Congress circa 1972 would do the same. But the fierce partisanship of today’s GOP ensure that would never happen today.
And what color is the sky over at Planet Partisan?
And what color is the sky over at Planet Partisan?
I think Mark’s sky has already fallen.
I feel really bad for those who refuse to acknowledge the enormity of the error this country committed in 1972. Are you, Jay Reding, willing to say that this country was stronger, that YOUR PARTY was stronger, as a result of Nixon getting a second term? Not to sound like an academic elitist, but did you ever take any political science or public policy courses? Nixon was a weak leader in a horrible position, and the country took years to recover. Looking at the left-right exchanges over the last twelve years, I would say that recovery continues.
Oh, and so we’re clear, Nixon had pretty strong numbers at this point. Any analysis of Bush’s position that doesn’t mention the word “vulnerable” is laughable at best at this point.
O/T note to DC Freepers-thanks for making US look like the sane group! I got to argue with Marxists, evangelicals and neocons all at once! Now THAT’S variety!
I have a degree in Political Science with concentrations in Political Theory and International Relations.
I don’t like Nixon’s policies, especially his idiotic embrace of Keynesianism and price controls. Nixon was one of America’s worst Presidents in terms of popularity and policy. I’m only using the 1972 election as an example for a major political loss. 1984 would be an equally apt analogy in this case.
Fine, let’s stick with ’72. We have a war that has been badly managed by a Democratic government, a Democratic Party that is skewed towards the radical left, and a fifth column of “protestors” that are actively being sponsored and encouraged by our enemies, and an electorate that is increasingly sick of the weakness of the Democratic Party.
The fact is that the Democratic position on the war is simply untenable, especially now. Even if one opposed the war, to argue that the United States should engage in an act of preemptive surrender is nothing less than assinine. The Democratic position is based on little more than a reactionary and mindless opposition to the President.
The Democrats can whine, moan, cry, and spin more childish conspiracy theories, continue to spew epithets and generally act like the spoiled brats that they have been, but the result will be the same: the nation understands far better then they what needs to be done to win this war against Islamic terrorism and they will not elect a candidate to office that sees George W. Bush as a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.
Sorry, Jay, but arguing that the responsibility for the mismanagement of the Vietnam War STILL rested with the Democrats after four years of the “peace with honor” that Nixon campaigned on just doesn’t fly.
Oh, and a new poll has 51% DISapproving of Bush’s handling of Iraq. So call it what you will, but an anti-war position is far from “untenable” at this point.