Friday, February 23, 2007
It's the War, Stupid
Today, the issue is NOT the economy. Five years of economic growth, a bull market and 4.5% unemployment is not going to help the Democratic Party regain the White House. At least the Democrats don't seem to think so. That's why Obama, Hillary and their supporters are fighting about 1 thing -- the war.
When Democratic billionaire funding sources are ripping the Clintons, they are doing so for one reason -- and by the way, it's fun to observe. Soros and Geffen (and there are many others like them) are universalists, billionaires who long for the death of the nation state, utopians, philosopher kings all. And they hate the Iraq War. They view the war against Islamic fanatics as a law enforcement problem; they view the Iraq War as a reflection of American imperialistic arrogance. They are aligned with the Kos camp, which wants Hillary to do what Edwards did -- repudiate her Iraq War vote.
And, good for her, she will not do it. The entire 2008 general election will turn on the future conduct of the war on Islamic fanatics (including Iranian mullahs) and the ongoing management of the Iraq War -- which the majority of the American public is prepared to see through to a victorious conclusion. If she repudiates that vote, she cannot win the general election. But can she survive the Democratic primaries? I think she can. Obama and Edwards have no chance -- no chance -- to win the general election. But will the Democrats go McGovern on us? Or Humphrey? If they go Clinton (the Humphrey analogy,) they have a shot. McGovernish (anti-war)? They get clobbered.
Personally, I think they lose either way. McCain, Giuliani and Romney are all superior candidates.
It's all about the war. Keep your eye on the ball.
14 Comments:
By 
Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Feb 23, 05:19:00 PM:
So you think Republicans will win on war and national security? If so, how do you explain the accountability moment in 2006?
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Feb 23, 06:56:00 PM:
So you think Republicans will win on war and national security?
No, the dems will lose it. Their vast over reaching and attempts to rewrite the constitution on the fly will not go unnoticed.
By 
, at
Fri Feb 23, 07:33:00 PM:
LB --
While people are not happy with Rep management of the Iraq War, neither are they willing to hand over Iraq to Iran and Al Qaeda.
Nor are they going to support crawling to appease a Nuclear Iran which will soon be making demands: destroy Israel, suppress Jews in America, special privileges for Muslims in America, etc.
Nor will they support doing nothing in response to an Al Qaeda take-over in Pakistan.
Bottom line: we tried it the Democratic Way in the 90's and got 9/11. At least Bush will sometimes in a very PC way fight someone. The appetite for surrender to bin Laden which Dems advocate is not high.
By Unknown, at
Fri Feb 23, 08:24:00 PM:
Clinton got 43% and Paul Begala told Larry King it was a mandate.
By , at
Fri Feb 23, 11:31:00 PM:
The demacrats are always wanting to help the poor but always laying rediclois taxes on everybody and they get donations from some prety questiible sources like the CHI-COMS
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Feb 24, 12:17:00 AM:
CardinalPark,
I can't tell you how much you've been missed.
You manage to fling descriptors about without linking even once to evidence of these "universalist", "utopians" opinions.
I think you're just making things up again.
For instance,
"the majority of the American public is prepared to see through to a victorious conclusion"
Have you not read a single poll since 2005?
And the Bill Clinton numbers were only a Google away...
I'm glad you've cast your lot with a brand of militarist that's again going to pasture. Your fact-checking will be as irrelevant as your rants.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 24, 01:11:00 AM:
"But will the Democrats go McGovern on us? Or Humphrey?"
As a young journalist I rode in a limo with Humphrey from Washington to Pennsylvania during his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972. Humphrey lost the nomination to McGovern that year. At the time, the backyard of Humphrey's Washington residence bordered on the backyard of McGovern's Washington residence. Humphrey said they talked over the fence frequently.
About the only other thing I remember from the interview was a comment Humphrey made to one of his staff members in the limo: "Push, push, shove, shove--you guys drive me up a tree!" All of the current group of Presidential candidates probably will feel the same way soon.
Despite the outburst, Humphrey cared deeply about "the average guy." I can't say that about many of today's Presidential candidates.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 24, 01:36:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 24, 01:45:00 AM:
P.S. Although I liked Humphrey, I voted for Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 general election. And I have a lot in common with "universalists" who long for the death of the nation state. That should give today's peace-at-any-price Democrats something to think about.
By Cardinalpark, at
Sat Feb 24, 08:50:00 AM:
SH - Lighten up Francis. It's my opinion. You don't agree? Whoopee!
Who's your pick amongst the candidates? Huh? Wassa mattah? You don't like the term utopian universalist?
It's the war! Of course Americans want to win. They aren't lame defeatists in the main -- like you! That's why Nixon won in a landslide against the anti war candidate in 1972. Landslide! Hillary knows that. So she won't repudiate her vote on the war to satisfy the pacifist, wimpy, pinko crowd. Hah!
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Feb 24, 09:48:00 AM:
Screwy, don't you read any polls that don't agree with you? http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/02/quite-different-polling-numbers.html
I keep making this horrible accusation - it's over the top, really - but the anti-Bush/neocon crowd keeps giving me new examples of it every day: they are not interested in the war on terror except as it impacts on American politics. Their battle is for the polling majority in America, because it gives them a sense of vindication.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Feb 24, 06:23:00 PM:
AVI,
You can't be serious. Your poll question asks if people are in favor of victory?
We victoriously whooped Saddam's army, then botched the follow-up, creating a miasma of competing interests. The victory already happened. Now it's an occupation in the midst of a civil war.
How can America be victorious in an Iraqi Civil War? Only the Iraqis can succeed now.
To remain in Iraq in the face of this suggests not a hunger for victory, but a hunger for endless meddling.
Your poll numbers are laughable. Because the same Americans who say they want victory also say they want the troops to come home.
And, lastly, your assertion that the Bush administration is waging war based on domestic polls is absolutely true and has been since the first bomb fell on Iraq.
CP,
What is this defeatist you speak of? It's like saying that when you leave the house because two other people are having a fight, you're a defeatist. It's strange.
If I clap loudly enough at the disaster in Iraq you'll be happy?
And, since you asked, I'm a fan of Bill Richardson.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Sun Feb 25, 10:35:00 AM:
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/02/re-its-war-stupid.html
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Feb 27, 10:40:00 PM:
"What is this defeatist you speak of? It's like saying that when you leave the house because two other people are having a fight, you're a defeatist. It's strange."
Leaving a house while two other people are having a (potentially lethal) fight is just weak and pathetic. Doing so because you'd rather not exert the effort (because you're sure that it probably wouldn't work anyway) is defeatist. Who cares that one of them might be killed after all? You might get hurt.
