August 09, 2006

McGovern II: Democrats Misread The Political Landscape

In 2002, Democrats lost the Senate because they were weak on national security. In 2004, Democrats lost more seats and President Bush was re-elected because they were weak on national security. Third time's the charm, right?

The Left-roots that have begun to assert greater control over the party's direction now think they have Republicans right where they want them. They're flexing their muscles this morning as they pursue a path that the GOP should be thanking its lucky stars over. John McIntyre at RealClearPolitics explains:

Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.

Democrats went down this road in the late 1960's with Vietnam and they are still carrying the baggage from that leftward turn. Lamont's win is a big step back to that losing formula. During the height of the "progressive" revolt against the war in Vietnam, Americans voted 57% for Nixon and Wallace in 1968, followed by a whopping 60% for Nixon in 1972 against the avowededly anti-war McGovern.

These Democratic wipeouts in '68 and '72 occurred while tens of thousands of Americans were dying in Southeast Asia. Today, as much as our media and the left want to make Iraq a Vietnam-like quagmire, casualties are running at a tenth of what they were in Vietnam. The other big difference from Vietnam is 9/11. America was attacked 5 years ago, something many on the left seem to forget, but the voters have not. The comments that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 are irrelevant as Americans understand, rightly or wrongly, that we are in Iraq because of what happened on September 11. Only conspiracy-minded leftists believe otherwise. Just ask yourself if the U.S. would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened.

The "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home" chant may win congressional districts in San Francisco and Seattle as well as Democratic primaries in solidly blue states, but it is not a serious policy. Just what does "Bring Them Home" really mean? Bring them home and Ahmadinejad suddenly gives up his pursuit of nukes, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah domesticate and forego terror? Leftists, pacifists and Pat Buchanan isolationists may be that naïve, but the majority of Americans are not.

The civilized world is at a very dangerous moment. There is no question that the Bush administration has made a bucket load of mistakes in fighting this war, but they (and thus America) are fighting. Bring them home is the equivalent of "we quit, we give up." Americans aren't quitters and the majority of Connecticut's citizens aren't quitters, as Lieberman's likely win in November will prove.

A couple of months ago, I guesstimated that this fall the Republicans - while maintaining control of Congress - would probably lose a handful of Congressional seats and incur a net loss of as many as three Senate seats. After the events of last evening, I'm starting to revise those estimations.

If the focus of this election hinges on national security, than the House is likely to maintain its status quo and the GOP could be on their way to a bullet-proof majority in the Senate.

Posted by: Gary at 01:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
16kb generated in CPU 0.0132, elapsed 0.0618 seconds.
112 queries taking 0.0543 seconds, 218 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.