Appeasers and Activists
Yesterday was a big news day with two unrelated events occurring that will each have an impact on this fall’s elections. While on the surface the two may seem unrelated both spell trouble for Democrats.
President Bush, speaking at The Knesset in Israel, used the opportunity to launch an unmerited attack against Senator Barack Obama. At least, that’s what Senator Obama, aided and abetted by the left-leaning media, would like voters to believe. Here’s the paragraph that got Democrats’ collective undies in a bunch from the transcript of the speech:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it? The reason there was such wailing and gnashing of teeth among Democrats yesterday is because President Bush made it clear that he thinks they are appeasers of terrorists, which of course, they are. Senator Obama didn’t help himself by making such a big stink about it, either. Trying to refute the charge that he’s an appeaser merely reinforces the idea in the mind of the voters.
The second event was the decision yesterday by the activist judges of the California Supreme Court to overturn the ban on gay marriage that was enacted by voters back in 2000. A move is already afoot to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in California in November and supporters shouldn’t have any problem getting the required signatures.
While most Democrats no doubt applaud the court’s decision they surely must hate the timing. This will put traditional values back in play as an issue in the election and the decision will no doubt motivate Republicans and other values-voters to turn out in huge numbers both in California and elsewhere.
All of this, combined with the continuing bloodbath that is the Democratic nomination process, means that November is looking better for Republicans every day.
Filed under: Democrats • Israel • Judiciary • Middle East • Politics • Tom
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
While on the surface the two may seem unrelated both spell trouble for Democrats.
I think that’s mostly wishful thinking.
Since about December, I’ve been predicting an Obama victory this fall. Here soon, I’ll post on my blog a commentary why I think, not only will Obama win, but that it’ll be a landslide, along with a rout for the Republicans in Congress.
It’s all a guess, but that’s my call.
As to the gist of this post, the reason why there’s such an outcry, I think, is because the world – not just the Dems – are tired of the Bush Mad Cowboy approach of demonizing them all and let God sort them out. It’s part of why the Republicans are going to lose so badly this fall.
Bush may think it’s “clear that he thinks they are appeasers of terrorists” but most of us (I think) are tired of this goofball approach to foreign policy that has only served to INCREASE the numbers and support for terrorism.
You are almost certainly correct that the Republicans will use gay marriage as a wedge issue to divide the citizenry again. Where I think you’re wrong is in how effective it will be. We’re tired of these politics of division and fear-mongering. Obama is a uniter. McCain is an uninspirer. It just t’ain’t gonna work.
One man’s opinion.
Here, I think, are some more realistic views of the challenges being faced by Republicans this fall.
Those suggestions were from Republican sources. I think they may be helpful to Republicans, but I question some – especially their last and, in their mind, best suggestion: Play on our fears!
Historically, that has worked pretty well, but I think people are tired of fearmongering tactics. And regardless, it’s a pretty shameful approach to politics.
Dan, a couple of points to consider:
If Obama is a uniter then why did he lose so badly to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia this week? He has yet to show that he can unite his own party much less the nation. He’ll be able to show his abilities as a uniter in who he chooses as a running mate and whether he can get the nearly 50% of Democrats who voted against him in the primary season into his camp.
While we may disgaree on whether the “Bush Mad Cowboy Approach” as you call it is the right way to deal with terrorists, a majority of Americans, I think, would agree that appeasement is not the answer. The Democrats’ response to the President’s speech simply reinforces the idea that they don’t take the terrorist threat seriously. As we discovered in 2004, national security is a big issue and it may not be the top issue this year but it will be an issue.
Third, gay marriage is another issue where there is broad opposition as can be witnessed by the number of states have passed laws outlawing it. How this plays into hands of Republicans, though, is the audacity of these activist judges to overturn by judicial fiat the will of the people. That won’t sit well with voters. I have a feeling that the fallout from that decision will reach far beyond California.
Finally, you are absolutely right to say that this should be a horrible November for Republicans. However, Democrats are continuing to squander the natural advantages that they have going into this fall’s election. I don’t expect either chamber of Congress to swtich sides but Democrats hoping for a huge blowout in the fall may be lucky to hold on to the slim majorities they have now. Their only saving grace, in spite of their abysmal approval ratings, is that everyone has been so focused on the presidential campaign that no one has noticed how little this Congress accomplished. Unless Congressional Democrats can get their act together and actually accomplish something substantial after this election the 2010 election may be a repeat of 1994 and they’ll find themselves back in the minority again.
If Obama is a uniter then why did he lose so badly to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia this week?
I suspect because they like Clinton better. I think once this Dem choice is finalized, you will see a huge bounce in Obama’s support. As it is now, either Clinton or Obama can beat McCain according to the latest poll. But it’s relatively close.
I think that will change with the final pick of a Dem candidate (Obama). It’s my guess, of course, and time will tell.
But, to me, there seem to be more ominous signs for Republicans (including those coming from Republicans) than for Dems.
On appeasement, no one is calling for appeasing terrorists. That’s a ridiculous claim designed for fear-mongering and division purposes, not to represent anyone’s real position. I’m saying that I think the American People are mostly ready to move beyond that sort of fear-mongering. We don’t believe that Dems REALLY want to appease terrorists anymore than we believe that conservatives want to deliberately destroy the environment.
On gay marriage, I think reality is that you’re correct – most americans don’t embrace that. But what I was suggesting is that people are getting tired of the divide and conquer approach, even if they agree on the topic. I could be wrong.
Certainly that is perhaps the Republicans’ best chance this fall: To fear-monger and push wedge issues like gay marriage to try to divide and conquer. I’m hoping and believing that the US citizenry has tired of such approaches.
Dan,
???
What are you talking about. Name one way in which Obama has “reached out” and “united” left and right? How has he ever compromised or reached out to the right?
I think the “uniter” tag is a blatant transparent lie and it will bite him hard in the future.
Dan,
Actually I’m being imprecise. It’s not a “blatant transparent lie” it’s a blatant malicious lie.
It casts any argument against it as one fomenting “disunity”, which that argument is not largely because few of Obama’s positions are actually about “unity” but instead more about putting across a particular far left viewpoint and casting that as the centrist position of “unity”.
How has he reached out? By the way that Republicans and Dems, black and white, old and young have been drawn together by his message of hope. By the way he’s raised most of his money from thousands and thousands of regular folk, not a few Sugar Daddies (whose money often come with strings attached).
If you go to his website, you see it full of fiscally, socially and environmentally responsible planks that ought to attract conservatives (and has).
The People, I think, are tired of politics as usual. These people come from all classes and places and we are united in hoping for a new direction. It’s not to say that everyone will or has united with Obama’s message and plan, but many folk have.
Were you similarly opposed to Bush using the title “uniter” when he ran?
Are you suggesting that I’m spreading a malicious lie? Based on what? He has factually united many folk from many different backgrounds. He has tens of thousands of folk show up for his rallies. He has united the people in a way that hasn’t happened in my lifetime with a presidential candidate.
Reagan is probably the next nearest phenomena, he was a uniter, too. He just used his unity and excitement he generated in too many badawful ways. Hopefully, Obama won’t.
Dan,
Do you find it odd, that when asked how he has reached out you fail to name any policy proposal which might be seen a compromise or reaching out to conservative ideals.
Bush’s claim as “uniter” was based on his history of doing the same in Texas. When he tried that in Washington … he got burned badly and learned from it. He didn’t campaign as a uniter in the second election cycle.
I’m not saying your spreading a malicious lie. I’m saying Obama’s rhetorical stance as a uniter is false, he’s using a rhetorical trick to poison the pool for collegial debate.
I think we’re also seeing “uniter” in two different ways. You’re seeing it from the perspective of people and I’m looking at ideas. He is not a uniter where it comes to ideas.
Look, if we’re having an argument and I state, repeatedly with little or not substance to back it up, that to oppose me is “racist”, then you have to both confront my ideas and to defend yourself against the charge of being racist. That’s what I mean by malicious. That type of argument is a rhetorical technique which is dishonest at best.
Do you find it odd, that when asked how he has reached out you fail to name any policy proposal which might be seen a compromise or reaching out to conservative ideals.
?
I did point out specific policy proposals. When I said:
If you go to his website, you see it full of fiscally, socially and environmentally responsible planks that ought to attract conservatives (and has).
Obama’s fiscal responsibility plank SHOULD appeal to conservatives for Classic Conservative ideals. As should his environmental and energy planks. At least that’s what I intended to point to. I apologize if I was less than clear.
I do agree that maybe we’re maybe looking at this differently, though. I’m looking at ideals that can unite the Left and the Right that Obama represents.
I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re looking to see if he has compromised on some of the current “conservative” hot button issues (is he willing to back away from support on legalized abortion, is he willing to support this Iraq Invasion, is he willing to meet neo-cons half way and sort of oppose gay marriage, those kind of specific issues).
I think Obama is a uniter because his IDEALS can and are uniting many on the Left and Right. He may remain opposed to criminalizing abortion, opposed to this Iraq War and supportive of gay marriage (I don’t actually know his position on that, to be honest), but he has embraced ideals that fall within Classic Conservatism and THAT has attracted some from the Right.
As well as being a man of character, which both the Left and Right value (ie, he’s not beholden to special moneyed interests, he’s not been involved in ethics scandals, he’s the faithful husband of one woman, he’s a decent, hard-working, respectable family man, etc, etc).
He is not a uniter where it comes to ideas.
I would obviously disagree, as noted above.
And I don’t find anything malicious at all about referring to Obama as a “uniter.” I would reckon you’d have to offer some evidence of malicious intent before I’d accept such a charge.