A "Surprising" Advantage?
Jay Carney of Time is shocked that Republican candidates like Giuliani and McCain appear to play better with the electorate than Democratic frontrunners.
But he himself hits the nail on the head in part when he writes:
Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons GOP candidates appear competitive at all.
Of course, the little crack about Bush doing "serious damage" is unfair; many of the candidates running for President (and, in fact President Clinton himself) fully supported the invasion of Iraq in the mistaken belief that WMD were there. The only difference is that -- now that the going has gotten tough -- the Democrats are willing to change their minds, effectively surrender, and consign Iraq to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda with nary a thought to the morrow (or to the US's national security).
And that, in fact, may underlie the public's unease with Democratic presidents. As weary as Americans may be with the Iraq war, they nonetheless don't want us to lose; but Democrats, by following the polls for temporary political advantage, may once again be placing themselves in a post-Vietnam position where, after some early victories, they will be unelectable on the grounds that they lack both the stomach and the spine to keep America safe.
But he himself hits the nail on the head in part when he writes:
Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008 — a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security. Without question, Bush has done serious damage to the Republican brand in this arena. But, with the nation waging two wars and terrorism still a threat, that underlying sentiment might be one of the reasons GOP candidates appear competitive at all.
Of course, the little crack about Bush doing "serious damage" is unfair; many of the candidates running for President (and, in fact President Clinton himself) fully supported the invasion of Iraq in the mistaken belief that WMD were there. The only difference is that -- now that the going has gotten tough -- the Democrats are willing to change their minds, effectively surrender, and consign Iraq to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda with nary a thought to the morrow (or to the US's national security).
And that, in fact, may underlie the public's unease with Democratic presidents. As weary as Americans may be with the Iraq war, they nonetheless don't want us to lose; but Democrats, by following the polls for temporary political advantage, may once again be placing themselves in a post-Vietnam position where, after some early victories, they will be unelectable on the grounds that they lack both the stomach and the spine to keep America safe.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:35 AM
1 Comments:
One thing I notice about guys like Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, and most conservatives for that matter is when they are being interviewed they directly answer the question posed to them. The Liberal Democrat always seems to obfuscate and run around the mulberry bush when a question is asked that will give the electorate a clear idea of where they stand on any particular issue. Honesty and taking a stand on an issue go hand in hand. If the liberals want to convert a conservative they have to enter the arena of ideas and use the ammunition they have. Since they cannot the debate always descends into name calling and heresay. Let the merit of the argument speak for itself. Let these liberal ideas be proven to bear fruit. Good fruit that can edify a nation. Not all conservative ideas are correct but you must first have an idea to enact before it can be judged to be success or failure. If at first you don't succeed try, try again. Standing in the peanut gallery and denigrating those who are making an effort to move our country forward is not a policy, it's an affront.
Post a Comment
<< Home