Sunday, June 19, 2005

The Democrats’ image problem

Here’s Kate O’Beirne on the Capital Gang:

Senator Durbin issued a stunning premeditated slander of American troops that will be enormously helpful as it gets repeated throughout the world and used by our enemies. The politics of this I really don't understand. The Democrats have a real image problem. We can agree or disagree, and we have over the years, about whether or not it's legitimate, but we all agree, I think, they got an image problem. They are soft on national security. They're soft on crime -- in this case, terrorism. They're sort of hostile to the military. And they have this instinct where they want to blame America first.

Dick Durbin this week was the embodiment of that problem the Democrats have, and then Nancy Pelosi argues Guantanamo should be closed because to do so would give us a clean slate in the Muslim world. Now, she can't possibly believe that. What do we have, a clean slate, September 10, 2001? I don't get the politics of it. No wonder the Democrats complain about the distraction of having the media cover what so many leading Democrats are saying these days that so damage the Democratic Party.
And here’s Mark Steyn again:
In the hermetically sealed echo chamber between the Dem leadership, the mainstream US media, Hollywood, Ivy League “intellectuals” and European sophisticates, the gulag cracks are utterly unexceptional. But, for a political party that keeps losing elections because it has less and less appeal outside a few coastal enclaves, Durbin’s remarks are devastating. The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the “terrorists’ rights” party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.
A Democratic pollster (who worked for John Kerry) confirms the “Michael Moore” faction is damaging the party:
Americans now give the Republican Party a 15-point edge on national security, according to the Century Foundation poll; only 51 percent of Democrats say they trust their party more on "maintaining a strong military."

Many factors affect party reputations, but the perceived passivity of the Democratic base contributes to this security gap, which Republican campaigns are happy to use.
Which leads me to John Bolton’s nomination, scheduled for yet another vote today. I have argued, along with others, that U.N. ambassador is a “fairly insignificant post.” As Robert Novak details in “The Bolton Charade” it’s become obvious that Senators Dodd and Biden have no genuine concern for more information, they’re just seeking to block Bolton’s nomination, no matter what.

But to what end? I supposed they can claim they thwarted Bush’s choice for a minor administration position (although Dubya may do a recess appointment in July). In the process, the Democrats will appear obstructionist and more concerned about preserving the status quo at a dysfunctional United Nations. By giving more deference to the U.N. over our own commander-in-chief, it's no wonder that Americans distrust the Democrats on matters of national security.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's a "win-win-null" situation for the Democrats. First, they demonstrate that Bush's self-vaunted "political currency" of November is tapped out.
Next, they challenge Bush to give Bolton the recess appointment, which would feed right into the public perception of arrogance and unaccountability that's hurting him and his party now. That "15-point security edge" translated to a 3-point Presidential win, and that was before Bush's numbers started freefalling.
Or else Bush backs down on Bolton, which would be another chink in the "no surrender" teflon persona that's been his major strength. (Not to mention a major cue that Bush won't be cramming any Supreme Court nominee down anyone's throat. Though the shelving of the "nuclear option" already accomplished much the same; if their pollsters told them not to jerryrig Senate rules for 7 circuit positions because of how it would impact the next election, the GOP's not suddenly going to grow titanium balls for a court appointment that voters actually notice.)
And any "obstructionism" hit points the Democrats might absorb will be muted; Americans already hold a negative opinion of Congress, and it's a Republican Congress. Almost 60% of the public opposes the war, and they're not looking at the Democratic OK votes from 2002. For the Democrats to hold back on a limping Bush now because of how it MIGHT affect their image is sheer wishing well material for the conservatives.
The fact that Bolton is a colossal ass is just a free bonus!

Anonymous said...

I just luuuuuv it. You couldn't make this shit up. Biden and Dodd could add their IQs together and it wouldn't hit room temperature. Now loojah (shouldn't that be loofah?) tries to spin this as a win.

So. Show me the Democratic plan or policy that they have successfully sold to the American public. [waiting. waiting. crickets chirping.] Maybe phil missed it, but Bush can't run again. Who cares about poll numbers taken from "all American adults" with screwy questions. Bush can't run again.

I'd give a lot to see a really fair poll with a question like this: Given the current situation in the world and the US would you prefer to have Bush as President or (insert Democrat)? I'd bet no Democrat would beat Bush. They go nothing. Nothing but their loathing and hatred for Bush. Oddly enough, despite all the efforts of the MSM, Bush overcame that 15point press advantage and won by 3 (at least phil can admit he won). Why? Cause the Dems got nothing. Kerry had about 80 plans that he wouldn't tell us about and secret admirers in Europe or some place. So?

And Bush has 5 more conservative judges on the US Courts of Appeal. How'd that happen. Three of them denounced as extremists. Were any of the votes even close? Nope.

It's not that the Democrats are obstructionists (although they obviously are) that will hurt them, it's that they got nuthin'. Nuthin' squared. Squat. Zilch. Nada. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Biden, Kerry, Dodd, Byrd, but then I repeat myself.

Enjoy your delusions, phil.

JorgXMcKie

Anonymous said...

So the "60% disapproval" poll is biased, but the "15-point security" margin is golden. Got it.

In his first term, George W. Bush consolidated executive power, saw proposals like the war authorization and the Patriot Act zip through, made a huge difference in the 2002 Congressional elections, and with few exceptions, skipped from political triumph to political triumph. Now he's scrapping to get a hack crony rubber-stamped to a not-terribly-important post. His Social Security platitudes have been dismissed. His own party doesn't agree about renewing the Patriot Act. This from the man who crowed about his 51% mandate and his alleged Scrooge McDuck vat of political capital, half a year ago.

And your position is... Bush would beat John Kerry, Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy? I didn't know we were playing the "yesterday's news" game, but here's one for you: given all the advantages that George W. Bush had in November 2004-- incumbency, dollars, terrorism-- can you think of a single successful Democrat who would have pulled just 51% of the vote? Jimmy Carter would have won 55-45. Bill Clinton might have gotten 60%.

If you think 2004-2008 is going to be "second verse, same as the first," JorgX, there are obviously a few leftover delusions to go around. Clinton... Reagan... Nixon... Johnson... second terms ain't pretty.