Democrats' desperation

Democrats are despondent over the latest polling data showing that nearly sixty percent of the nation approves of President Bush's job performance. In their eyes, the President is benefiting from the gamble he took when he invaded Iraq. Conversely, their own gamble of condemning the entire operation, in hopes of coming out on the right side if the Iraqi situation unraveled, has blown up in their faces.

John Kerry, that sourest of 'sour grapes,' went so far as to continue disparaging the entire Iraq effort, even in the wake of last week's stunningly successful elections. Kerry hopes to cast a pall over post—election jubilation by warning everyone not to 'overhype' the situation. Had terrorists been victorious in spreading chaos and mayhem, Kerry could claim to have known better all along.

But the war was no gamble. Nor was it some calculated plot hatched by Karl Rove. The President simply stuck to his principles in the face of horrendous opposition and media hype. Eventually, he reaped the benefits of doing so.

Not only is the festering malignancy of the Hussein regime gone (and let liberals try to claim that the Iraqi people aren't happy about it), but Libya, another would be center of international terrorism, is suddenly compliant and no longer an emerging nuclear threat.

In truth, President Bush never approached the Iraq war, or indeed any aspect of the terror war, in a manner indicating he might put political interests above the security of the country. But the liberals still don't get it.

For them, every situation is a political chess game, with their own gains or losses being the sole concern. Thus they grudgingly waved flags with the rest of America in the immediate aftermath of 9—11, knowing that to do otherwise would brand them as 'unpatriotic.'

Yet whenever the tide of public opinion appeared to be turning, they were quick to reposition themselves, even going so far as to assert that the terrorist threat was greatly exaggerated, and that American military action in Iraq was itself criminal and bloodthirsty (but of course they always supported the troops).

Now, in desperation to reinvent themselves in a manner that the public might find more palatable prior to next year's elections, they look to emulate the successes of the Republican Party in the landslide elections of 1994. However, their flawed approach proves, once again, that they have no idea whatsoever as to how Republicans achieved their House and Senate majorities that year.

Democrat strategists believe it was Newt Gingrich's opposition to Hillary's socialized healthcare plan that allowed Republicans to make such phenomenal gains in those mid—term elections. Yet that was only a tiny segment of the larger picture. And even the specifics of that issue are somehow completely misunderstood by the left.

It wasn't merely the opposition to a Democrat plan, but the very nature of the plan itself with which Americans took issue. 'Hillarycare' was clearly nothing less than an attempt to socialize the nation's medical industry. And Americans were far too conscious of the pitfalls of such an approach to risk being ensnared by it.

Nonetheless, Democrats believe they can similarly demagogue President Bush's effort to reform Social Security, with the end goal of using the ensuing controversy as a campaign issue in 2006. Ironically, the desire of Democrats to maintain the status quo in the Social Security system will only ensure that its obvious looming problems aren't addressed while there is still time to do so.

Thus their ruse will backfire. Miring down and stalling needed reform in the Social Security system by partisan Democrats will not be viewed with the same favor as protecting the nation's healthcare system, which was what Republicans accomplished in the early years of the Clinton Administration.

Moreover, Hillarycare was only one facet of the political landscape during the pivotal '94 elections. The advent of the Christian Coalition and the Contract with America redounded to the great benefit of the GOP. But larger still was the coming of age of conservative talk radio, spearheaded by the inimitable Rush Limbaugh.

Since that time, the 'blogosphere' and Fox News have further broken the former liberal media monopoly.

Thus, the public is acutely aware of the stark contrast between the moral bankruptcy of the left and the traditional values of the right. Ultimately, this is the obstacle that the left simply cannot overcome. And it is a genie that will never go back into the bottle.

Democrats are despondent over the latest polling data showing that nearly sixty percent of the nation approves of President Bush's job performance. In their eyes, the President is benefiting from the gamble he took when he invaded Iraq. Conversely, their own gamble of condemning the entire operation, in hopes of coming out on the right side if the Iraqi situation unraveled, has blown up in their faces.

John Kerry, that sourest of 'sour grapes,' went so far as to continue disparaging the entire Iraq effort, even in the wake of last week's stunningly successful elections. Kerry hopes to cast a pall over post—election jubilation by warning everyone not to 'overhype' the situation. Had terrorists been victorious in spreading chaos and mayhem, Kerry could claim to have known better all along.

But the war was no gamble. Nor was it some calculated plot hatched by Karl Rove. The President simply stuck to his principles in the face of horrendous opposition and media hype. Eventually, he reaped the benefits of doing so.

Not only is the festering malignancy of the Hussein regime gone (and let liberals try to claim that the Iraqi people aren't happy about it), but Libya, another would be center of international terrorism, is suddenly compliant and no longer an emerging nuclear threat.

In truth, President Bush never approached the Iraq war, or indeed any aspect of the terror war, in a manner indicating he might put political interests above the security of the country. But the liberals still don't get it.

For them, every situation is a political chess game, with their own gains or losses being the sole concern. Thus they grudgingly waved flags with the rest of America in the immediate aftermath of 9—11, knowing that to do otherwise would brand them as 'unpatriotic.'

Yet whenever the tide of public opinion appeared to be turning, they were quick to reposition themselves, even going so far as to assert that the terrorist threat was greatly exaggerated, and that American military action in Iraq was itself criminal and bloodthirsty (but of course they always supported the troops).

Now, in desperation to reinvent themselves in a manner that the public might find more palatable prior to next year's elections, they look to emulate the successes of the Republican Party in the landslide elections of 1994. However, their flawed approach proves, once again, that they have no idea whatsoever as to how Republicans achieved their House and Senate majorities that year.

Democrat strategists believe it was Newt Gingrich's opposition to Hillary's socialized healthcare plan that allowed Republicans to make such phenomenal gains in those mid—term elections. Yet that was only a tiny segment of the larger picture. And even the specifics of that issue are somehow completely misunderstood by the left.

It wasn't merely the opposition to a Democrat plan, but the very nature of the plan itself with which Americans took issue. 'Hillarycare' was clearly nothing less than an attempt to socialize the nation's medical industry. And Americans were far too conscious of the pitfalls of such an approach to risk being ensnared by it.

Nonetheless, Democrats believe they can similarly demagogue President Bush's effort to reform Social Security, with the end goal of using the ensuing controversy as a campaign issue in 2006. Ironically, the desire of Democrats to maintain the status quo in the Social Security system will only ensure that its obvious looming problems aren't addressed while there is still time to do so.

Thus their ruse will backfire. Miring down and stalling needed reform in the Social Security system by partisan Democrats will not be viewed with the same favor as protecting the nation's healthcare system, which was what Republicans accomplished in the early years of the Clinton Administration.

Moreover, Hillarycare was only one facet of the political landscape during the pivotal '94 elections. The advent of the Christian Coalition and the Contract with America redounded to the great benefit of the GOP. But larger still was the coming of age of conservative talk radio, spearheaded by the inimitable Rush Limbaugh.

Since that time, the 'blogosphere' and Fox News have further broken the former liberal media monopoly.

Thus, the public is acutely aware of the stark contrast between the moral bankruptcy of the left and the traditional values of the right. Ultimately, this is the obstacle that the left simply cannot overcome. And it is a genie that will never go back into the bottle.