Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Racing Toward Defeat

Democrats have long been trying to force the United States to lose the Iraq Campaign in the global war against Muslim aggression and terrorism without being forced to bear the consequences for said loss. While they do not have the intestinal fortitude to end the war the one way they indisputably have the Constitutional power to use- end funding for the troops- they have tried a variety of methods to allow the Islamist forces to win.

Now, The Politico is reporting that Democrats have issued orders to "blitz their states with anti-Bush messages" as they prepare for an overnight session in the Congress that just happens to coincide with nationwide rallies pro-Muslim groups such as MoveOn.org.

The Politico reports,
Leaders are instructing Democratic lawmakers to blitz their states with anti-Bush messages as the Senate gears up for an all-night debate on Iraq withdrawal, according to an internal memo provided to The Politico by a Democratic official.

“We need every Senator’s help throughout the next two days to amplify our message and highlight Republican obstructionism,” says the memo from the Senate Democratic Communications Center, part of the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This is a caucus-wide effort and your help is needed.”

Obstructionism? Coming from the Democratic Party, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us not forget that it was Democrats who used the obstructionism tactic to block many initiatives by the Republican majority in the previous two Congresses. As a single example, Democrats filibustered to block Republican-nominated judges from receiving an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Republicans, on the other hand, have yet to filibuster anything in this Congress. However, they are perfectly justified in blocking legislation with which they disagree. That is the method by which the Founders set up the system- checks and balances. If the Democrats wish to pass legislation, they will have to work with Republicans- just as Republicans had to work with Democrats when they held the majority.

However, the tactic I find most repugnant is the Democrats' willingness to use rhetoric that has no place in these United States. When did it become acceptable to equate a sitting, twice-elected President who has clearly broken no laws with an appointed dictator who used street gangs to consolidate his power, as Representative Keith Ellison recently did? Since when is it acceptable to paint one's opponent as a criminal, as the Democrats seem to have no problem doing to George W. Bush?

I would hope that we can disagree without descending into the fever-swamps of hate. During the Clinton years, while there was plenty of anger among some talk-show hosts, no Republican called Clinton a criminal, nor did anyone make any comparisons to illegitimate regimes, though some of Clinton's actions- notably the seizure of Elian Gonzalez against a court order- certainly were borderline illegal. But Democrats seem to think that this kind of rhetoric is acceptable when used against Republicans, though when conservatives point out Democrats' own questionable alliances- such as Ellison's long-standing relationship with the terrorist-aiding Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Democrats scream bloody murder.

It's time that we the people put our foot down. There is no place for this kind of speech in American politics, and any politician who engages in it ought to be shown the door immediately. Whether it is Republican or Democrat, one should be able to disagree and argue the issues on their merits without engaging in the kind of character assassination that the Democrats have made part of their arsenal since the 2000 election.

And a word for the media as well- the arena of ideas is one in which issues should be presented for the people to determine. It is not the media's job to try to tell us what to think. Lay out your opinions, by all means, but straight news is straight news. I fear too many of our so-called journalists have forgotten that simple fact.

No comments: