Differences between and within the two political parties in the war on terror
Jeff Jacoby, columnist for the Boston Globe, takes an interesting look at the differences between the two parties when it comes to the war on terror and Pres. Bush, and the divisions that occur within both the Democratic and the Republican parties on how to fight this war.
IF NOTHING else, Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy makes it clear that the Republican Party is not a monolith. It has its ideological outliers, and they march to the beat of a very different drummer than George Bush and most GOP candidates do…
…There was a time, 60 or 70 years ago, when isolationism was respectable in GOP circles. Paul insists that “the party has lost its way” since then and pines for the leadership of Senator Robert A. Taft, who “didn’t even want to be in NATO.”
…Paul helps illustrate what may be the most significant difference between the two major parties today: Republicans who don’t take the threat of radical Islam seriously are marginalized. Democrats who don’t do so constitute their party’s mainstream.
That was illustrated during the recent Democratic debates when out of a field of eight presidential candidates, only four acknowledged there was such a thing as “a global war on terror”.
…What explains the Democrats’ unwillingness to acknowledge the gravity of the global jihad? In part, it may stem from the sense that Islamists and the left share common foes. George Galloway, the radical antiwar British parliamentarian, declared in 2005 that “the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. . . the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.”
That’s easy to see when you look at some of the signs waved at anti-war rallies.
But to a large extent, the Democrats’ lack of seriousness about the war we are in can only be explained by Bush Derangement Syndrome. The term was coined by commentator Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, who defines it as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay, the very existence of George W. Bush.”
In another poll recently, respondents were asked whether they personally wanted Bush’s new security strategy in Iraq to succeed — not whether they expected it to, but whether they wanted it to. Among Democrats, a stunning 49 percent either hoped that the US plan would fail or couldn’t make up their minds.
I’d suspected that bit of liberal thinking for some time, as every American victory in Iraq appeared to be pooh-poohed by the liberal blogosphere, and every American tragedy seemingly celebrated.
As long as the 43d president remains in office, a significant number of Americans will be so consumed with Bush-hatred that they will be unable to acknowledge — let alone defeat — the real evil that confronts us all. Will they come to their senses after Jan. 20, 2009? And even if they do, will it be too late?
I fear, for this country, it may be getting too late.
(H/T Gay Patriot)
Category :
Uncategorized 
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- Video: Uncle Jay tells us what Presidents’ Day is all about
- Mother Sheehan takes off the gloves with the Democratic Party
- Mitt and Ron are out, and John’s in. What’s a conservative to do?
- Oh crap, some other politician I can’t make fun of
- Conservative soul-searching
- Liberal blogs decry how Democrats cave on troop pull-out
- Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and Ron Paul supporters set a new standard
- Sheehan says “I quit!”, both political parties cheer
- They are liberal women, hear them roar
- The surge is working and the anti-war crowd is in denial
I fear so, too - more and more each day.