The Individualist: Those Wimpy Democrats

Posted by Joe Rivett on 05.03.2007

The response of the Democratic candidates to Rudy Giuliani's assertion that Republicans will keep you safer only proves Rudy to be correct. Plus I'll tell you what the Democrats should really tell Rudy...

Every now and then I have to rip on the Democrats. Even though I'm an independent, I have always felt bad for them being in the minority since I have cared about politics. I guess I like to root for an underdog. Nowadays, I don't feel as bad for them, because they control the House and the Senate. Yet, with the way they defend themselves, I question whether or not they will ever control the presidency.

Why do I have very little faith a Democrat will win in 08, because Democrats cannot defend themselves. When criticized, they act like elitist jerks who are 'above it' to fire back. Take what Mr. Rudy Giuliani had to say about Democrats. He basically stated that the Democrats would put America on the defense, wave a white flag and hinted that another 9/11 could happen if a Democrat is in the White House.

Here is a list of wimpy and lame responses by the Democratic candidates:

Obama: "Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics."

Edwards: Giuliani knows better than to suggest there is a "superior Republican way to fight terrorism."

Clinton: Protecting the country from terrorism "shouldn't be a political football."
"It should be a solemn responsibility that all of us pledge to fulfill regardless of what party we're in."

Dodd: Republican candidates are continuing "the smear tactics and fearmongering of the current administration."

Defending yourself in politics is important. If the American people see that you can't defend yourself or your party, they aren't going to vote for you to defend the country. I remember when Kerry was silent during the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. People said that if Kerry couldn't defend himself against two guys that skipped Vietnam, how could he defend America. John Kerry was seen as a wimp and unmanly which is a political death sentence in a time of war. Look at the two conventions, Kerry had Obama talk about unity while Bush had "give em hell" Zell Miller attack Kerry. And look who won?

So when Giuliani attacks the Democrats again, Obama goes back to the idea that America rejects the politics of fear. NO WE DON'T. WE LOVE THE POLITICS OF FEAR. Negative campaigns work. It worked for LBJ when he painted Goldwater as a madman. It worked for George HW Bush on Willie Horton. It worked with the Swift Boats. Democrats have only held the presidency twice and Carter won because of Watergate. Clinton was the only real successful Democrat because he used negative campaigns. In 1996, he made it seem like Bob Dole was going to destroy Social Security. This leads to my next point.

The Democrats use the politics of fear anyway. Remember when Bush wanted to privatize Social Security? The Democrats turned the word privatize to destroy. Saying Roe vs. Wade will be in trouble if there is a Republican President is invoking fear. Many Democrats today use the politics of fear to suggest that our presence in Iraq creates more terrorists that will harm America. And you know what? That is a legitimate point, but it is still using fear. So Democrats can use fear, but they are just real bad at defending themselves.

Here is how I would respond to what Rudy said:

Dear Rudy Giuliani,

The largest terrorist attack occurred in America with a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Republicans were so obsessed with Iraq before 9/11 that they ignored counter-terrorism. John Ashcroft was busy going after the porn industry. What did Bush or the Congress do to stop Bin Laden? The answer is nothing noteworthy. At least Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes totally disregarding sovereignty. The memo stating Bin Laden determined to hijack planes was ignored. You would think at least airports would have been informed. I think Bush told his advisor "Great, you covered your ass, you can go." After 9/11 Bush prepared to go to war with Iraq, a country that had very little to do with 9/11 or Islamist terrorism compared to Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. When asked after 9/11 if Bush thought about Bin Laden, Bush admitted it wasn't important and didn't matter. Since the war in Iraq started, America has lost more lives than it lost during 9/11 along with what will amount to be a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to remove a man that didn't have WMDs. By Bush vetoing the latest spending bill, he is needlessly sentencing more Americans to death and to Walter Reed.

For years Republicans have refused to fund homeland security because they are afraid to raise taxes on those that can afford it and have a lot to lose if their mansions are destroyed. The Democrats want to fully fund homeland security, increase counter-terrorism because killing Bin Laden would not have stopped 9/11, make sure Afghanistan is secure so that the Taliban does not come back, secure nuclear weapons in Russia and its former satellites, and continue to go after Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group even if it means disregarding a country's sovereignty. This plan has a better chance at stopping terrorism and another 9/11 than sending more Americans to slaughter in a country in the middle of a civil war. If we elected another Republican with no foreign policy credentials like Rudy Giuliani, then America will be at a greater risk than ever.

I don't expect one to agree with all of my points but you have to agree that at least I can defend a Democratic point of view and I'm not even a Democrat! The only Republican that understands war and foreign policy is John McCain. If McCain isn't the nominee, the Democratic nominee such as Clinton or Richardson should use the politics of fear on electing another Republican with no foreign policy experience.

But that won't happen because the Democrats right now are wimpy. Their strongest candidates are Kucinich and Gravel. At least they can attack their opponents. If the Democrats don't learn how to counterattack, 2008 will be a lot like 2006. What I mean by that is that anything they want can be struck down with a veto.