Redstate

the Dems have little credibility here, but there can be no doubt -- none at all -- that the Administration has left plainly exposed its right flank when it comes to Islamic terror. There is so much room over there that I am tempted to say on national security we have two Liberal parties, one of which is pursuing Liberalism more logically than the other.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

sacrifice Israel and the rest of the middle east to the Muslims and see if then they'll leave us alone.

it requires that people will buy into the line "Vote for change" over their inherant distrust of the Dems on National Security.

I would argue that its a charge that is easily blunted at the local level for GOP challengers ( I would secure the border first and you can't trust such and such Dem on terrorism -- they voted against (list all the stuff here)).

For GOP incumbants, a lot will depend on their votes on the immigration bills and terror tools bills.

If they voted for strong enforcement and for the patriot act then the Dems will waste a lot of money on these ads.

If they voted for the Senate amnesty bill then they may be in trouble.

from the enemy you're safer, at least it was true in the Middle Ages. Maybe that's what the democrats mean. But if you cancel the NSA program, pull out of Iraq, observe political correctness in domestic security as well as that sacred cow, civil liberties, the only people who will be safe are the terrorists.

Maybe the terrorists will vote for them, the unregistered and dead can vote numerous times, why not the people who will eventually defeat us?

Suffice to say there are millions of idiots who will fall for this new line, that is if the dems can avoid laughing out loud.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

That either through a confluence of my vast experience here on RedState, and reading the New York Times and Kos, I have become adept at predicting what the Times is going to write next, and what the next move of the DNC is going to be.

It's also funny that a day or two after a major event and within 48 hours of the DNC and DSCC figuring out how to officially spin it, the Kossacks start testing the waters with variations on the theme, and also showing up here to pump RedState for information. This has happened several times before. So I suppose we can consider ourselves either the DNC Early Warning System or a bunch of colossal dupes engaging in the electronic equivalent of mutual masturbation, or maybe a little bit of both. At least I have a knack for fleshing out the trolls here, all the better to blast them with the Mossbauer and send them to The Pile™. Somebody has to do it. ;)

C'est la vie. Ours is not to reason why. We're all Little People™, our official job is to be the food chain, and it takes a genius like Rahm Emanuel to arrive at formulations like: "Katrina equals competency."

[Side note: anyone want to make a bet that in 2016 the Washington Post and the New York Times are still talking about Katrina victims? Don't laugh. Believe me, if the ones who were shellshocked and displaced by Katrina were as grievously damaged as the they portray, in 2016 they'll be even bigger basket cases, who have produced children who are also basket cases.]

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

What's the plan? So far I only see cut and run, must be more here somewhere.

What's Hillary plan to do? Send in the crickets .....

After they leave Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel to the tender mercies of the Middle East (or is it, "Leave the Middle East to the tender mercies of Israell and potentially Iraq"?), they will sacrifice our military and the current administration on the altar of PC and "Please leave us alone! See?! We don't really follow these people!"

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

How do you kick out your only Senator that can be described as a security hawk, then try to convince the country that you are tough on security?

From a logical standpoint the Democrats would seem to have a losing strategy here. But who knows how it will play out?

I remember a year ago Redstaters were clicking their heels every time Howard Dean flew off the handle, calling him the gift that keeps on giving. Logically his tirades should have sunk the Democrats, but they didn't, because they went unreported and the Republicans didn't try to exploit it ("new tone" and all, I presume). And so, this latest Democratic strategy might not play out the way logic says it should. How will the press spin it? Will they talk about what a bold new Democratic strategy it is, while at the same time slamming Republicans for playing politics every time they bring up national security? And will the Republicans get scared of the media attacks, as they often do, and back off while letting the Democrats continue to pound them? If that's how it's plays out, it might work. Democrats don't need an actual plan if the media spin is right.

Didn't they run on "we can do it better" in 2004? How'd that work out?

I love the formulation for the two competing Democratic strategies: "Cut 'n' run" or "Cut 'n' jog" - hilarious!

Linked with "If at first you don't succeed . . ." at http://politics.wizbangblog.com/2006/08/15/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed-...

speak for themselves. You know, Harry Reid bragging about killing the Patriot Act and Sen. Murry extolling al-Qaeda's social services. Those would drive two points home: the Democrats are weak, and they are liars.

If they are worried about peace in the Middle East I fear lots of consessions with the al-Qaida demands. Dems will remove troops from Saudi Arabia and less support to Israel (which is an odd ploy since majority of Jewish people are Democrat). People don't understand that we are placed in the leader seat by the world. Our interests are, whether people like them or not, best for the world as a whole. There are going to be people that want to resist change. Democrats believe that leaving horrible and poor societies alone is a good thing. And they argue they are fighting for the individual.

Both the Soviets and the United States missed the growth of Al-Qaida because they were focused on each other. In the 90's the United States under democratic leadership foisted the appeasement tool of global political correctness policy on herself, ignored the growing Islamic Fascist threat and gave North Korea the tools it needed to creat nuclear weapons; note: NK does not have nuclear ambitions as they already have nuclear weapons, NK does have tactical delivery systems ambitions.

The 21st century thus far has seen the aggressive nature of Islamic Fascism and Al-Qaida in particular and the United States and her most stalwart allies enter the fray to combat it. Yet the world is still gripped in global political correctness and only now (as a later entry shows) are we making only modest gains against.

Lest anyone forget, as with any card game one must play with the hand they are dealt. As difficult and horrendous the latest developments seem there is (and always will be) a bigger picture until this grip of global political correctness is broken.

One can only hope that in the end the general populace of any given nation will see through the façade of the appeasement through global political correctness for what it is.

Indeed, let the Democrates "Bring it on".