- Schaffer vs. Udall
- View From A Height
- Thinking Right
- Mt. Virtus
- Rocky Mountain Right
- Slapstick Politics
- Daily Blogster
- Hugh Hewitt
- Hot Air
- Fox News
- Real Clear Politics
- Rocky Mountain News
- Denver Post
- Debka Files
- Talking Points Memo
The Senate Race
Rocky Mountain Alliance of Blogs, 2.0
My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
|Oh, Yeah--That'll Help. You Betcha.|
With an almost pitch-perfect comic sense of timing, you get these two stories today:
More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.
Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration's eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party's credibility on national security. . . .
Republicans led the Democrats by 40 percent to 36 percent on questions about which party can keep the country safe, 45 percent to 40 percent on which party can be trusted on national security and 48 percent to 38 percent on "which party can be trusted more to fight terrorism," the DLC said.
The great, great irony is that all of these numbers come out in the wake, albeit diminishing, of Jack Murtha's latest call for a pullout--oh, sorry, an "immediate strategic redeployment." Jack Murtha, of course, is a highly decorated former Marine whose combat credentials are nearly unparalleled. HIS hue and cry on a national security issue did nothing for the Democrats in that regard, why should anybody else's bona fides work that elusive magic?
The problem for Democrats is not their lack of military credentials; their problem is that a good majority of the country recognizes that common sense demands that the President do what is necessary to protect the country, and that the leadership of the Democratic Party--the trio of Howie, Harry and Nancy--is so far out of the mainstream of American thought on this issue that a vote for Democratic leadership is ill-advised, at best, and dangerous, at worst.
But nobody--NOBODY--should disparage or diminish the contributions that any of these 30 have made to American security in the past. But what somebody should do--on the record--is get every single one of them to commit themselves to a position on the Patriot Act, on recent surveillance revelations (and the national security implications of the leaks), and, most importantly, on the Iraq War. And then, you know, see how everything plays out in the next ten months and hold them accountable for their positions.