Feb 20th, 2006, 09:14 PM
I'd like to expand on that for a minute, if you don't mind, just to riff a bit off topic. You know how I'm always asking for you to predict the "next big thing" that the D's will latch on to in their seemingly neverending and obviously so far ineffective war on Bush? I wonder if this thing with the ports might be with us for a while.
Now, I'll say right now that what I'm about to explain is likely too complicated to soundbyte that deeply into the American conciousness... a phenomenon we've discussed prior to now as being the possible reason Iran-Contra and some other large scandals never really got the attention they deserved... but I think if played well, this could be a very important campaign issue for the left in 08.
Already Chuck Schumer is dragging all the Dem notables into this thing, and I see a TON of good logic there. They have the opportunity to paint themselves as more competent on Defense than the Administration... political gold for them as it's not so easy for a D to do. Beyond that, however, this could develop into a huge political tool if done correctly. Do the boys that have cried wolf for 5 straight years now have a chance at convincing the world of yet another scandal that may not actually exist? I dunno. I think they should try...
Lemme walk you through it: As I said up there, a fresh attack within the year will almost certainly guarantee a Republican win in 08. Here's how Rove will do that: We get attacked, and immediately the Republican war drums go nuts. The Democrats will HAVE TO object to whatever the R's lead with as a proposed response to the attack, which will be a pretty strong proposal. The R's will run around insisting that their plan is the only way that will adequately address the situation, as they are wont to do, and the D's will waste a bunch of time conferring with Europe trying to drum up supprt for whatever plan they have hacked together.
The R's will be playing for a prolonged deadlock here, where the D's will be stuck advancing their solution brand to no end, as the R's hold the government. The R's will once again run their 08 campaign on the theme "Democrats are soft on the War" and will showcase what they will call the Dem deadlock as a primary example.
THAT will resonate. As bad as it is for the blue party now, if we are attacked again before the election cycle kicks back in we are looking at a slaughter for the Democratic Party. The only tempering force for the R's will be their own lack of will to empower third parties by decimating the donkeys... but I don't see them holding back.
Here's my alternate plan for the Dems with regard to the port issue. I cannot understand at this early point what would prompt Team Bush© to even consider allowing a UAE company to own those ports. They are again saying "Trust Us" in that way that seems to them somehow sufficient. I believe the D's could paint this so as to have a HUGE slice of America crafting shiny tin-foil hats. They need to be saying that the Bushies, known to be so uncomfortably tight with certain ME despots, opened this huge hole in our security in order to GET them that new attack for political purposes.
No matter their current dominance, it's no secret that the discontent among more conservative Republicans is very real. There is a laundry list of good backing evidence in the far right's bitch list. On this list you'll find such notable examples as our "Porous Borders" with Canada and Mexico... mostly Mexico. Talk Show Dude Sean Hannity, considering a run for office himself, is up to his neck on this one, banking that by championing this issue he can win some points toward being perceived as less of an apologist for the party and more of a conservative man of principle. He's not the only one bitching about this aspect of administration policy though. The D's could pick up this torch and gain a ton of instant, bonafide cred if they were to say what needed to be said in just the right way.
Allowing some major ports to fall into the hands of a country formerly the home of one of the 9/11 terrorists. Complete disreguard for the giant hole in our defenses that is our border with that brown-people country to our immediate South. Add a few more examples otherwise unexplainable of Administration "inattention," and you are boiling up quite a believeable consiracy theory there, Jack. You say: "They want us to get attacked again. They are buying an election with American lives."
The D's could even get someone as abjectly un-electable as Hillary in office with that scheme. I f I hadn't already committed my vote to whatever the LP can dredge up at the last minute, I'd fall for it... possibly...
I could fill in a lot more details here, but, for a tangent, I'm done with it for now.
|
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?
How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
|