YOU'D HAVE TO BE NUTS.....

It’s a tremendously simple political equation--the voting equivalent of falling off of a log. It goes like this:

There has not been a successful terrorist attack on our nation since September 11, 2001.

Democrats have consistently gone on record proclaiming their opposition to the programs that the President has put in place in order to protect this country from terrorism.

Therefore:

How can any logical person cast a vote, which would put those Democrats in a position where they can repeal those laws?

The two indisputable facts that lead to this equation’s solution are not debatable.

Furthermore, even if you are of the belief that our involvement in Iraq has made us less safe here at home and created more terrorists around the world (a notion which cannot really be accurately assessed by the way, at least not until the next terrorist census comes out), then that’s all the more reason to keep the Bush safeguards such as The Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping in place and the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay open.

But if voters insist on punishing the President by taking control of Congress away from his party, even if it results in the eventual crippling of the executive branch to fight the War on Terror, they had better have a very good reason.


Again, the plethora of mistakes made in Iraq would be a good reason, but only if the opposition party had some sort of serious alternative plan. They don’t.

Recently Democrats and their allies in the left-wing media have accused President Bush and the GOP of attempting to scare people into supporting them by reminding people of the terrorist threat facing our country.

This is, of course, tantamount to pretending that no threat exists, a difficult argument to make based on what we know about the size and scope of the terrorists' most recent foiled attempt to blow up a number of American passenger planes last month.

It is also hypocritical. While Democrats accuse the president of fear-mongering out of one side of their mouths, they accuse him of not doing enough to keep us safe out of the other.

They scoff at the comparisons conservatives have made between the cut-and-run faction of the Democratic party, (which would assume almost all of the leadership positions in the House Of Representatives if Democrats pick up the 15 seats that they need), with the European leaders who sought to appease Hitler as well as those who balked at confronting the confederacy during the Civil War. Yet when asked why such a comparison is not accurate, their answer is not a historical lesson in the nuances of politics of the mid 1800’s or a defense of the actions taken by Neville Chamberlain, but rather a diatribe on how George W. Bush is trying to scare Americans in to voting for him.

The Democrats' new strategy suddenly appears a bit desperate, as if they were caught off guard when the GOP actually decided to start campaigning.

Even more striking however are the issues that the Democrats will be unable to use in their attempts to bludgeon the president.

The economy is chugging along and gas prices are falling.

The Democrats had to close the door on their “culture of corruption” issue as soon as Capitol Hill police opened the door to William Jefferson’s freezer. And it turns out that “Plamegate” was little more than a fairy-tale spun by Joe Wilson himself and kept alive by wishful thinking at the New York Times. Karl Rove is still waiting for his apology, by the way.

By contrast, Republicans have not made nearly enough of how the leadership of Congress will change if Democrats do manage to take over.

Most of the Democratic candidates running for the seats which the Dem’s hope to pick up are relative moderates. But the long-serving representatives, who will assume leadership positions and committee chairmanships in the event of a Democratic majority, are ideologically as far away from the American mainstream as can be.

Lifelong uber-liberal politicians such as Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi promise strict oversight on an administration they claim is running roughshod over the Constitution.

But in addition to endless investigations of the administration, which are most likely little more than retaliation for the GOP investigations of the Clintons, their legislative aim is a return to policies which most Americans rejected at the end of the Carter presidency such as higher taxes, increased regulation of business and a foreign policy which seeks to negotiate, equivocate and coexist rather than one which will do whatever it takes to eliminate threats to our nation.

This very group's vehement opposition to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive anti-Soviet policies of the 1980’s--policies which resulted in the end of the Cold War--should serve as a reminder of how wrong those on the far left are when it comes to the most important issues of our time.

Let’s recap. No terrorist attack since 9/11. Over 5,000 terrorists captured or killed since The War on Terror commenced.

Democrats want to take away the tools, which the Bush Administration has used to prevent attacks and to capture and kill a significant portion of those 5,000.

Most people don’t go into the voting booth and cast their ballot based on the potential make-up of the House and Senate. However, the Democrats want this round of elections to be a referendum on President Bush. It is only right, therefore, that we examine the successes of this administration in addition to its failures. That is the only way to decide whether a Congress that will dismantle his successful anti-terror policies serves the national interest.

Sphere: Related Content