Dems In More Danger Than Bush

Update: Even if you don't read it, scroll down, or click here and take the pledge.

Pull yourself away from the endless headlines circling in the latest media / political firestorm over Iraq, apply some simple logic, and it isn't unreasonable to conclude that today the Democrat Party is far more exposed to disaster, than is President Bush.

His elected political life ends in two years, no matter what. Conversely, the cut and run Democrats undertaking symbolic votes against America's troops during a time of war have no idea what the environment is going to look like in November of 2008. You do realize, I hope, that it's approximately twenty-two long months before the next Federal vote is cast?

Of all the things I have bet on or against in my life, I wouldn't want to hold a twenty-two month-long marker on a bet against the finest military in the world. Would you? Yet, that's precisely where the Democrats and even some Republicans find themselves today.

If you quickly scan the White House news release archives from March 2005, or about twenty-two months ago, you won't find a single significant announcement dealing directly with Iraq.

I'm not naive. I realize things look bad today. My only point is - twenty-two months is a very long time, especially when you're betting against the US Army, Navy, Air Force, National Guard, Coast Guard and Marines: all of whom have, or have had, a role to play regarding Iraq.

The next six months are expected to be difficult, most likely with increased fighting, causalities and deaths. But if we stay the course,and the President seems determined to do just that, we have more than a fair chance of turning things around in Iraq well before November, 2008.

If we defeat the forces of evil there, most likely we'll also defeat the forces of appeasement here, who will not be able to hide from their shameful dishonor, characterized by defeatist rhetoric, symbolic votes and a de facto lack of faith in our troops.

I know the Left will laugh, that doesn't bother me at all. Like me, they have absolutely no idea if they'll still be laughing in twenty-two months. We, on the other hand, come what may, will still be supporting America, her ideals, as well as her troops. Personally, no matter what happens, I wouldn't trade places with them now or then for all the money or electoral votes in the world.

Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project posts the important links below. But save the plea and please talk, Bruce. I'm not about to beg any elected official to do what's right for America during a time of war, nor do I intend to allow a single one who doesn't to forget it. When is it that Chuck Hagel runs, again, anyway? That primary needs a Republican in it for a change.

A Plea To Save Our Iraq Mission

Hugh Hewitt has launched a petition drive to deliver a clear message to Republican legislators.

Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.

What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"

It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.
With that additional strength and will the enemy redoubles and retriples efforts to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
In short, it means that more Americans will die.

This is the Pledge, and the site to sign up.

Every blogger and blog reader should, and encourage every other blogger and blog reader.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, says:

This is the sort of grassroots pressure that Democrats have been feeling for a while, but it's new to Republicans. I think that Hugh's right to start this drive. Opposition to the surge is wrong (see what Petraeus said) and it's also political suicide for the Republicans.

Now, it’s time for everyone else to stand up. Do it now. Please.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

"...the DemocratIC party"

Fixed your typo.

[scarshapedstar]

Actually, has anyone seen Dan and Bush in the same room together? This one seemed straight out of a Bush speech:

"The next six months are expected to be difficult, most likely with increased fighting, causalities and deaths."

I got your causality right here: Bush. Disaster.

[Charles Warren]

All the 'will' or 'committment' or 'stomach' or 'bladder' or 'spleen' in the world will not transform another person or nation into what you want him/it to be. You can't MAKE people change if they don't want to. And a victory on Bush's terms in Iraq requires imposing a Renaissance, a Reformation, an end to the wars of religion, an Enlightenment, a Scientific Revolution, and the Emancipation of Women on a medieval culture of clan and sect. There isn't enough firepower in the world to do that, short of nuking the Iraqi into extinction and colonizing the country with Scandinavians. That's not 'defeatism'. That's just common sense. That's just the American people having the wisdom to see when a leader is believing what he wants to believe and stubbornly investing too much ego in his decisions.

Napoleon had a great army, too. He thought it would be a cinch to do 'regime change' in Spain and bring the Enlightenment to those poor benighted souls. Never figured on their religious fanaticism. And before you start going off about Germany, Italy, and Japan, the conservative establishments of those countries had never wanted a world war. They tried to prevent it and turned against the fascists when it was hopelessly lost. So after the war they and the Left sincerely wanted to work with the US to destroy fascism and militarism once and for all and always live in peace. We didn't remake them against their wills. They wanted to destroy the authoritarian, militarist far right for good.

Reagan listened to the neocons and went into Lebanon. Then after getting sucked into a Maronite/Sunni vs Shiite/Druse civil war (sounds familiar ?) and the Marine barracks blown up he cut his losses and got out. The same neocons who assured Bush that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers assured Reagan and Sharon that the Lebanese would welcome them with flowers. Reagan had the wisdom to see that they were talking crap and told them to take a hike. He could take his ego out of a decision and realize that getting sucked into an Arab civil war was not in our interest. Bush lacks that maturity.

In any case, the American people have decided that the cheap labor/perpetual war agenda of Bushism costs too much (funny thing how it never occurred to the neocons that their class war of people who live on returns from capital against people who live on paychecks would render most Americans increasingly reluctant to pay the costs of empire). The foundation has been laid for a Democratic majority coalition.

[Observer]

"...the DemocratIC party"

Fixed your typo.

Posted by: scarshapedstar | Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 08:29 PM

What's the crap with this new relabeling?????

Do you think it speaks to something subliminal?

[scarshapedstar]

Well, put simply, yes. Just as anti-abortion activists call themselves "pro-life" because nobody's real enthusiastic to join the "anti-life" movement, somebody realized that it sounds bad to rail against the Democratic values espoused by the Democratic party in a democracy. Oh, and on a more aesthetic level, it obviously creates a stop and gives it a more Germanic sound.

I can't blame them for doing it, I guess, but it's really the kind of thing that's best kept to fundraisers and such. And it looks egregiously stupid in a written context.

[Rob Kaufman]

Dan is just following the tried and true Republican playbook which has decided that Democrat Party does not poll as well as Democratic Party. It is just another pathetic example of how sad the Republican Party has become to try and gain power through their usual diversion, deception, and misedirection.

[scarshapedstar]

Nonsense, Rob. This is no mere party-line parrot. He knows full well the pitfall of Leftists who frequently spout epithets such as "Chimpy McHitlerBurton" just because every elected Democrat and CNN anchor says them, too. This is a deep thinker who knows and values the contributions of his forebears. I'm sure he arrived at the "Democrat Party" formulation independently, after many sleepless nights poring over Hume and Strauss and Montesquieu and Geisel.

[Dan Riehl]

Actually, I'm simply using the correct form. Republicans are members of the Republican Party and Democrats are members of the Democrat Party. Both parties are equally democratic.

[Purple Avenger]

"I wouldn't want to hold a twenty-two month-long marker on a bet against the finest military in the world. Would you?"

Depends on if I get to actively sabotage their mission or not ;->

[Rob Kaufman]

So sorry Danny boy but I don't think you get to decide what the Democratic Party calls themselves, I hope not even you are dumb enough to think that, but maybe you are. You have been displaying quite a lack of rational thinking skills lately haven't you?

[Purple Avenger]

"I don't think you get to decide what the Democratic Party calls themselves"

They can call themselves anything they want. Actions always speak louder than words, so the "party of appeasement" sounds about right for me.

[Rob Kaufman]

Oh?? Is that so Purple? So we should start calling the Republicans the Fascist Party then? That sounds about right to me.

[Phoenix]

The word "democratic", when used to refer to the concept of "democracy", doesn't have anything more to do with the Democrats than it does with the Republicans. The both believe in democracy. Only when the word "Democratic" is capitalized and used in reference to party politics does it refer to one group and not the other.

democracy - a concept of power in government
democratic - referring to the above
republic - a structural form of government
republican - referring to the above
Democrat - a member of one political party
Democratic - referring to the above
Republican - a member of another political party
Republican - referring to the above

Only when the word "Democratic" is capitalized and used in reference to party politics does it refer to one group and not the other.

Worth repeating - reference to party POLITICS.

[Rob Kaufman]

Was your rant supposed to mean anything Phoenix? Or just wanted to test out your use of useless tidbits?

[Phoenix]

Rob,

Oh, yes. I wanted to test out my democratic right to lead you to follow up so I can, with great Democratic pride, tell you you may kiss my sweet ass. :)

[Rob Kaufman]

No thank you, but I do thank you for the generous offer. Maybe you could get Dan to do that for you though, he just might. But I do thank you for showing how little sense some on the right can display.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

You are very welcome. But what do you mean by this: "..on the right.."?

How do you know I'm on the right?

[Nikolay]

"If we defeat the forces of evil there"
Do you consider Kurdish president Talabani "a force of evil"? Because of his continuous calls for talks and compromise with Iran and Syria? Just as Iraq Study Group proposed, and as Bush declined to do? If you do, than "defeating evil" in Iraq would mean fighting and subduing pretty much _everyone_. And this is not going to happen. If you don't, you must understand that Bush's "surge" doesn't make much sense.

[scarshapedstar]

"Actually, I'm simply using the correct form. Republicans are members of the Republican Party and Democrats are members of the Democrat Party. Both parties are equally democratic."

Sure. Just like Reforms are members of the Reform party, Labors are members of the Labor Party, and Constitutions are members of the Constitution Party. Because every group's collective name is exactly the same as the name used to refer to its members, here on planet Romulon. Or, as Dan Riehl would say, here in the United States of Americans.

[Phoenix]

Scar,

Actually, Dan is correct. I sought this question out years ago - that's why I wrote my comment just above. (The one Rob calls a 'rant'. :)

[sglover]

To the best of my knowledge, "Democrat Party" was a coinage dreamed up and pimped by Newt Gingrich, who wrote a somewhat famous political tactics guide on the uses of language. His central theme was that party members ought to stick to limited set of terms that were intended to plant emotional associations in listeners' minds, as much as carry meaning. "DemoCRAT" is beautifully designed to conflate the party of Jefferson with the heinous Washington bureauCRAT, whom of course everybody hates.

[Rob Kaufman]

Please read the last paragraph of Wikipedia's entry for Democratic Party,

"It is appropriate to refer to candidates and the party using the adjective "Democratic" as opposed to the noun "Democrat," (i.e. "Democratic" Party, the "Democratic" candidate). Some conservative commentators and some past and present leaders of the Republican Party have referred to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," usually in a pejorative sense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

[scarshapedstar]

Uh, Phoenix, sorry, I still don't buy it. Nouns and adjectives are not interchangeable.

As a thought experiment, let's say you lived next door to a Jewish day care center and you were sick of it, not because you are anti-semitic, but because it's noisy and smells bad. Would you go around saying things like "I'm really getting sick of this Jew day care center"?

In your everyday parlance, do you ever use terms like "that Jew lawyer" or "the Jew fraternity" or "a Jew holiday"?

Why or why not?

[Phoenix]

Scar,

I'm an editor and use the formal books from U.S. News & World Report; TIME; Newsweek; and the regular grammar texts as long as they are current. I also have several British versions of the rules, and use those only because I agree with the way they use quotation marks.

As for this particular category of Republican/Democrat, there is a special section because of the confusion. We have a democracy, and one section of the people of that democracy is Democrats. So, people get confused. I was confused myself a number of times, so a while back did a check and that's where I came up with my above comment on it.

Your examples make sense, but it seems to be the fact that we are talking about a democracy with one named party, 'Democrats', that causes the confusion. When I am not sure, I stick with the style books. And before anyone says anything nasty to me, the style books do not favor one party over another.

[sglover]

"I'm an editor and use the formal books from U.S. News & World Report; TIME; Newsweek; and the regular grammar texts as long as they are current. I also have several British versions of the rules, and use those only because I agree with the way they use quotation marks."

"As for this particular category of Republican/Democrat, there is a special section because of the confusion. We have a democracy, and one section of the people of that democracy is Democrats. So, people get confused. I was confused myself a number of times, so a while back did a check and that's where I came up with my above comment on it."

"Your examples make sense, but it seems to be the fact that we are talking about a democracy with one named party, 'Democrats', that causes the confusion. When I am not sure, I stick with the style books. And before anyone says anything nasty to me, the style books do not favor one party over another."

Jeez. Look, it's not very hard. I assume that somebody who calls himself an "editor" can distinguish between nouns and adjectives. If you consult the miraculous tool known as a "dictionary", you'll find that it actually describes what part of speech each word is. Slick, eh? So if you look them up, you'll find that "democrat" is a noun, "democratic" is an adjective (so that it can MODIFY nouns, get it?), and "republican" is BOTH an adjective AND a noun. "Democratic Party" is linguistically correct; the adjective modifies the noun "Party". Democratic Party *members* (noun) can be described by the noun "Democrat". "Republican Party" is correct because "Republican" is an adjective; since "Republican" is also a noun, it can properly serve as a term for members of that party.

I don't know what "current" grammar references have to do with anything, since noun and adjective forms change hardly at all over decades, perhaps centuries. This is why high school students can still make sense of Shakespeare.

[Rob Kaufman]

Here Dan and Phoenix, for your reading pleasure.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

[Phoenix]

Thanks, Rob.

Very interesting as it proves the point of how confusing this is. I think this passage kind of sums it up best:

"Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,” Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book—it’s entitled “Words That Work”—and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of “ic”s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in."

Road-testing the use of words is why the English language is one of the few remaining 'growing' languages.

And for our rude friend - I call myself an editor because I am one. I'd call myself a stripper if I was one. Or a turtle. Or construction worker. You get the idea. Here is something else to get: Grammar rules change often enough that it behooves one to keep up with them if they are in the business of editing. As well, grammar rules vary from the different English-speaking countries, and it pays to note those differences.

Here is something else as a sidebar to this discussion: Tone is displayed through the wise use of words. sglover, your tone is so rude it's hard to believe you would 'speak' to strangers the way you do here. Is it with intent? And if so, why?

[Rob Kaufman]

So sorry Phoenix but the crap you are laying down is getting pretty deep, I will have to go get my hip waders on if you keep this up. The fact you could read the article I posted and the thing you found most interesting was Mr Luntz' partisan spin tells me all I need to know how about your rational thinking ability. You are wrong and if you do have the ability to think you know you are wrong, but yet are too stubborn to admit it.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

The fact that it was partisan spin is why I quoted it. It is what leads to the confusion.

This also leads to the confusion - and not from a purposeful spin:

A democracy may not be a republic, and republic may not be a democracy. However, our country is both: a democratic republic (or a republican democracy) There are also the weird words themselves. Would you say a "Republicanic"? Or, "The Republicanic Party"? Or, "The Republic Party"?

Anyway, it's not deliberate crap. I just enjoy the language. And, I've used both "The Democrat Party" and "The Democratic Party". The latter appeals to me more than the former because of the more facile speech pattern.

It really is kind of silly to make a big deal out of using this to insult Dan - which is why I made my initial comment on it. The insult was not justified, and I felt it important enough to show why it wasn't. Has it changed a thing? Nope.

[Rob Kaufman]

Once again I must disagree Phoenix, what a shocker. Dan deserved everything he received, and you defending him is almost as pathetic as he is. There is no confusion about the use of Democrat Party, only Republicans use it and the fact that they do just shows what depths some in the Republican Party will sink to.

[Phoenix]

Rob,

You are mean-spirited. I am pathetic for defending Dan? He was not wrong. As the article stated, democrats tend to find 'The Democrat Party' a put-down. I said I used both, and I defended Dan's usage. That doesn't make me or Dan pathetic.

Anyway, I don't understand why you would come over here and be so rude. Does it help anything?

[Rob Kaufman]

Does it helps to call phonies phonies? Yes, it does. And if you read what I posted without your bias you would see I did not call you pathetic, just your pathetic act of defending Mr Riehl. The use of Democrat Party is pathetic and anyone who engages in the use is being pathetic. Does that help you understand better? By the way does your whining help anything?

[Rob Kaufman]

PS Talking about mean-spirited I think it is pretty darn mean-spirited to continue calling a group of people by a name that they take offense to. It would be on par calling someone named Richard Dick if he truly despised that name. Dan was wrong and you are wrong in defending him, no amount of diversion or misdirection will change that fact.