The Stupider Party

I'm fond of referring to the GOP as "The Stupid Party", but the Dems are rapidly showing they're even dumber:

THE WASHINGTON POST reported last weekendthat strategists at the Democratic Leadership Council fear Democrats could be walking into "a trap" on Iraq. In a strategy memo to Democrats last week, they warned "party leaders not to use Bush's problems as an invitation to call for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, or generally to steer a more liberal course that could alienate the middle-of-the-road voters the party needs."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi evidently got the message. She told the Post on Friday that "there is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position" on the war. Yet only three weeks ago, Pelosi endorsed Rep. Murtha's immediate "redeployment" plan, and said she believed "that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha."

Her remarks brought a quick, panicky response from Democrats charged with gaining seats in the midterm election. "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (IL) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (MD), the second-ranking House Democratic leader," reported the Post, "have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party . . ."

But while Pelosi's comments weren't welcomed by party strategists, Howard Dean's outburst a few days later was even worse for a party seeking credibility on national security issues. He told a radio audience that American forces can't "win the war in Iraq," that we need to "bring the 80,000 National Guard

and Reserve troops home immediately," and that the remaining force should fight Zarqawi from a "neighboring country." Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) reacted by telling the national Democratic party chairman to "shut up."

What's going on is simple. Strategists looking for big gains in 2006 want to stoke the anti-war base just enough so they show up at the polls but not so much that they become the face of the party. It's easy to understand why. Tucked inside the latest New York Times / CBS poll, released on December 8, are some interesting numbers. In reporting on their poll, the Times wrote:

"[T]here are political risks for Democrats if they move too far toward their base: 36 percent of respondents (including a third of the independents) said they would be less likely to vote for their Congressional representative if he or she advocated an immediate withdrawal, while 21 percent said they would be more likely to vote for that official. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader of the House, recently embraced a call for a speedy withdrawal. Moreover, many Americans remain anxious about the impact of withdrawal, with 46 percent saying it would increase the likelihood of violence in Iraq and 40 percent saying it would increase (only 8 percent said decrease) the likelihood of terrorism against the United States."

On the question of whether U.S. action in Iraq has made us more safe or less safe from terrorism or made no difference, 35 percent of the respondents said more safe, 22 percent less, and 41 percent no difference.

These numbers are remarkable considering that the White House has only recently begun to defend itself against the Democratic assault on its Iraq policy. They also present an opportunity for the GOP in 2006.

This is why no Democratic presidential candidate has garnered over 50 pct of the popular vote in more than 25 years.

Slimy pacifism is no majority position in America, certainly not since we watched thousands of our countrymen incinerated in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.