One of the most effective ways for the admin to do counter-propaganda is to have soundbites ready of every Democrat's position going back 50 years on everything and anything, and then replaying it during press conferences, speeches, and various other space-time locations from which max benefit may be derived.
Ymar | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 11:41 am | #

Consider that way down deep where the left's awareness refuses go, they want the result they are going to get. In the end, if anyone of the left is still standing, they will try to absolve themselves of their crimes against humanity by saying "we didn't intend this to happen." Yes they did - from the get go of over 100 years ago.

They have not earned even a minute whit of the benefit of the doubt. They intend to destroy the civilization that man has created over the past 20,000 years. They could not archive it so they don't want anyone else to have it either.
A. Rational Human | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 12:03 pm | #

The Left wants to destroy civilization? I think that's going a bit far. Nobody wants to destroy civilization on either side of the aisle. Get a grip. Each side can take the slippery slope argument to the extreme, but I suspect civilization will continue past the pettiness of ideology.

You want to replay every Democrat position going back 50 years? Well, there's nothing wrong with that. However, I suspect that Democrats aren't the only politicians that have taken a few different positions in DC...

But I'm here to highlight the best part of Hanson's argument:
"In short, the next Democratic president who wishes to do something about the genocide in Darfur or another mass murderer in the Middle East, will find no support from Republicans, or — in no small part due to liberals’ slurs against the war they voted for — from the country at large."

So Republicans won't defend civilization in Darfur because of politics? Yeah, that's some morale clarity there.
Tuna | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 12:42 pm | #

From the Democrat point of view the blithering-idiot/perception-is-reality stategy is "what got them here". And it just feels so good.

So why would they abandon it?

No, but someday Americans are probably be going to waxing nostalgic about the good old days when the Bush era brought at least 8 years of prosperity and security in the face of a mad, mad World.

But I really wish the R.'s would try Ymar's strategy in the meantime.
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 12:48 pm | #

Oh, don't be silly Tunafish. The left doesn't want to destroy civilization--they merely want to be the ones who control it (they are so much more intellectually advanced than you or I). America is in the way because of its values...so America has to go. America won't tolerate leftist thugs like Chavez when it comes right down to it (and he proudly proclaims himself to be a leftist as he accumulates complete and total control over his country and openly proclaims his agenda--but he's doing it for the sake of the poor, don't you know?). Look at yourself; look at what you are supporting; and weep--for you are the enemy of all that is good in man. I would feel sorry for you, but I'm too busy fighting your damn tyrannical agenda.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 1:05 pm | #

"So Republicans won't defend civilization in Darfur because of politics? Yeah, that's some morale clarity there."
Tuna

True, Politicians play politics, but in a context: in the real World the strategic and moral clarity would involve doing both the Mideast and Darfur.

We agree?

Who would be crazy enough to trade "Iraq" for Darfur? Wait, wait, don't tell me.

Bush has already agreed to go in with the U.N. on Darfur, and we are already in the area.

What is the currently morally clear Democrat position on defending civilization? Give "peace" a chance?
J. Peden | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 1:17 pm | #

The problem is that they would do Darfur like they did Somalia.

The Republican problem is that trying to build a democracy in areas that are made up of seriously impoverished, ignorant people in lands that are climatically marginal for supporting their population is more than just a challenge - it's a multigenerationl project. Iraq has had 30 years of heavy handed dictatorship...it isn't going to be easy to adjust to democracy that is the result of voting instead of killing. I think of it in terms of raising children - you can't just turn loose a bunch of 8 year olds and tell them to govern themselves. Likewise, if an adult has been badly abused in childhood, it's difficult for them to be balanced normal adults - in fact, many become abusers themselves because they don't know any other way. Even if they swear they won't do what was done to them, they often fail - they just don't have any other tools.

Simplistic, I know, but that's how I see it. We may get Iraq on the way, but it will take 2-3 generations before it's set as a way of life - and then only if they can stay on the path.
suek | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 1:56 pm | #

Four things to point out here

With regard to the Democrats, they have created a monster in this anti-war movement of theirs. They egged it on before the Nov elections, and now the piper is demanding that he be paid. If a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, he or she will sooner or later find a situation in which military force is required.

Liberals used to be the party of optimism, and accused the right of being cynical opportunists. Now it's the other way around.

Liberals will only agree to use military force when absolutely no national security issues at stake and it's all strictly humanitarian. This allows them to show their moral purity to all of us rubes.

Lastly, what exactly do you want us to do about Darfur, Tuna? I hear lots of talk about "doing something", but few specifics. Russia, France, and China have all said repeately that they will not agree to any serious Security Council resolutions, much less sanctions. NATO isn't interested.

Unilateral military action? I thought liberals were against that.

Darfur is a huge area, and getting troops in and out would be a nightmare. Lastly, lets not be under the impression that the people of Darfur are a bunch of boy scouts. If you don't believe me read this.
Tom the Redhunter | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 2:51 pm | #

""The Left wants to destroy civilization? I think that's going a bit far. Nobody wants to destroy civilization on either side of the aisle.""

Of course Leftist dont want to destroy civilisation. Once they get through redefining every word in Websters dictionary and the true meaning of every statement they've ever uttered....They can pretty much make places like America a third world rat hole with indebted subjects instead of citizens and call it long fought for PROGRESS.
SteveH | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 2:57 pm | #

Tuna: Actually, Hanson understates the case. Some of us wouldn't support the Democrats on anything, unless we were personally certain it was worthwhile.
popdonnelly | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 3:37 pm | #

I wonder why Jasmine hasn't commented on this post? Hmmmmm ... strange. She's usually so vocal.
darwin | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 4:17 pm | #

Dr. Sanity, I have a question:

Why do either you or VDH think the Democrats will pay any political price for cutting and running from Iraq? I haven't seen any Democrat at any level pay a significant political price for any of their misdeeds in my entire life. They betray our allies, and are lauded for it. They betray their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and get re-elected for it. When they break the law, they don't even get censured, much less sent to jail as Republicans usually (and in most cases, deservedly) do. Men and women who aren't fit to serve as sanitation inspectors get elected to Congress time after time. Even when experience proves they're wrong, as in their economic policies and their opposition to any and all attempts to enforce national security, they simply lie through their teeth, the media helps them, and they come back stronger in a couple of years.

I believe that in two years time we will be looking back on a presidential campaign that would have seen more of the same from both parties, if not for the nuclear terrorist attack that occurred in the summer of 2008 -- followed by a Democrat victory based on the claim that if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq, the terrorists would have left us alone.
wolfwalker | Email | Homepage | 01.20.07 - 11:02 pm | #

The Democrats' rhetorical tactics of the past six years look to me like a short-term focus on regaining power fueled by juvenile rage at having been omitted from the national discourse for lack of ideas.

Well, they've re-entered the debate, but they still lack ideas. Could there be anything worse, politically, than having succeeded in gaining the attention of the nation and finding oneself bathed in the klieg lights, a forest of microphones in one's face, and realizing only then that one has nothing to say?
Francis W. Porretto | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 6:22 am | #

I do love to read whatever VDH has to say. His intellect is so blindingly correct. The Left has nothing to add to the national debate. I have yet to hear anything of substance from the aparatchiks of the DNC. But what we have heard is Lefty after Lefty throwing their hat in the ring for an election almost TWO YEARS away. No substance but lust after and pursuit of power is what we see.

As for a couple of those Lefties:

Teddy Kennedy - Why ain't he in jail for vehicular homicide plus a whole slew of lesser charges?

John Kerry - The only thing he has ever done on his own in his life is squire rich women and convince them to marry him. Please, please show me his 'brilliant' legislative accomplishments!

Barack Obama - Looks good, but is there anything in there? Too early to tell, he has no track record.

Well, any way, ya'll get the idea....
Robohobo | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 8:35 am | #

The reason democrats have no good ideas is because ideas require consistency of thought and a commitment to rational logic.

These people are afraid to say the sky is blue because such a judgement incinuates theres a right and a wrong way to view the skys color.

The only conviction they seem to possess is to be the opposite of whatever George Bush's position on a subject happens to be.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 3:33 pm | #

> So Republicans won't defend civilization in Darfur because of politics? Yeah, that's some morale clarity there.

I beliee the Dems have made it clear, and, the massive number of idiots in the USA who voted them into office:

**** They Don't Care ****

Why tilt against windmills?
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 5:38 pm | #

> ... when absolutely no national security issues at stake and it's all strictly humanitarian.

Tom, you missed:
"... and there is no loss of life of any kind, most especially that of the USA."

We really HAVE become Mao's "paper tiger", judging from the leadership of the left.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 5:41 pm | #

The problem that we are all dancing around is that of a major ethnic conflict inside the borders of the US. In many of the major west coast US cities there is open war between Hispanic and Black gangs. Now this is small now ( in contrast to like Bosnia) but the simple fact that it is happening doesn't look good. I mean just look at how the libs try to divide American people along ethnic lines in everything they do. The next time something like a huge natural disastor happens we could see some very bad things happen. These ethinc divisions that the libs have created to exploit are going to come back to haunt all of us.
southdakotaboy | Email | Homepage | 01.21.07 - 6:19 pm | #

"The Democrats' rhetorical tactics of the past six years look to me like a short-term focus on regaining power fueled by juvenile rage at having been omitted from the national discourse for lack of ideas."

Francis, you nailed it. They have to get into power first and they cannot allow any success to be attributed to the Bush and the Republicans if they are to have any chance of election

Now that they are kinda' in power they will start to change their tune.
Once Iraq is "their" war and no longer "Bush's" war, they will become more pragmatic.

They came close to loosing it all for a long time

They said the tax cuts would kill the ecomomy...but the ecomony and tax receipts are as high as ever.

They said the U.S. would never take Afghanistan and loose 50,000 troops trying like the Russians 15 yrs ago.
The Taliban fell in a couple of months with minimal U.S. troops even being deployed on the ground.

They said the U.S. could not defeat the Republican Guard and 1,000's of GI would die before they reached Saddam. Again the Iraqi military was rolled up in short order and Saddam was hauled in.

Now we have a low tempo conflict that is costing 500 Americans lives per year and they can finally scream "quagmire"!...

If you look at it, without this "quagmire" they would not have had a snowballs chance of getting elected to anything.

In a perverse way the "quadmire" is the Democrats best hope so they have to encourage it wherever possible.

I think in order to force a pullout they will need a domestic attack to occur on Bush's watch first. Without such an attack they can't force a pullout.
Wr_guy | Email | Homepage | 01.22.07 - 4:35 pm | #

> think in order to force a pullout they will need a domestic attack to occur on Bush's watch first. Without such an attack they can't force a pullout.

This works far better the other way -- if there is a domestic attack, now, then it will remind everyone that, despite appearances, it ain't over -- not by a Loooooooong Shot.

So, no, that does not help them -- it hinders them.
Oh Bloody Hell | Email | Homepage | 01.24.07 - 12:19 am | #