Rudy puts Democrats on defensive

NY Post Editorial:

Rudy Giuliani reduced his Democratic rivals for the White House to spittle- flecked fury yesterday.

To wit:

* "Rudy Giuliani has taken the politics of fear to a new low." - Barack Obama.

* "Divisive" - John Edwards.

* "Political rhetoric won't do anything to quell those threats." - Hillary Clinton.

But what had Rudy said?

That electing a Democratic president in 2008 would thrust America on the defensive in the War on Terror.

Know what? Rudy's right.

"The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of this terrorist war against us," he said. "If one of them gets elected, we are going on defense."

Specifically, Giuliani predicted, under a Democratic president "we will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation. And we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."

That pretty much summarizes the Democratic position. Even Obama and Hillary would have to agree.

After all, under the last Democratic president - a fellow named Bill Clinton - America suffered one hit after another from al Qaeda and its terrorist offshoots....

...

"They were at war with us before we realized it," says Giuliani. "We didn't get it - that this was a war."

And yet it seems the Democrats still don't understand that this is a global war with many fronts. And that, right now, Iraq is the central front in that war.

It's a battle that won't be won by treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Or even by capturing or killing Osama.

It certainly can't be won by forcing a U.S. surrender in Iraq.

...

The white flag of surrender is hard to hide. In reversion to the defensive is hard to hide or defend. Rudy's effort to communicate this point is one of the reasons I think he may be the best Republican candidate to defeat the defensive Democrats. He is willing to take them on in a way that this administration has failed to do. He challenges their objectives and assumptions in a way that they have no answer for. They will attempt to avoid the logic of his charges by invective and insults, but they do not have an answer to that logic.

James Taranto notes that the Democrats immediately leap to prove his point.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more