The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Hysterical Reaction to...Common Sense
Thus it is simply true: Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
First of all, any sentence can be taken out of context. I would advise reading Hewitt's entire post before jumping to conclusions, to wit:
Not a single Democrat of any stature or visibility has stepped forward to criticize much less reject the opinion from Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declaring NSA surveillance of our enemies contacting their operatives inside our country to be unconstitutional. Their collective silence has grown more and more revealing as the chorus of legal commentary mocking the absurd opinion has grown throughout the day.
The Democrats cannot be seen to say anything against the opinion because of Kosputin and his minions. The party of Lamont is unhinged, and Judge Taylor's opinion is now a new icon of the movement.
It is clear that the Democrats are invested in her conclusion and her reasoning, a position on national security that will bind the party if it reaches a majority in either the House or the Senate, and paralyze at least some of the intelligence collection activities already underway. We have to assume that their zeal for ignorance will extend to every presidential directive not explicitly backed by Congressional mandate, and thus an understanding of the Article II war powers more circumscribed than ever in our history.
Expect a major retreat in the war on Islamic fascism across many fronts if the Dems frenzy their way to a majority in either body, and hearings upon hearings. the Church Committee will look like child's play compared to a John Conyers or patrick Leahy-led assault on the conduct of the war, a conduct that has prevented attacks on the homeland from abroad since 9/11.
Thus it is simply true: Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.
Ah, context! What a wonderful thing...The truth is, where the rubber meets the road, I pretty much agree with Hewitt's statements. And I think that for others who agree on this point to pile onto Hewitt in this circumstance is counterproductive, becuase beneath all the cries of "hate mongering" in the blogosphere, the practical fact is that Hewitt's statement is pretty much accurate. Piling onto Hewitt's prose is only serving to change the subject-- which of course is one of the left's favorite and most prolific tactics. After all, if you can't prove the contrary of an argument with facts, all that remains is to either attack the messenger, the delivery of the message, or to otherwise change the subject.
Here is the comment I left on PoliBlog:
While I would agree that Hewitt’s statement is painting with a broad brush, I do not see it as “hateful” in any way. While many salt of the earth Democrats do not consider themselves to be Enemies of the State, the truth is that over the last several years most of their elected representatives have been.
The Democrats have opposed the Patriot Act, opposed the surveillance that has probably prevented multiple attacks on our homeland, and have gone to unprecedented lengths to obstruct and hamper the ability of this President and the Republicans to wage and win this war for the survival of Western Civilization.
Perhaps if Hewitt had modified his remarks with “the majority of the elected Democrats, particularly the Soros-Dean-MoveOn wing, are Enemies of the State” it would be more palatable to the word-parsers of the blogosphere. Never mind that the end result of a Democratic win this fall would be impeachment proceedings against a President at war, pressure to surrender and/or appease our enemies overseas, higher taxes to kill the recovery, and the hampering of our efforts to track murderous Islamist terrorists. Personally I see that as a “vote for vulnerability”.
This Democratic party is not the party of Sam Nunn, Zell Miller, and Scoop Jackson. Hewitt might well have worded his statement differently to more effectively communicated the actual message, but in practical terms he is absolutely spot-on.
I myself am guilty from time to time of very blunt talk on my own blog. Yes, it can be “divisive”; on the other hand it is perhaps better to verbally slap my fellow citizens across the face to wake them up to reality, than to have them commit suicide this fall by casting a vote that might someday result in an attack on our soil eclipsing 9/11. Maybe–just maybe–Hewitt is trying to wake some people up to the stark reality that they are too unwilling to state openly: this (Democratic) “Emporor” really is NOT wearing any clothes.
I have been meaning to introduce a dialogue I have started with a European reader of my blog, who also takes exception to my stark coloring of the issues. I have waiting for a lull in world events to get to this (like maybe getting beyond August 22...). Anyway the "style and tone" of dialogue in a time of momentous events and War is an interesting topic; be looking for more on this subject here in the coming days.
