During the 2006 mid-term election campaign, a few House candidates asked me for some advice about dealing with the strong Republican issues concerning so-called social issues and national defense. I told them that it is a losing game to play in their "briar patch." The MSM has skewed falsely those issues in favor of the Republicans. So I advised them not to play in the Republican "briar patch." I was then asked how to handle these issues. My advice was to change the subject by restating questions concerning losing issues into areas in which the Democrats are strong. The Republicans do it all the time and it is a very effective debating strategy. Sometimes people do this by answering a different question. The Democrats have a substantial lead on all domestic issues and for the first time are dead even on terrorism with the Republicans.
So what do the Democrats do about all of these winning issues? They simply drop the ball and talk about national defense and terrorism. Who can forget Dukakis driving that tank in 1988 or Kerry reporting for duty in 2004? The latest episode of self-destruction has come from the Obama camp. For some reason he gave a speech to the Woodrow Wilson Council (I was a member) talking about how he would attack Pakistan in order to destroy Al Qaeda. He then hedged about whether he would use nuclear weapons. Hillary then criticized Obama about his position about the nuclear option as if it is OK to have a nuclear option. Have these people lost their minds?
The whole idea that Al Qaeda has sophisticated command and control in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a myth and they should know it. However, given that Senators rarely do any meaningful political or historical research, Hillary and Obama have probably accepted this Al Qaeda myth. Even if that myth were true, it is not a winning issue for the Democrats. And it is certainly not a winning issue against Hillary who gets all her advice on foreign policy from her husband and Madeline Albright who advised her to vote for the 2002 Bush war resolution. Does Obama understand the consequences of attacking Pakistan? Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a delivery system and the government is already unstable. Talk about possible unintended consequences. The danger would be far greater than the Iraq fiasco.
I like the Clintons personally but they really believe that Bill was elected because he was in favor of the death penalty, welfare reform, and his strong position on national defense. These are all issues near and dear to the hearts of the DLC. The fact is that Clinton was lucky in 1992 and 1996. And his successful election can be summarized in 2 words; Ross Perot. But, success has a thousand parents and failure is an orphan. So the DLC keeps on trying to convince us that we should be more like the Republicans on issues like national defense and the death penalty.
In 1994, the electorate gave the message to the Democrats about that as they swept both the House and Senate and did not lose control until 2006. That is the real legacy of the DLC. They have this constant desire to move to the "center" which has always been an artificial designation. What exactly is the center? For that matter, what constitutes "left" and "right?" The MSM has designated anti-war as being "left." Since many conservatives are against the Iraq war, why does the MSM describe this as being "left?" For that matter, why should anyone believe the MSM?
It is impossible to be more war mongering than the Republicans. The idea is to beat them with the issues that make them look weak and stupid. They lose on every domestic issue. They also lose on the war in Iraq. The candidates should talk about Iraq all the time. They should constantly blame the Republicans for this fiasco. They should not worry about loyalty to the military or not supporting the troops. The American public has gotten the message and that argument will not work. And they should also remember what Eisenhower said in his 1952 campaign after 2 years of a losing battle in Korea. Eisenhower said to the American people in his campaign that he would go to Korea and end the war. It was just that simple and shortly after his election in 1953, the Korean War ended. Eisenhower won by a landslide. I suppose the MSM would describe Eisenhower as being "left" about the Korean War.