Where's the Republican war room?
By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted March 26, 2007
For power-obsessed Democrats and their Left-leaning brethren, it's all about disseminating their propaganda, insuring defeat in Iraq and ruining Republicans. As to the latter, of course President Bush and members of his administration are at the top of the hit list. That being said, Congressional Democrats are now orchestrating the most shameful political ploys in tandem with their current "politics of personal destruction" initiative. Moreover, these Leftists think nothing of manufacturing scandals, thwarting President Bush's role as commander-in-chief, and passing a blatantly anti-military bill. We're moving rapidly toward a constitutional crisis, if the Democrats continue down this path. Unconscionable, you say? For the sleazy political Left, the ends justify the means, even if it entails harming America and our troops in Iraq.
We're witnessing "Democrats Gone Wild", with Congressional Democrats making good on their promise of unrelenting Congressional hearings and subpoenas for the purpose of dragging Republicans up to Capitol Hill. What are Republicans to do? The embattled GOP is going to get thoroughly crushed in the realm of public opinion and at the voting booth if it doesn't develop a rapid response, damage control "war room" that systematically refutes the blatant smears and gross distortions of the Democrat Party and its chief surrogate, the liberal mainstream media. The GOP has a duty to tell the public what‘s really going on. But more about that later.
To continue, let's focus on political tumult triggered twice this past week by Democrat finagling: As to the first episode, let's just say that America doesn't need another Leftist manufactured scandal, but that's exactingly what it got when Congressional Democrats trumped up some more bogus charges against the Bush administration with the claim that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had no right to fire eight US Attorneys for "political" reasons. In fact, Gonzales indicated that the firings were predicated upon job performance. I suppose the Democrats expected Americans to be oblivious to relevant tidbits that have a bearing on the sacking of US Attorneys, but interesting information has a way of coming to the fore.
The Clinton administration fired a total of 93 US Attorneys under Janet Reno: a) when federal corruption charges were coming down the pike against Clinton crony Dan Rostenkowski, and, b) just as Whitewater was resonating and the emerging scandal looked as if it might very well culminate in an investigation and possible indictments. As noted by a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, with a little preemptive action, Bill Clinton "cleared the decks" and got one of his pals assigned to the US Attorney spot that covered Little Rock, and, voila, no charges were ever brought. From this I gather, that if any president should have been investigated about sacking US Attorneys, it should have been Bill Clinton. Oh yes, he's not to be trifled with, simply because he's a Democrat. Never mind.
Let's be clear: These US Attorneys are political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the president – It's not unusual for US Attorneys to be sacked and replaced. Nevertheless, as requested, President Bush directed that all communications related to the firings be made available to Congress. However, many Republicans believe that Bush's offer to have members of his administration interviewed in private by Congress is far too generous. President Bush is imbued with executive privilege on this matter, and Congressional attempts to dictate to the president are patently overreaching. Moreover, Congressional demands that administration officials be placed under oath are absurd as well. Why? Because Democrats would like nothing better than to hold Stalinist show-trials, berate the witnesses and set them up for perjury charges if they don't recall a specific bit of information. These Democrat elites in Congress are downright unscrupulous.
Regarding the second political controversy of last week – the emergency war funding bill passed by House Democrats – it was notably laden with Democrat pork and a timetable for Iraq troop withdrawal by September 2008. That spells big trouble. Clearly, President Bush is going to veto a bill with beaucoup pork and a definitive exit schedule that sends exactly the wrong message to our enemies and undermines the troops and their mission. Hence, the Iraq war funding will be delayed precisely because of Democrat political shenanigans and micromanaging that have no place during wartime. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi truly cared about our troops and getting necessary resources to them, she would have sent up a "clean" bill that would have provided monies quickly and unencumbered. Democrat members of Congress can't give short shrift to our troops without incurring a backlash from the general public. In fact, polls indicate that Americans do not want our troops de-funded in the midst of warfare, and Americans actually want to attain victory in Iraq. If anything, the 2006 election conveyed that the public was angry that the Iraq campaign was not being fought with proper effectiveness.
Now things are changing, and all indications point to a troop surge in concert with a comprehensive strategy that is working. Unfortunately, the Democrats have no qualms about bollixing the progress being made in Iraq. Pursuant to the Democrat's politicization of the supplemental funding bill, President Bush stated: "Today's action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city. Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we're beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground".
Frankly, the Democrats are a bunch of phonies that claim they support our troops primarily because they don't want to alienate mainstream America and lose vital votes. However, their actions and affiliations indicate otherwise. The Congressional Democrats are beholding to MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and other Netroot Kooks from the Looney Left crowd that are demanding immediate pull-out from Iraq, irrespective of the serious consequences. Clearly, the Democrat Party is being pulled Left by the Kook fringe, and in the not too distant future, maintaining the pretense of "caring" about our troops will no longer be viable for the Democrats.
Now back to the issue of a "war room": Why is the time right for a GOP "war room" that utilizes a comprehensive media and communications strategy? The Republican base is becoming increasingly demoralized, chiefly because it wants to aggressively fight back against the Leftist lies and Democrat political manipulations that are damaging the Republican brand. The situation is complicated by the fact that the Democrat Party has the Left-leaning MSM in its pocket. Moreover, there isn't adequate conservative leadership articulating our principles (such as free-market economics and the power of tax cutting, the necessity of operating from strength and a strong military, states' rights, the various aspects of social conservatism, etc.). That being said, educating the public about the scourge of socialism and other pivotal issues has to be part and parcel of this out reach. For instance, too many Americans believe that socialized medicine is acceptable, not knowing what's occurring within the health care systems of Canada, Europe and Japan. America has very significant problems – ranging from the Iraq conflict and the "war on terror" to Immigration and Social Security reform – that will need to be fully resolved, and Republicans, of course, want to hear conservative solutions delineated and promoted by leadership.
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines.
Send a link to this story