A 'Big-Picture' Look at the 2006 Elections
By Joe Mariani (09/04/06)
Mid-term elections have become more "nationalised" due to partisan politics, to the point where a person just awoken from a coma might think President Bush is running for office in 2006. The old adage "all politics are local" has been cast aside, as the Democrats work to take back power by any means necessary. The 2006 election is shaping up to be about the issues facing the country as a whole, and more about the parties themselves than any mid-term election in recent memory. That being the case, we might look at the issues involved in party terms, though individual candidates may vary their positions.
Terrorism: The fight against Islamofascist terrorists and the rogue states that support them is the most important issue we face today. President Bush has not changed his basic stance on this, although it sometimes seems that his recent pressure on Israel to accept a cease fire with Hizballah, and a willingness to negotiate with Iran, indicate a slight drift from the original "Bush Doctrine." The Republicans, for the most part, still favor a proactive national defense. The Democrats, as strongly as they talk about fighting terrorism, speak mainly about responding to terrorist attacks when pressed for details, rather than acting to prevent them from occurring. The Democrats opposed the PATRIOT Act, which merely allowed law enforcement to use the same methods employed against organised crime, serial killers and drug lords against terrorists. They've demanded that the NSA get court warrants before listening in on enemy communications, insisted that terrorists captured on the battlefield fighting against US troops be granted rights and privileges equivalent to those of US citizens, and opposed every move to track down and stop terrorists before they carry out an attack. As an alternate method of fighting terrorism, they offer "working with our allies" -- by which is meant the UN -- to convince terrorists to lay down their arms. The United Nations, unfortunately, is little more than a corrupt forum for terror supporters, and too weak to enforce its own watered-down resolutions. The "wait and negotiate" approach has never prevented a single terrorist attack nor resolved a single crisis, and certainly won't work now.
Iraq: The continuing struggle to help Iraq establish a legitimate government with the ability to protect its own borders is the most divisive issue we face. It's certainly the one about which the Left screams the loudest. The Democrats have been using the difficulty of establishing a representative government while holding off terrorists and Iran-backed insurgents to undermine public support for the President. Most Republicans back the President's refusal to leave before the mission is completed, standing by their 2002 decision to send troops into Iraq to overthrow Saddam's despotic regime. The second the fight began to look tough, Democrats who voted for the war began to reverse their positions, signifying a failure of nerve upon which the enemy can trade... the same way al-Qaeda used the 1993 US pullout from Somalia to inspire more terrorist attacks upon the "paper tiger." Those few Democrats who stood by their vote, like Senator Joe Lieberman (CT), have effectively been excised from the party. Anyone can see that if the US pulls out of Iraq prematurely, Iran and terrorists will dominate the country, using it as a base from which to control the entire Middle East. Yet that is precisely what the Democrats will do if they gain power, by cutting off funding for troops in Iraq or holding other legislation hostage to a troop withdrawal.
Illegal Immigration: Neither Republicans nor Democrats have completely clean hands on this issue. Enough Senate Republicans voted for the McCain-Kennedy bill to pass it. If that bill reaches the President's desk, he will sign it into law. All those who have entered the US illegally will gain amnesty, most becoming citizens with the ability to bring their families here as well. As many as 200 million immigrants could pour over our borders over the next twenty years, ten times more than the current law permits. The only thing preventing the Senate bill from becoming law is the Conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, who are adamantly against its passage. If the Democrats gain control of the House, they will pass that bill.
Economy/Taxes: Lowering taxes and easing government interference with small businesses have resulted in a strong, growing economy, despite the media mischaracterisations. The Gross Domestic Product has grown every single quarter since the fall of 2001. The unemployment rate has declined to less than 5%. Weekly earnings continue to increase, and the stock market, on the whole, has continued to climb. Yet Democrats deride the current economy, based as it is on real corporate growth and earnings, for not matching the growth phase of the unstable "tech bubble" economy that collapsed in 2000. If the Democrats gain control, they will raise taxes, causing businesses to hire fewer workers and investors to pull their money out of the market. The government (at least in a capitalist nation) does not create jobs, but merely sets the conditions under which private industry can do so. Nor does it set gas prices, complaints about which fuel (to make a bad pun) Democratic attacks on the economy. The Democrats claim that they will lower gas prices if elected, and they will -- in a way. If the economy goes into a decline, the high demand for gas will disappear, and gas prices will drop. But is that really the best way to lower prices?
Traditional Values: In the 2004 election, 22% of voters decided which way to vote based on moral values, according to the exit polls, and there's no reason to think Americans have forgotten about them already. This catchall category covers a variety of issues, but it's fairly clear where the parties stand on each. Approving judicial nominations might be seen as part of this category as well. Republicans generally favor originalist judges who understand that their role is to interpret laws and lower court decisions according to the Constitution. The Left favors activist judges who will use their power to change laws and create new interpretations of the Constitution that better suit their agenda, as in the Supreme Court's infamous Kelo v. New London decision. The Democrats generally tolerate abortion for the sake of convenience, are willing to change the traditional definition of marriage to accommodate fringe groups and support the ACLU's campaign to strip religion from public life. Allowing them to take control of Congress would see more legislation designed to undermine traditional American values.
The policies and values espoused by the Democratic party are antithetical to those held by most Americans, and detrimental to the country as a whole. They hope, by relentless complaining and endless misrepresentation, to convince the majority of voters to put them into office. But simply telling us that they'll make everything okay, without offering specifics, isn't good enough. If the Democrats harbor some secret agenda that they think will be better for the country, let them put their cards on the table, instead of blackmailing us into giving them power before they reveal their plans. Unless their ideas are radically different from those they foisted on us in the nineties, Democrats in power would simply lead us in a circle, like mules at a mill. America would end up with a weaker military and a stuttering economy...and still embroiled in a global war against an implacable foe.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-09_cy-2006_m-09_d-03_y-2006_o-0.html
(Printer friendly version) Email: Joe Mariani
