The Party of Treason and Sedition
I'm sure our history buffs recognize that. That was what the Dems were called during the Civil War. Deservedly. After many outrageous acts and votes against the Union and anti-slavery types, they picked a would-be Ceasar (General McClellan) to be their candidate in 1864. Honest Abe trounced him.
They've misread Vietnam and taken exactly the WRONG lessons from it. The US involvement in that war started in 1954 under Ike, but it was pretty small. It took Johnson, elected in an emotional rush following Kennedy's assassination, to make it VIETNAM. He was so popular at the end of his term, he chose not to run, knowing he would lose to a dog if the Republicans ran one. The Dems, starting their wartime slide to the left, ran Humphrey. The Republicans ran Nixon and won. In 1972 the Dem Party was totally controlled by its radical left fringe (sound like now?) and ran McGovern, who won only Massassachusetts (what would you expect?) and DC (again, what would you expect?) and lost badly to Nixon, who won everything else.
Their unrealistic leftwing tendencies were still around in 1976 when they won, the Vietnam War having been ended by the Republican Nixon. Carter was a major national disaster and embarrassment and lost badly to Reagan.
And now it appears that they have learned nothing. They will likely throw out their only chance at winning (Lieberman) tomorrow, pick some far left nutcase like Hillary or Dean, and get trounced.
They simply seem incapable of understanding wartime politics. They always want to surrender or just pull out (same thing) and ignore the fact that wars can unite populations like nothing else. In Lebanon, people who hated Hezbollah now back it. In Israel, the left is moribund and the only politicians who dare open their mouths support Israel's war.
When will they ever learn? |
