News from the DLC Annual Gathering
Generally speaking, I’m a fairly happy conservative Republican at the moment. A lot of big decisions are going my way (school choice, partial birth abortion, etc.) the one vote majority Harry Reid has in the Senate emasculates him, not that he needed much help in that regard, and ensures very little of the lunacy Nancy Pelosi pushes through the House will survive. That which does survive, if it is odious such as the Iraq War supplemental, can be vetoed with a mathematical certainty that the veto will be sustained.
While Mark Twain observed that no man’s life, liberty, or property was secure so long as the Congress was in session, he’d never really experienced a gridlock driven by a combination of ideology and people who loathe one another.
Unlike some of my colleagues at Redstate I don’t see the Iraq War as Armageddon for my party in 2008 because I am convinced that it will be different then than it is now and the vision put forth by Pelosi, Reid, and Jack Murtha is simply unpalatable to most Americans.
While I think the Senate remains lost to us in 2008, I think the demographics of gerrymandering will regain us the House (does anyone think Tom DeLay’s old district is going to keep Nick Lampson?) and depending on the candidates we have at least a 50-50 chance of keeping the White House.
Sometimes though I read things that scare me. Ironically Martin O’Malley did that this week.
Keep reading below the fold.
According to Politico, the annual gathering of the Democratic Leadership Council in Nashville was more cautionary than celebratory.
Many of these politicians warned Monday that Democrats risk blowing their chance to regain the presidency in 2008, and failing to win a long-term majority, if they present a face to the public that is too angry in tone. They also warned that, despite the broad unpopularity of the Iraq war, there is a risk that candidates will position the party as insufficiently committed to protecting national security if they push for too precipitous an end to the war.
Among them was our own Governor O’Malley
Moderates argued that Democrats should unite to draw down troops, rather than offer what they saw as empty pledges to implement a full pullout.
“Understand: We are not leaving Iraq,” Schweitzer said, adding that there will be a need for tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to ensure stability for some years. “We’re not leaving as long as we are dependent on that oil,” he repeated.
In a panel discussion, Maryland’s O’Malley said that “the biggest strategic mistake we made four years ago was downplaying global security, domestic security.”
“I think our party has been running away from security and national security for a couple of decades,” O’Malley added. “We need to become again the party of security.”
Most succinct was Tennessee governor Phil Bredenson:
Bredesen said he could define Republicans in fewer than 25 words: a traditional view of the family, the centrality of faith, low taxes and an assertive and combative view of American interests. But, he followed, “I challenge you to describe what the Democratic Party stands for in 25 words. You can’t do it.”
Read my writing here and at RedState and you will see that I’m completely on board with 99% of what these folks are saying. I don’t trust the Dems on national security. I do know that they will raise my taxes. I do know they are unabashedly hostile to the notion of the traditional family and to any view of faith that is more than social work.
The fact that they know this is scary because it implies they could do something about it and proceed to carve off large chunks of the rather tenuous coaltion that Ronald Reagan assembled in 1980. The saving grace is that we look at the direction Phil Bredenson went in Tennessee and the direction O’Malley is going in Maryland and we can see they will not act on this knowledge.