The Debate Democrats Can’t Have

[UpstateSCHokie]

Its pretty clear that the latest terrorist attack provides proof positive that democrats do not want to do anything to actually address radical Islam. All they care about is their agenda of disarming law abiding citizens and raising our taxes (both agenda items curtain freedom) in the name of some god-forsaken "climate change" nonsense. They are fine with using terror attacks (or any other tragedy) to advance their agenda, but they have no interest in slowing down immigration (legal or illegal) and they have no interest in putting tougher measures in place to screen the terrorist refugees. They are a poison to our society.

=================================

The Debate Democrats Can’t Have
Noah Rothman / Dec. 16, 2015

The over 18 million Americans who tuned to CNN on Tuesday night for the first Republican presidential debate since the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino might have been pleasantly surprised. American anxieties over the threat of radical Islamic terrorism are nearing or surpassing their immediate post-9/11 peaks, and those who turned on the news to hear a substantive debate over the near-and long-term security challenges facing the nation were privy to one. For Democrats, this has proven frustrating. Theirs is a party that cannot have a serious debate over matters related to national security without condemning their party’s leader and his brand of crisis management and, thus, jeopardizing its own electoral viability in the process.

Debate watchers who hoped to witness some of the frivolous internecine aggression that typified past GOP primary contests were disappointed. The Republican presidential candidates sparred over the threat posed by the Islamic State, both on the home front and overseas. They scuffled over the smartest and most effective strategic approach to combating the terrorist network on its home turf in Iraq and Syria. They argued over how best to contain a resurgent Moscow, and how to respond to incursions into NATO operating space inside Syria by Russian warplanes. They deliberated over privacy rights, communications monitoring programs, regime change, nuclear force posturing, Chinese revisionism, Iranian terrorism sponsorship, and the human cost of war. What’s more, a wide range of opinions were reflected in the candidates’ positions on those issues, and virtually every segment of the Republican Party’s coalition was represented competently.

Just imagine Democratic jealousy.

For those on the left, scorn and derision have become the weapon of first resort when they find their preferred messaging overtaken by events. Asked recently for a comment on Gallup polling that found Americans now have less confidence in their government’s ability to keep them safe than at any point since 2001, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest dismissed the findings. “Gallup predicted Mitt Romney would be president,” he replied. Translation: Terrorism fears are the exclusive province of fevered Republican imaginations, and you should be more careful about the characters with which you associate yourself.

The response to the GOP field’s handling of national defense issues on the debate stage has followed the same script. “You know, I used to love Abbott and Costello,” said the billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Wednesday while introducing Hillary Clinton. “Vaudeville was never this good.” Clinton laughed and then promptly promised to raise Buffett’s taxes.

When Democrats are not engaging in exaggerated displays of feigned amusement in order to discredit their Republican foes, they are castigating them for not indulging their preferred preoccupations. “omehow, over the course of four hours of Republican debates on Tuesday night, CNN never asked the candidates about the climate deal,” wrote a shocked Jeremy Schulman at Mother Jones. “The moderators never even bothered to ask about climate change at all.” “[N]ot once did the Republican presidential candidates address the issue of gun control in Tuesday’s GOP debate,” The Huffington Post’s hyperventilating Brian Hanley wrote. “Not once did they hold themselves accountable for enabling domestic acts of terrorism by doing absolutely nothing about gun control.” Perhaps instead of a debate, this campaign reporter would have preferred to see the candidates collectively self-immolate.

“Like the first, not one word about income inequality, climate change, or racial justice,” said the self-described socialist running for the Democratic presidential nomination. “The [Republicans] are out of touch.” And Bernie Sanders knows “out of touch” better than anyone.

This response from the left to incidents of terroristic violence directed or inspired by ideologues overseas can only lead us to one lamentable conclusion: Democrats really have convinced themselves that the distractions they raise in order to obscure the national security debate really are genuine defense policy issues. Someone should disabuse the party’s grassroots partisans of this delusion.

According to a Pew Research Center study, issues like an Iranian or North Korean nuclear program, Chinese aggression, ISIS, and Russian authoritarianism all generated similar levels of concern among Americans concerned by the threat. On Climate change, however, only 22 percent of Republican respondents labeled the issue a “threat to the well-being” of the United States. 73 percent of Democrats agreed with that characterization. Another Pew study from January of last year found that 54 percent of Democrats rated “dealing with global warming” as their top priority, compared with 39 percent of independent and 15 percent of Republican respondents.

As for gun control, support for stricter measures to reduce Americans’ access to firearms has been declining at virtually the same pace as gun violence. Yes, contrary to the conclusion one might logically draw from saturation mass media coverage of gun violence in suburban communities, gun homicides in the United States are for the most part on a downward trajectory and have been since the early 1990s. For the first time in 20 years of polling, the New York Times published a survey this month that found a majority oppose a ban on “assault weapons.” Many Democrats do honestly believe that the difference between gun crime and terrorism is a distinction without a difference. This is a category error of the first order.

Not every shooting or hostage crisis is inspired by an ideology. It is hard to find an example of an explosives attack on civilians that is not designed to spread panic for the political benefit of an organization with a clearly defined ideological self-conception. “Terrorism” has a definition, one that is distinguished from “criminality.” Crime cannot be permanently defeated and discredited, but ideologies can. Furthermore, the Democratic impulse to respond to a murderous threat from overseas by curtailing American rights at home is the same impulse for which they scold fearful conservatives who embrace shutting the doors on prospective Muslim immigrants. These are two sides of the same coin, and it is a testament to the left’s myopia that they do not recognize that.

It is perhaps understandable that Democrats, from commentators to presidential candidates, all want to focus on anything other than the threats to national security presented by radical Islamic terrorism. The president’s record on the issue makes even talking about this menace a fraught prospect. That cannot continue forever. On Saturday night, when you’re conveniently busy, the Democratic candidates for president will gather for another debate where the aftermath of the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino is sure to be the central focus. Expect to hear the three remaining candidates spend a lot of time shaking their fists at the weather.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/terr ... cant-have/

[HvilleHokie]

I find the reaction to mass shootings interesting. The reaction is very much based on the religion/ethnicity of the shooters.

If the person is a Muslim, the right screams "this will not stand! We must root out all the evil behind this by spending billions of dollars and bombing people!"

If the person is white, the left screams "this will not stand! We need gun control!"


It's the same overaction on both sides, but both sides blame each other for it.

[VisorBoy]

I find the reaction to mass shootings interesting. The reaction is very much based on the religion/ethnicity of the shooters.

If the person is a Muslim, the right screams "this will not stand! We must root out all the evil behind this by spending billions of dollars and bombing people!"

If the person is white, the left screams "this will not stand! We need gun control!"


It's the same overaction on both sides, but both sides blame each other for it.

Sure, it's human nature to publicize events that support one's opinions and diminish or explain away events that don't. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we're all humans.

The ideal citizen is the one who can critically assess her positions based on new information.

[VoiceOfReason]

I find the reaction to mass shootings interesting. The reaction is very much based on the religion/ethnicity of the shooters.

If the person is a Muslim, the right screams "this will not stand! We must root out all the evil behind this by spending billions of dollars and bombing people!"

If the person is white, the left screams "this will not stand! We need gun control!"


It's the same overaction on both sides, but both sides blame each other for it.

Sure, it's human nature to publicize events that support one's opinions and diminish or explain away events that don't. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we're all humans.

The ideal citizen is the one who can critically assess her positions based on new information.

Good points Hville and Visor. I hadn't thought of it in those terms... but it sure seems that way, doesn't it.

I will take it one step further. As I watch the GOP debates... the level of blame for everything in the world directed at Obama and Ms. Clinton is beyond ridiculous. What an incredible juxtaposition... Congress does nothing for 7 years, but the President and Secretary of State (but conveniently no other department directors) had the time to be responsible for ruining the economy, creating instability in the Middle East, making Americans feel unsafe and scared, ruining our military, having a joke of a foreign policy so that everyone disrespects us, etc. I'm surprised they are not accused of creating HIV and getting all Southerners fat

Of course, the Dems did the EXACT same thing in 2008 with Dubya. In fact, it was pretty much a cut and paste. The Dems accused Dubya of ruining the economy, creating instability in the Middle East, making Americans feel unsafe and scared, ruining our military, having a joke of a foreign policy so that everyone disrespects us, etc. Plus ballooning the deficit... oh yeah, Obama has done that too... I guess the GOP will get back to that at some point!

Funny how the scare and smear playbook is pretty much the same on both sides. Do elections these days just come down what flavor you like your Kool-Aid?

[VisorBoy]

I find the reaction to mass shootings interesting. The reaction is very much based on the religion/ethnicity of the shooters.

If the person is a Muslim, the right screams "this will not stand! We must root out all the evil behind this by spending billions of dollars and bombing people!"

If the person is white, the left screams "this will not stand! We need gun control!"


It's the same overaction on both sides, but both sides blame each other for it.

Sure, it's human nature to publicize events that support one's opinions and diminish or explain away events that don't. Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on, we're all humans.

The ideal citizen is the one who can critically assess her positions based on new information.

Good points Hville and Visor. I hadn't thought of it in those terms... but it sure seems that way, doesn't it.

I will take it one step further. As I watch the GOP debates... the level of blame for everything in the world directed at Obama and Ms. Clinton is beyond ridiculous. What an incredible juxtaposition... Congress does nothing for 7 years, but the President and Secretary of State (but conveniently no other department directors) had the time to be responsible for ruining the economy, creating instability in the Middle East, making Americans feel unsafe and scared, ruining our military, having a joke of a foreign policy so that everyone disrespects us, etc. I'm surprised they are not accused of creating HIV and getting all Southerners fat

Of course, the Dems did the EXACT same thing in 2008 with Dubya. In fact, it was pretty much a cut and paste. The Dems accused Dubya of ruining the economy, creating instability in the Middle East, making Americans feel unsafe and scared, ruining our military, having a joke of a foreign policy so that everyone disrespects us, etc. Plus ballooning the deficit... oh yeah, Obama has done that too... I guess the GOP will get back to that at some point!

Funny how the scare and smear playbook is pretty much the same on both sides. Do elections these days just come down what flavor you like your Kool-Aid?

Yeah, and unless you're a Super-Pres (Cinton, Reagan, etc), it's difficult to survive 8 years without at least 30-40% of the country wanting to move on past you.

[HokieJoe]

In most cases, these shootings are the by-product of a diseased mind. When Muslim's are involved, I think lunacy is one contributing factor. The other factor is a familiar ideology. That's the proverbial elephant in the room, that most people with a lick of common sense see being glossed over by many pols. I've heard the reasoning behind it and find it hopelessly stupid.

[awesome guy]

In most cases, these shootings are the by-product of a diseased mind. When Muslim's are involved, I think lunacy is one contributing factor. The other factor is a familiar ideology. That's the proverbial elephant in the room, that most people with a lick of common sense see being glossed over by many pols. I've heard the reasoning behind it and find it hopelessly stupid.

That's a typical VOR canard. We have the same response for white muslims. Like that white guy from SF who became the Al Qaeda spokesman and got destroyed by drone, no one was weeping for him. It's like Churchill said, putting Islam in a human is like putting rabies into a dog. Race isn't the issue, claiming racism is just a crutch for the weak minded.

[VoiceOfReason]

Yeah, and unless you're a Super-Pres (Cinton, Reagan, etc), it's difficult to survive 8 years without at least 30-40% of the country wanting to move on past you.

True. Heck... these days we are so polarized that 50% of the country wants you gone on Election Day. I have no doubt that will be the case in 2016 regardless of who wins.