Seattle's daily newspapers are typically one to three days late on certain big out-of-town stories, usually the ones showing the excesses of leftists or anti-Western extremists. Much easier to run another hit piece on Republicans in Congress, the Bush Administration or Israel, cobbled together from among dispatches issued by the usual suspects - such as the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Reuters, or AP.
I hope they get one this one quick, though, which was brought to my attention this a.m. by Sound Politics reader Tom Scott of Richland. In "Hateful Chatter Behind The Veil," The Globe And Mail reported yesterday that a now-decommisioned Web site among several used by wives of the recently-arrested Toronto terrorism suspects, was filled with the wives' harsh Jihadist rhetoric, plus hateful anti-Canada and anti-Semitic bile.
The Globe and Mail:
MISSISSAUGA -- When it came time to write up the premarital agreement between Zakaria Amara and Nada Farooq, Ms. Farooq briefly considered adding a clause that would allow her to ask for a divorce. She said that Mr. Amara (now accused of being a leader of the alleged terror plot that led to the arrests of 17 Muslim men early this month) had to aspire to take part in jihad. "[And] if he ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce," she wrote in one of more than 6,000 Internet postings uncovered by The Globe and Mail. Wives of four of the central figures arrested last month were among the most active on the website, sharing, among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada.....The tightly knit group of women who chatted with each other includes Mariya (the wife of alleged leader Fahim Ahmad), Nada (the wife of Mr. Amara, the alleged right-hand man) Nada's sister Rana (wife of suspect Ahmad Ghany), as well as Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal (the Muslim convert from Cape Breton, N.S. who married the oldest suspect, 43-year-old Qayyum Abdul Jamal). The women's husbands are part of a core group of seven charged with the most severe crimes -- plotting to detonate truck bombs against the Toronto Stock Exchange, a Canadian Forces target, and the Toronto offices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The women were bound by the same social, political and ideological aims. They organized "sisters-only" swimming days and held fundraisers for the notorious al-Qaeda-linked Khadr family.
...Ms. Farooq's hatred for the country is palpable. She hardly ever calls Canada by its name, rather repeatedly referring to it as "this filthy country." It's a sentiment shared by many of her friends, one of whom states that the laws of the country are irrelevant because they are not the laws of God. In late April of 2004, a poster asks the forum members to share their impressions of what makes Canada unique. Nada's answer is straightforward. "Who cares? We hate Canada."...In Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal's mind, every Muslim is another potential victim. As the June, 2004 federal election draws near, she repeatedly advises Muslim youth to completely avoid the process. Voting, she tells them, inherently violates the sovereignty of God, making it the most egregious sin against Islam.
Perhaps if Seattle news consumers are lucky, we will get a warmed over Day Three account after editors first spot coverage in the NYT or WaPo. Meanwhile, among the bold red tickler "new" items added this morning to the "Nation/World" section of Seattle Times' Web site after publication of the dead tree edition are stories headlined: "U.S. soldiers being investigated for killing family in Iraq;" plus "Palestinian leader says Israel is trying to destroy his government;" and "Former NYPD chief Kerik pleads guilty to taking gifts" (he was a Bush cabinet nominee). Other new adds in this section at the time of this posting were about a child fatality at Disneyland, a Mafia trial ruling, and President Bush and Japanese prime minister Koizumi at Graceland.
New stories added online after print publication, like the day's first take on news content, are clearly selected based on the biases of editors. Legitimate breaking stories are quickly added if they contain material that puts the U.S., Bush or Israel in a negative light, but breaking "Nation/World" material highlighting intolerance by Muslims comes late and truncated, if at all. There, my good friends in the MSM, is a great example of how and why your circulation and reputation continue to decline. Balance and speed matter more than ever these days.
UPDATE: Commenter TheHim argues:
How exactly is this big news beyond what has already been all over the traditional media concerning this case? Considering what we already know about these clowns, these details don't provide anything new. We already know these people are nuts. That's not news. The Israeli incursion into Gaza to rescue a kidnapped soldier IS big news, and it should be. Same with the story of the accused U.S. troops...Matt, the job of the news is to provide updates on the major happenings in the world, not to make you feel like everyone else is obsessing over the same things as you....to think that the Seattle Times should be covering this stuff over what's happening in Gaza and Baghdad is silly.
My reply: first, I never stated they should cover this over those other fresh stories added mid-day, which I termed "legitimate," but in addition to them. As to the "no added news value" meme, I do not agree. As this excellent Sunday July 25 Seattle Times op-ed (NOT news article) from the Washington Post notes, the Internet is a crucial component of current Western jihadist strategy.
...the new Al-Qaida...lives on the Internet...The power of the Internet to foment jihad was re-affirmed earlier this month with the arrests of suspected bomb plotters outside Toronto. The suspects reportedly became radicalized through militant Web sites and received online advice from Younis Tsouli, the Britain-based Webmaster for Islamic extremists sites who called himself "Terrorist 007"" before he was arrested late last year.
It is no accident this insight came in the op-ed section rather than the news pages. Guest op-ed contributors (I was a regular one for three years at the Times, yes...) plus some of the syndicated national columnists have always added a political balance to both city dailies that is largely absent in the news sections and staff-written editorials. No previous Seattle Times news articles on the Toronto arrestees which I have found to date, highlights the online jihadist hate networks from which these suspects allegedly drew inspiration. That even their wives should be so far around the bend - as The Globe And Mail detailed yesterday - is serious news indeed, and underscores the growing role of Islamist hate speech on the Internet. But Islamist hate speech as an ideological weapon is not something the news editors at many newspapers want to address in a serious, ongoing manner.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 30, 2006 12:48 PM | Email ThisAs for Seattles Rags, there's a reason their readership is down, and it isn't only because of the internet.
Posted by: Mikey on June 30, 2006 02:03 PMNo. The Times will quote some anonymous "Intellegence" sources who will allege that the Bush Administration has "planted" these conversations in the forums to turn people against the "religion of peace."
The PI will try to suggest that these women were just excersizing their rights as Canadian "residents" and that it would be wrong for us to impose our judgement on them. After all, we are engaged in an unjust war of oppression in Iraq, so who are we go judge anyone?
And you're right about both rags following the direction of the New York Times and Washington Post. They both will guide their coverage to be just to the right of the extremist reporting those two will do, so they can use them to justify their coverage later, with statements like, "hey, we were more moderate than they were."
Posted by: MJC on June 30, 2006 02:44 PMAnd the MSM continues to decline.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 30, 2006 03:48 PMThe Israeli incursion into Gaza to rescue a kidnapped soldier IS big news, and it should be. Same with the story of the accused U.S. troops (I'm sure you understand the potential problems that an accusation of rape against a U.S. soldier in Iraq could cause, and please don't tell me that you believe in the "if the media doesn't report it, it won't happen" nonsense).
Matt, the job of the news is to provide updates on the major happenings in the world, not to make you feel like everyone else is obsessing over the same things as you. I don't always agree with what the media concentrates on either, but to think that the Seattle Times should be covering this stuff over what's happening in Gaza and Baghdad is silly.
Posted by: thehim on June 30, 2006 04:16 PMAnd if enough people start believing John Stossel, Libertarianism can make the cut too.
Posted by: thehim on June 30, 2006 04:52 PMYou may feel free to include Christianity in your list of "goofy" religions...however, I will not attempt to kill you for doing so nor will I demand that you convert to it. THAT is the difference with Islam, which the MSM is intent on ignoring. It is NOT a tolerant religion of "peace" and sites such as the one listed on this post make that fact clear, which is why they are routinely ignored by the NYT, et al.
Posted by: suzihomemaker on June 30, 2006 06:19 PM
The attitudes of these very young Canadian women are bizarre, in the context of free society. The one woman sees no point in education, because it has no importance for the afterlife. She does wish to crank out children to carry out jihad. How many of these people are there, actually? The article mentioned that a number of youngsters frequently visited their website, which featured among other things, beheadings and exhortations to violence.
By the way, Mr. Diamond: Whatcha doing hanging out with us "freaks"? Go find some friends and celebrate the weekend.
Posted by: Peggy U on June 30, 2006 08:53 PMIt shouldn't be criticized for its pathetic social skills, but pitied. Just remember that its repeated visits tells us that it instinctively recognizes the superior intellectual, moral, and ethical considerations expressed here at SoundPolitics. There's hope for ben the dullard-boy yet!
(Come here dullard-boy so we can give you a nuggie or two! ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 1, 2006 07:55 AM"the best solution that I can think of to deal with any newspaper editor, whether it's from the NY Times, LAT, WaPo, or the Wall Street Journal who is responsible for leaking national security classified information, is to be locked in a steel cage with the family members of slain troop members who would happily deliver the ultimate punishment of death. And then sent to the hottest corner of hell."
Now, that's hate speech... And more unamerican, coming, as it does from a benefactor of free speech, than anything any foreign-born Islamist extremist ever said...
Posted by: Playin' Possum on July 1, 2006 10:37 AMAs a follow-up to your post about Denice Denton jumping to her death, did you see that Larry Ellison revoked his $115 million gift to Harvard because he disagreed with the termination of Larry Summers? That's a story that deserves a little more play seeing as Ms. Denton was so instrumental in getting Summers terminated.
Posted by: disgusted on July 1, 2006 12:28 PMYou may feel free to include Christianity in your list of "goofy" religions...however, I will not attempt to kill you for doing so nor will I demand that you convert to it. THAT is the difference with Islam, which the MSM is intent on ignoring. It is NOT a tolerant religion of "peace" and sites such as the one listed on this post make that fact clear, which is why they are routinely ignored by the NYT, et al.
Sorry, Suzi, but that's simply not true. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world do not want to convert people who have a different religion than them. And if you look at countries like Indonesia and Nigeria, you'll find that there's just as much Christian on Muslim violence as there is Muslim on Christian violence. There are intolerant people of all colors and all faiths. The MSM is not ignoring some grand truth about Islam. You believe in fairy tales, and it's not health for yourself or this country.
Posted by: thehim on July 1, 2006 04:43 PMPerhaps so, perhaps no. But the proposition is not likely to get much of a test if the real world is divided into separate universes of discourse--the ladies of jihad in their venom; the Seattle Times in its perfect political correctness; and the political blogs in their quest for ever more scandalous examples of treachery.
How does the disinfectant work here?
Posted by: Tom Rekdal on July 1, 2006 05:11 PMSeattle Times, KING TV, The Weakly, The Stranger, KOMO TV, KIRO AM radio?
Rhetorical question, right? Hehehehehehe, hahahahahahaha.
Posted by: Banshee on July 1, 2006 06:25 PMI'm pretty sure this is a major bellwether for the elections this fall. Any defeatist Democrat candidate really does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in anything less than the absolute bluest cities.
The left has exposed themselves as embracers of the new cultural Marxism that creates class warfare and embracers of defeatism and treason. The left will lose the moderates in their base this election cycle, because most Americans don't hate America, and they certainly wouldn't dream of giving the terrorists more knowledge. Yet that's what the extreme left is doing every day.
Stick a fork in the Democrat chances in November, they are done.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 1, 2006 10:07 PMIf a Christian takes an orthodox position on homosexuality we already know what the outcome is.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46257
Pastor faces hearing over 'anti-gay' letter
It seems like many do? Sorry, that's not exactly convincing. In fact, of the billion or so Muslims in the world, Sharia law only exists in a few isolated places. India has nearly 200 million Muslims and some aspects of Sharia law are actually illegal in that country (the low marriage age for example), yet somehow those 200 million Muslims aren't running roughshod over the rest of the country to convert everyone. Why is that?
If you look at Saudi Arabia, however, there is Sharia Law, but it's imposed by a government that doesn't have to actually follow it. This is the reality of Sharia Law. It's a way for governments and others to assert control, but it doesn't stem from actual religious convictions. If it did, the Saudi royals would follow the rules too, but they don't. It's about controlling people.
The notion of imposing this strict set of rules on people is not rooted anywhere in the Koran. It's just been a mechanism for tyrants to control their populations (and this phenomenon happens in all parts of the world and with all religions). There's nothing unique about Islam when it comes to religious oppression.
Yessir, that's true. But perhaps you (and the MSM) are overlooking an important point: how many Christians in other countries denounce those attacks made by Christians on Muslims (once they are made aware of them). Now compare that to how many Muslims denounce the tactics of Al Qaedi in Iraq, Hamas, and other followers of the "religion of peace." Who is more accepting, in today's world of the global economy and global newsfeeds, of sectarian violence--Christians or Muslims?
I'll bet you know the answer...
I actually do know the answer. The answer is that the amount of people who tend to support sectarian violence exists in greater numbers where the population is desperate and feels it has less to live for. It has nothing to do with what religion people follow. That's why in places like Nigeria and Indonesia, where there are still large areas of Christians in underdeveloped areas, the support for sectarian violence runs fairly equally among Muslims and Christians.
In addition, if the desire for Sharia law is the main motivation for this belief (as you seem to believe), then how come Al-Zarqawi (the previous leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) considered the Iraqi Shiites who wanted to impose Sharia Law to be a greater enemy than the Americans?
It's because religion is not the central focus of why they fight each other. It's about autonomy.
The MSM is, however, choosing to perpetuate the multi-cultural idea that the religions of Christianity and Islam are equal. That's the fairy tale that seems to make the news in this country, and it's not all that healthy.
No one is saying that Christianity and Islam are the same religion. But it's true that the average Muslim on this planet is poorer than the average Christian. However, what is not healthy is believing that Islam is an unhealthy faith that makes it difficult to lead a peaceful life. When you begin to believe this, you begin to look at any Muslim as a potential threat. And when you allow this to become a national mindset, you can lose touch with the reality that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not a threat. And this is what, in turn, increases the amount of terrorism in the world. When the people in power assume that a subclass is essentially a criminal class, many in that criminal class see violence as the only way to change that. This phenomenon happens regardless of race or religion. This is the danger we face right now, and America's future likely depends on whether or not we figure this out.
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 09:54 AMDo you really believe that people don't know that? Do you think there's even a single prominent Democrat who believes that we shouldn't have done anything in response to 9/11? You appear to be living in some imaginary world where instead of having to deal with your political opponents as they are, you have to pretend they're something they're not.
And speaking of hitting back, have we gotten Bin Laden yet? You know, the guy who ACTUALLY HIT US. Or are you going to be dumb enough to argue that somehow invading Iraq was what we needed to do to 'hit back', even though Saddam had absolutely no connection to the attack or to the people who planned the attack? That's precisely what I'm talking about in the post above. The Muslims ruling Iraq in 2001, no matter how screwed up and evil their government was, were not behind September 11. Period.
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 12:32 PMYou are pretty naive. The threat is Fanatical Islam. The main entity involved is Iran. We are not going to stop terrorism by just getting Osama Bin Laden. In case you had not noticed, there are stronholds of Islamic Fanaticism, preaching, funding, sanctioning and organizing terror all over the Middle East. We need to strike at those strongholds, and good Americans realize that it's not just a war on terror, it is a war on fanatical Islam. And it's not an isolated band of bad guys here or there. It's many Theocracies that give all levels of support to terror, so there are governments involved.
Iraq under Saddam was a source of funding, harboring and aiding in the general traffic of terror. While I believe we should have gone to Iran first, Iraq is certainly high on the list of terror causing nations. Deal with it, Iraq was certainly not an ally or a harmless bystanding third world nation in the scheme of global Islamic Fanaticism.
And as far as Democrats, while high ranking Democrats have not specifically denied 9/11, they have condoned behavior and aided their extremist left proxies like Cindy Sheehan in such a way as to convey where there real sympathies lie. Either they actively hate America to the point that they are willing to preach defeatism, cowardice and withdrawal from our military objectives, or they look the other way, while their proxies do the talking. Many are consumed with hatred of President Bush to the point that its far more about trying to bring Bush down, than it is to fighting fanatical Islam.
And, American know the score, because they can see it in the actions of the left every day. Good luck trying to convince America that you are not defeatist losers in the next few months before the election.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2006 01:36 PMIf that's the case, then how come we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq before them? I know very well that the Iranian regime is rooted in radical Islamism, but it was also rooted in radical Islamism in 2001 when it provided assistance for us when we invaded Afghanistan, and it was rooted in radical Islamism when it proposed starting a new dialogue with the western world then over Israel as well. The people of Iran have hated their regime for years now. The problem with looking at Iran as just being a nation of fanatics rather than as a nation being led by fanatics is exactly what I talked about earlier in creating a broad-based criminal class where one does not exist. People will decide that their leaders might be nuts, but they have to support them anyway or else the Americans will invade since the American think Iran a nation of criminals. This is counterproductive foreign policy.
We are not going to stop terrorism by just getting Osama Bin Laden. In case you had not noticed, there are stronholds of Islamic Fanaticism, preaching, funding, sanctioning and organizing terror all over the Middle East.
You're right that just getting Osama Bin Laden is not going to stop terrorism. You're never, ever, in a million years going to stop terrorism. Terrorism is a function of human nature, just as other crimes are. You can only hope to minimize it. Terrorism functions in some ways like a market. People like Bin Laden sell a message that America (or the western world in general) is a force trying to unjustly coerce the Muslim world into subjugation. When that message sells, terrorism increases. When that message sounds ridiculous, terrorism decreases.
We need to strike at those strongholds, and good Americans realize that it's not just a war on terror, it is a war on fanatical Islam. And it's not an isolated band of bad guys here or there. It's many Theocracies that give all levels of support to terror, so there are governments involved.
This is a good point to learn from, though. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda did not have a government sponsor. Palestinian terrorism (which existed before Al Qaeda and does not share most of its goals) does have government sponsors. The problem with what we're doing right now is that we've taken a movement that had no political component and we've forced leaders in the Middle East to begin dealing with it as a political movement. Since then, Somalia has fallen to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan are struggling to deal with it, and countries from Egypt to Jordan to Saudi Arabia are dealing with much higher levels of internal instability as a result of Al Qaeda's ideology becoming a bigger political movement in the Middle East. Al Qaeda is not an isolated band of nutjobs in Afghanistan any more. It has legitimacy now, and it's largely because of what we did in Iraq.
Iraq under Saddam was a source of funding, harboring and aiding in the general traffic of terror.
First of all, his activities were confined to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even though his behavior was inexcusable there, he was well behind Iran and Syria in the level of support he provided. But this also brings up an even better point. If the source of the terrorism (and the actual terrorists) that Saddam was supporting were in the Palestinian territories, then why did we invade Iraq? Shouldn't we have led a military incursion into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip instead to actually dismantle the terrorist cells that have been attacking Israel?
While I believe we should have gone to Iran first, Iraq is certainly high on the list of terror causing nations. Deal with it, Iraq was certainly not an ally or a harmless bystanding third world nation in the scheme of global Islamic Fanaticism.
Actually, that's not true at all. Saddam spent much of his reign cracking down on radical Islamists. Many religious ceremonies were banned in Iraq and groups like Al Qaeda were illegal. He saw them as a threat to stability. He never saw Palestinian terrorism as being a religious cause (even though many others do). He supported them because he felt threatened militarily by Israel.
And as far as Democrats, while high ranking Democrats have not specifically denied 9/11, they have condoned behavior and aided their extremist left proxies like Cindy Sheehan in such a way as to convey where there real sympathies lie.
Denied 9/11? What planet do you live on? I've heard of people out there who believe in some crazy conspiracy theories about 9/11, but they're well outside of the mainstream and they're laughed at by every Democrat I know. I personally disagree with a lot of things that Cindy Sheehan says, but I recognize that many people emotionally identify with her loss. But if you think that Democrats are behind her in an intellectual way, you're kidding yourself. She hates the Democrats in Congress and is not afraid to say so. Most people on the left today recognize that even somewhat more hawkish people like Joe Biden, John Murtha, Chuck Hagel, Richard Clarke, Jim Webb, and Brent Scowcroft have a very firm understanding of what's going on with our foreign policy. Cindy Sheehan is not an expert, and not too many people mistake her for one.
Either they actively hate America to the point that they are willing to preach defeatism, cowardice and withdrawal from our military objectives, or they look the other way, while their proxies do the talking.
Let me explain something that really needs to be said here. Starting a war when you know that you don't have to fight it and that you won't even have to lift a finger in support of it is every bit a sign of cowardice as running from a fight that's necessary. Right now, Iraq is an absolute smoldering disaster. There's no real nice way to categorize it any more. There are 11 different major Sunni insurgency groups. Many towns throughout the country have fallen under the control of far more radical Islamic rule than what existed under Saddam's rule. This isn't spin. This isn't Dan Rather trying to ruin your day. This is reality. And when people like you want to stop sucking your thumb and screaming about how great America is instead of actually coming up with ways to deal with this giant problem, then I'll take you seriously when you whimper on about defeatism and other nonsense you don't know shit about.
Many are consumed with hatred of President Bush to the point that its far more about trying to bring Bush down, than it is to fighting fanatical Islam.
Do you not understand what's happened over the past few years? Fanatical Islam is not going down. It's flourishing. It's flourishing at a rate that's never been seen in modern times. The invasion of Iraq has been a major reason why it's happening. As I mentioned earlier, terrorism works in many ways like a market. It is basically something that people like Osama Bin Laden sell. If Bin Laden's message that America is an evil hegemon bent on subjugating its will on the Middle East sells, then terrorism goes up. And nothing has done more to sell Bin Laden's message than the fact that we invaded Iraq based upon lies about Saddam's complicity in 9/11. Bush has become Osama Bin Laden's marketing department. This is not defeatism. This is reality. And the sooner we deal with this reality, the sooner we'll be able to reverse the trend.
And, American know the score, because they can see it in the actions of the left every day. Good luck trying to convince America that you are not defeatist losers in the next few months before the election.
People like me actually are having good luck doing it. Bush's approval ratings are stuck in the 30% and for the first time in a while, more people identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. This stuff is not hard to figure out. It just requires that you grow up and stop thinking that everyone who knows more than you about the Middle East is just some America-hating defeatist.
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 03:27 PMOh really! Which point do you want to challenge first?
I.e. your assertion that Bush said Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. Perhaps a small point, buried in the middle of your diatribe, but factually untrue.
If you read my post carefully, I did not say that Bush said it. It was actually Cheney who said it. You can read more about that here. In addition, I don't think it's a bizarre coincidence that 90% of our troops in Iraq still believe that they are there because of 9/11. You can see that here.
And of course, you are unable to speak without foul language. Another left chacteristic. Nice try at some arrogant, condescending spin, but no buyers.
If you go back and look at the post before, I was called naive. It was insinuated that I don't love my country and that I was preaching defeatism in the war on terror. I'm sorry, but that kind of nonsense does get my blood boiling, and for good reason. I'm a very proud American patriot, and one with little patience for people who believe in slogans and fairy tales simply because they don't have the courage to admit that they supported a huge mistake. I've studied the Middle East and its history for over a decade now. It's time for you and many of the others around here to grow up and start being serious about the problems we face in Iraq right now. American dominance and the comfortable lives we've created for ourselves here are very much at stake, and I don't see the necessary things happening in order for us to maintain that.
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 04:11 PMI don't think it's a bizarre coincidence that 90% of our troops in Iraq still believe that they are there because of 9/11
I don't think it's a bizarre coincidence that 90% of our troops in Iraq still believe that they are there because of Saddam's role in 9/11
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 04:13 PMThe left has not come up with any viable solutions to completing the job in Iraq or about illegal immigration, the lead that the Democrats had over Republicans for the midterm elections is quickly withering away. The leftwing propaganda machine had better get an infusion of new material or better yet a new campaign platform, or the results will be similar to the last two election cycles.
Posted by: KS on July 2, 2006 09:52 PMActually, if you look at the trending of the polls, Katrina was probably the biggest factor in his decline. But yeah, those other factors are also playing a role, as well as Iraq. My problem with the Bush Administration is certainly not confined to Iraq either. I'm more upset about the general laziness and irresponsibility, which is seen on a wide range of issues, including immigration.
The later is responsible for losing a fair part of his conservative base. Iraq is what lowered his ratings initially, but recently that has not changed his approval ratings, in fact when Al-Zarqawi was killed - his rating received a small bump upward.
He's been losing his conservative base for a while. The immigration issue has been horrible for them. As Texas governor, he actually understood this issue well. But after 9/11, he became stuck between his true keepers (Wall Street) and the people who find the presence of 11 million undocumented workers a threat. When Republicans begin to understand that the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party always trumps the other constituencies, maybe something will actually happen. But until then, that wing likes cheap labor.
The left has not come up with any viable solutions to completing the job in Iraq or about illegal immigration, the lead that the Democrats had over Republicans for the midterm elections is quickly withering away.
I would love to see a more unified statement from Democrats on either issue too, but certain individual Democrats have spoken up about the situation in Iraq and provided some strategies. The problem is, there really aren't any glamorous winning strategies at this point. Mainly, we have to just come up with a plan to leave Iraq in a state where there can be rule of law and the violence does not spread throughout the region. I believe the longer we stay there without a timetable, the more difficult this is likely to become. I'd like to see Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel put in charge of developing a realistic strategy that could allow us to have bipartisan support for a strategy to achieve stability over there. I'd trust both of them to put politics aside and do what's best for the country. But that's never going to happen. The Bush Administration seems unwilling or unable to do anything about this problem except attack the people who keep pointing out how big a problem it is.
The leftwing propaganda machine had better get an infusion of new material or better yet a new campaign platform, or the results will be similar to the last two election cycles.
If there's one thing that the Republicans can be happy about is that very little has changed about how Democrats campaign since Al Gore intentionally ran as a cardboard cutout in 2000 and John Kerry acted like a deer in the headlights every time he was asked about the war.
Posted by: thehim on July 2, 2006 10:29 PM