Congratulations: Another Almost Victory For Democrats!

Congratulations to the Democrats for almost winning Duke Cunninghams abandoned California House seat.  As has become the custom in recent years, Democrats are celebrating the symbolism of near victory (i.e. losing) rather than the actual victory.

Republican Brian Bilbray defeated Democrat Francine Busby to capture the Republican-held seat that was open due to Cunninghams scandal and criminal corruption.  Democrats are suggesting that because they almost won, it is a good sign for this November's national elections.  Come on!  Cunningham was sobbing uncontrollably as he announced his shame.  What makes for better campaign material than that?

Is it a good start for a party, who's election year mantra is running against the 'culture of corruption', to lose the the most scandal-ridden Republican held seat in the country?

According to Reuters, "Democrats said the narrow margin of victory showed their message of change could be effective in November's midterm elections."  Since it's not a message against corruption, but now the empty and perpetual message of "change", then why still didn't it work here?  If Busby had defeated Bilbray, you can bet your bottom dollar that Nancy Pelosi and the DNC propoganda machine would have been all over the 'culture of corruption' angle, that their victory would have represented the frustration of America with corrupt Republicans.  But instead, the American people are almost ready for the Democrat trademark of "message of change". Whatever that means.

I've stated before that Democrat success is in direct correlation to George W. Bush's failures, real or percieved.  Reuters' Political Correspondent John Whitesides validates this by saying "plunging approval ratings for Bush and the Republican-led Congress have fueled Democratic hopes for big gains."

So, once again, the Democrats aren't going to try to convince us that they know what they are doing.  They only need to convince us that George Bush and the Republicans don't.  White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed this idea:  "I think a lot of critics were hoping this would be a kind of a bellwether so they could say the Republican Party and the president are in peril and their hopes were clearly frustrated." 

Democrats hopes lie with Bush/Republican failure.  Follow the logic and one should conclude that  successful momentum in Iraq and the Middle East is a direct threat to the Democrats success this November.  Do Democrats want to see Iraq stabilize in the next few months?  Iraqi security forces mature into self-command?  Do they really want Osama bin Laden captured/killed ASAP?

Any of these events would be wonderful things for the country.  But since Democrats have staked out the noble 'cut & run' notion of victory and have embedded themselves in mixed messages and anti-military rhetoric, how can these potentially great achievements benefit them in any way?  What slogan do they run on then?  "Hey, we were wrong about these things but aren't they great things to be wrong about?"

I want to be sure that the Democrats don't suffer from any more mixed messages.  Their campaign platform of running on the "hopes" that Bush and the Republicans fail is akin to running on the hopes of setbacks in the war on terror.  When a party consistently stakes out positions that are potential propoganda for the enemy, that party must eventually be asked:  what is more important?  Winning at war or winning at elections? 

Because, to the DNC, the two are mutually exlusive.  If Democrats manage to take control of Congress this fall, then we will know that the war against terrorists is truly lost.

Start Chatting

3

0

!

Back To Top