Last night I spoke in Prescott to more than 100 Republican activists at the annual Yavapai County Trunk ‘n’ Tusk 4th of July fundraising dinner. I was asked to speak on the topic of “Independence” – here is part of what I said:
“Our independence was won by our willingness to take up arms in defense of our freedom, and it will only be maintained by a strong commitment to our national defense. Freedom is not free, and our young men and women in the military continue to pay the price for our freedoms….
In the 20th century we confronted and defeated the Nazis and Japanese imperialists in a hot war….
Ronald Reagan led us successfully to victory in the Cold War – by standing up to the Soviet threat … by promoting peace through strength….
Today our continued freedom and independence is threatened again, this time by radical Islamic terrorists who are spreading hateful ideas throughout the globe and by declaring war on the west, most especially the United States….
As if we needed a reminder of the threats we face, we received word this morning about huge car bombs discovered in London – thankfully they were defused.
But think about the timing of this attack on London – the day after Tony Blair, an unflinching opponent of radical Islam, a supporter of our efforts to destroy Al Qaida, just a day after he leaves office. Make no mistake, Al Qaida will test the resolve of every new leader of western democracies, and really, the resolve of our people to stand up against them – they knew how Tony Blair would have responded, and so they waited.
That tells me that our point of greatest vulnerability as a nation is the day after President Bush leaves office.
So let me issue this challenge right now — if you are discouraged, if you have given any thought to backing away from the political arena, of sitting out this next election cycle, I plead with you to dismiss that option – our lives, our security, our prosperity are all on the line in this next election
It is absolutely vital that we elect a president of the United States who “gets it” when it comes to our national defense and the threat posed by radical Islam.”
Of course this morning there was an attack at an airport in Glasgow, Scotland. I am continually astounded at the leaders of the Democratic Party, who seem not to understand that we are still at war.
If you are angry at the Republican Party for not reining in pork barrel spending, political corruption and failing to secure our borders, you should be. But please don’t let that be a reason to jeopardize our safety and security by putting in power those who would appease radicals who are bent on our destruction.
Mr. Munsil,
I continually hear this admonition that despite their “wavering’ from traditional Republican conservatism, party members should stay the course and not abandon the “system”. I am not certain that I buy into the basic assumption that fear of the Democrats being in charge trumps one’s personal decision to retain their personal integrity and no longer support those who have demostrated a disdain for party fundamentals.
I think the point has been reached by many traditional conservatives to simply disassociate with the political system as it exists in America at the current time. Who can blame them? We survived Jimmy Carter and 2 terms of Bill Clinton, and a total meltdown from the current administration. I think we are capable of enduring another similar stint while the GOP gets their act together. If they even can.
Comes down to individual responsibility which is a defining trait of American conservatism. Many will choose to take a personal, individually reasoned stand rather than have their fingerprints found on the compromise that ultimately leads to the destruction of the America we grew up in.
As Franklin said ” Well done is better than well said”. Let the political partys demonstrate they are worthy of any support from mainstreet America. Then perhaps many will return to the oft demanded “civic responsibility” of actively participating in the sewer of American politics.
RDH,
I understand what you are saying, but it fails to take into consideration Len’s point: if Republicans leave the party over its many (albeit some imagined) flaws, we will be stuck with the Democrats who we cannot trust to keep our nation secure.
Almost six years in the United States without another terrorist attack is a truly astounding thing, and it can be credited to the leadership of George W. Bush. I know, many will say that security is irrelevent if civil liberties are trampled in its quest. To those who make such an accusation, denouncing the Patriot Act and other such tools, I would challenge them to demonstrate one innocent American simply minding his own business whose rights have been denied. Those at Guantanamo are not there because they are simlpy trying to live the American dream.
Len’s point remains: we are at war with those who want to destroy the Western way of life and kill all who don’t bow to their ideal. We have two alternatives: the Republicans who have demonstrated a commitment to protecting America or the Demcorats who have done everything they can to politicize the war on terror, even going so far as to state that there is no war on terror (see John Edwards). Frankly, my family and loved ones are too important to me to abandon the Republican Party and sit this one out.
As a loyal Democrat — who is enough of a political junkie that I am a regular reader of this column and many others that espouse views different from my own — I hate to think of you, or anyone, shivering in your boots at the terrifying thought of Democrats running the country in a time of war. Be comforted. We won WWII in less time than we’ve been slogging in circles in Iraq. With Democrats at the helm — and in the trenches. (Remember, our current leaders have never seen a battlefield.)
And what John Edwards meant by calling the war on terror “a bumper sticker” has been (predictably, and understandably) distorted by the media in general and conservative media in particular. I’m sure we all agree that we live in dangerous times. But what he meant is, to have a war “on terror” is too vague to be any use. You can’t declare war on an emotion. You also can’t declare war on a tactic. What we have fallen into the habit of calling “terrorism” is a tactic as old as mankind, and is always the resort of the weaker side. If you can’t prevail militarily, this sort of potshot, low-blow garbage is what you do.
I repeat: terrorism is always the tactic of the WEAKER side. That doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, and sometimes it even succeeds. BUT. Anyone who has seen the pictures of London in ruins due to Hitler’s attacks, and who recalls the unwavering spirit of the Britons under that terrible siege, will not fear that these stumblebums who can’t even blow up a car properly are going to prevail. As Pat Buchanan said, “We defeated Adolf Hitler. Who are we up against today? The shoe bomber. Get a grip.”
I look forward to a spirited debate! Let’s fill up Len’s blog with comments and show him that we’re reading it!
Auntie — I’m delighted to have a Democratic reader, particularly an obviously rational and intelligent debater.
I completely agree, and have long argued, that we are not in a war on terror, which is indeed a tactic. And I agree it is the tactic of the weaker side. We are in a war against radical Islam — not because we sought it, but because they declared it on us.
And when you look at the growth of radical Islam it becomes clear that a monumental clash of civilizations is coming. That clash will be between those of us in the west who believe in freedom and democracy, and those in radical Islam who believe we should all be under Sharia law. I would encourage you to read “Londonistan” and “America Alone” if you have any illusions about the severity of the threat we face.
What I see from Democrats whenever we face a threat is apologies and appeasement. At the Democratic debate every problem in the world was blamed on the United States.
Roosevelt was unwilling to come to the defense of Europe until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And Democrats got us into the “slog” of Vietnam. So be careful when you claim superiority for Democrats in war management or experience.
Republicans have several candidates, including Sen. McCain, who have military experience. Duncan Hunter’s son has done two tours in Iraq.
But ultimately it is not about whether you served, but what you believe about America’s military. Democrats often seem embarrassed by our military might, and focus their attention on undermining and critiquing the excesses of war, rather than celebrating the sacrifice and valor of our fighting men and women.
And yes, I will be very concerned for our nation if a woefully naive, unprepared Democrat like Barrack Obama or John Edwards is in office when the next attack comes.
Auntie,
I agree that it was Democrats like Roosevelt and Truman who won WWII. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is no longer governed by the can do spirit that was so characteristic of these leaders. Instead, modern Democrats ascribe to a defeatist mentality, and their party is governed not by reasonable people who are willing to make difficult decisions to defend the nation, but by the far anti-war left (Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, etc). Now, you will say that Sheehan and Moore do not direct the party, but I fail to see anyone within the Democratic Party calling these whack-jobs to task. Where were the Democrat leaders when Michael Moore produced the treasonous film Fahrenheit 9-11? Where were the Democrats when Cindy Sheehan treasonously apologized to those against whom we are waging war? As long as the Democratic Party allows such folks to be their mouthpiece, the American people will rightly decide that they are not the ones to protect us in a time of war. While I would have been comfortable with a Democrat leading America in a time of war 60 years ago, not anymore.
You prove my point with your defense of Edwards’ calling the war on terror a bumper sticker. While the Democrats readily criticize Bush’s war on terror, their only “contribution” to the war is to wrangle about phraseology and whether one can really fight something called terrorism. If the Democrats have a plan, let them speak up and share it with the American people. Until then, most Americans will continue to trust the Republicans when it comes to fighting terrorism.
I agree Auntie, let’s fill this blog up with comments! I will, however, be without the internet for the next week, so until then, happy blogging!
I agree with much of what you said. I wasn’t trying to claim military superiority for Democrats; I was just trying to comfort those who seem genuinely worried that a multilateral approach leads to appeasement.
When you are the world’s sole remaining superpower, you do have an extraordinary degree of responsiblity for the way things are in the world. Or at least you have, or should feel, a certain burden of leadership — leadership and patriotism which, as John Edwards declares, ought to be about more than war. I think that the liberal anxiety — which I share — that the more enemies we make the less safe we are, may easily be misconstrued as “blaming America.” We love and are proud of our country. But ….
… aha, I see that’s all I need to say. That “but” has all of you shaking your heads already! I’m guessing it’s the “but” that Democrats tend to stick at the end of our declarations of patriotism that makes Republicans suspicious. Am I right?
Although somewhat off the mark of what Mr. Munsil started this thread with, the discussion brings out a very salient point, and that is where are America’s leaders? Not simply those who have the “machine” behind them, but the ones who have a vision that mainstreet America shares, and the leadership traits to make that vision a reality.
Although I tend to be viscerally opposed to many of the Progressive’s socio/political views, even I would listen and perhaps support someone from that camp who was capable of articulating an acceptable “vision” for America that did not go counter to all I have cherished in my 64 years. Although that possibility may seem an oxymoron in the present theater of politics, anything is possible.
In my view the current reality is that the 2 parties are locked into a competition that seems more like some athletic game, where one simply must dominate and prevail over their adversary, rather than act as elected representatives of their constituents. In taking this approach, they have collectively marginalized the trust, confidence, and admiration that used to be a hallmark of political public service. Now they (politicians) have positioned themselves in the same realm as athletes, with unique, limited talents, a small selective group of personal and adoring fans,vast amounts of percs and financial rewards, and an ascending star that will shine only as long as they are at the top of their game.
How are we to support the continuation of such a departure from traditional political constructs without putting aside our individual principles, integrity, moral values, and patriotism? I’m sorry. I cannot bring myself to even associate with such a dismal specticle.
RDH, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Our Constitution protects us in many ways, but in this way it fails us — there is almost nothing we can do, at this stage of the game, to escape the two-party stranglehold. And the shape of our modern life is creating increasing distance between the two parties. Now that we have the internet and cable and so many choices of where to receive our information, everybody listens to the outlets of their choice — outlets that reinforce their own views. The paradox is, the more information there is out there, the less we actually receive. Our worlds grow narrower and narrower as we insulate ourselves in an echo chamber of voices that agree with us. The effect is comforting, and tends to strengthen our views (“Look how many people agree with me! I must be right.”). Eventually, therefore, those who live in a different echo chamber start to seem … well … nutty. (“What’s the matter with them? Nobody thinks like that! They must be nuts.”) And the distance grows.
Like you, I pray for visionary leadership. Even if all it really is is a great speechwriter and superb delivery, as long as the population is inspired, heartened, and spurred to come together, much could be achieved. To me, the closest we have in this campaign is Obama among the Democrats and Huckabee among the Republicans.
And I am still baffled by Huckabee’s lackluster campaign. What is wrong with Republicans? You must be nuts. RDH, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Our Constitution protects us in many ways, but in this way it fails us — there is almost nothing we can do, at this stage of the game, to escape the two-party stranglehold. And the shape of our modern life is creating increasing distance between the two parties. Now that we have the internet and cable and so many choices of where to receive our information, everybody listens to the outlets of their choice — outlets that reinforce their own views. The paradox is, the more information there is out there, the less we actually receive. Our worlds grow narrower and narrower as we insulate ourselves in an echo chamber of voices that agree with us. The effect is comforting, and tends to strengthen our views (“Look how many people agree with me! I must be right.”). Eventually, therefore, those who live in a different echo chamber start to seem … well … nutty. (“What’s the matter with them? Nobody thinks like that! They must be nuts.”) And the distance grows.
Like you, I pray for visionary leadership. Even if all it really is is a great speechwriter and superb delivery, as long as the population is inspired, heartened, and spurred to come together, much could be achieved. To me, the closest we have in this campaign is Obama among the Democrats and Huckabee among the Republicans.
And I am still baffled by Huckabee’s lackluster campaign. What is wrong with Republicans? You must be nuts. <–(joke)
RDH:
You can only say what you said because you obviously have nothing at risk. Or, if you do, you could care less.
I have a son in the AF and I shudder to think what things would be like for him under a Democratic administration. For me, that’s a moral question that goes directly to the heart of the matter…life and death.
It’s not play time my friend. We are living on borrowed time and you make a huge mistake thinking we can just weather someone like Hillary. No, the damage the likes of her would do would probably be irrecoverable and spell the end of the U.S.
You should wake up.
Phil,
One of the beauties of America is that it is not controlled by one person or two. Your hyper fear of Hillary seems very similar to the Left’s Bush Derangement Syndrome. If one or two people could drastically change the character of this nation, Bush/Kennedy would have easily gotten their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill passed.
Although I do not have any illusions as to the difficult issues a Democratically controlled government will have, that in and of itself is not reason enough to lay aside my own principles and support a similarly questionable Republican Party candidate. Should a person reflecting those values I hold paramount decide to enter this campaign, I would probably vote for that person. I find it somewhat sad that so many Americans show so little respect for their vote that they would simply, out of some civics class lecture on “civic duty”, spend it like a coupon from McDonalds. When I vote, it is my name and my core values that are reflected in that act. It would be my fingerprints all over the results of that choice. If I have to be fearful, concerned, or simply apathetic towards that vote, I will not make it. And I certainly will not do it under some sort of fear mongering by those who follow blindly professing “our choice is not as bad as their choice” so go with us.
As to your “nothing to lose” comment.I am comfortable letting my 4 years service in the Marines speak to that cheap shot.I have a 24 year old close friend in the Marines due to his admiration regarding my service. He will be in Iraq on convoy protection duty within the month. But that aside, do thank your son for his service to our country.
RDH:
Are you living life with binders on or are you just a Republican imposter?
The damage report from the Clinton presidency is not completed yet.
Based on initial reports, he changed the moral fabric of our country forever and possibly irrecoverably. Teenage girls now think oral sex isn’t sex at all and that abortion is a God-given right. He bolstered the far left as no president in history has, i.e. Michale Moore, MoveOn.org, the ALCU. His presidency was Machiavellian in nature. Clinton was and is a deciever par excellence.
What’s that moral midget’s legacy? Let’s see DNA on a dress, disrespect for the office, bolstered abortion rights, gays in the military, and, this is the clincher, he emboldened radical Muslim terrorists because of his obvious immoral bent, to plan and carry out 9/11. And today’s young people call this reprobate a rock star?
Now compare that to Reagan’s adminstration. President Reagan led this country out of an economic and more importantly, a self-confidence abyss that had its roots in the Kennedy and Carter adminstrations. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a single shot. Reagan restored faith in this country after the moral decay initiated by a Hollywood inspired and enamored JFK and the wimp type leadership of Jimmy Carter. Or don’t you know that it was Carter who enabled a madman arise from exile and to gain power in Iran, one Mr. Khomeini? Who do think is killing our troops right now in Iraq and causing all of this turmoil over there now? You think it might be the nut jobs in Iran?
So don’t you dare tell me that an adminstration has no effect on this country. A Democratic adminstration, “because it’s the principle stupid”, will further weaken an already morally injured country that does not need the likes of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Rudy Guiliani for that matter.
I won’t let you get away with leading people to think that a Democratic Administration would somehow be of no-effect.
Based on your post I assume your core values to be pro-homosexual marriage, pro-aborion, anti-military, pro-higher taxes, anti-War, pro-socialistic health care, and anti-Republican. You probaly voted for Napolitano too. Yes, your voted was wasted.
So much for rational debate.
I hope everyone understood that my flip little “What’s wrong with Republicans? You must be nuts.” remark was a joke. Now, of course, I’m starting to wonder.
I think I’ll back off, at least for a while. I probably shouldn’t have stuck my oar in anyway. This forum isn’t meant for me. I apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. Len Munsil is a splendid chap and I don’t want to contribute to a lowering of the discourse around here.
I’ll still be reading.