Thanks to Claudia from the blog, [url=http://www.freedomofthought.com/archives/000660.html]Freedom of Thought[/url] for her post which gives us a list of questions for Howard Dean. Really, what we would say is that these are the questions that Bush supporters, and liberals who oppose Dean, would love to have him answer; preferably on Hannity & Colmes before a live studio audience. Anyway, here are the questions, which were originally published by [url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20031229.shtml]Rich Lowry[/url]:
>> Read more

A lot of bloggers are talking about a comic which was recently published from the series “Pearls before Swine.” Its syndicated, but not all over the country as of yet, so if you want to see it, [url=http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/pearls-20031228.html]just visit the page where it is published. [/url]

Let me just say this, if even [b]one[/b] bomb was detonated in the US killing six children and we knew who was responsible, there is no doubt in mind that the our military would soon be on their trail. Not only that, no rat hole would be deep enough to save them… right?

This kind of tragedy has happened, not once, but hundreds of times in Israel over the years. Perhaps those who so quickly critisize their policies against terrorism should first try and put themselves in their shoes.

Its a Tuesday morning and your little boy or girl is finishing their breakfast. You are preparing for your day, but you make sure they have their lunch, or money for lunch, and check the clock to make sure they don’t miss the bus for school. You bundle them up in their coat, give them a kiss, or a hug, or both, and send them on their way… and the next time you see them, its as a burned and shredded corpse in the morgue.

They were innocent, and because of that, they were targeted, which is exactly what terrorists do. That same morning, they were looking for a target that would take the most innocent lives, cause the most heartache, and, ironically, earn them (in their twisted minds) a special seat in heaven.

Which group would you rather support? Think about it.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Politics and the 2004 Presidential campaign aside, both Democrats as well as Republicans in Washington have long known that Saddam Hussein was doing everything in his power to violate the UN sanctions imposed on him and to rebuild his military capability. Unfortunately for all of us, the political silly season is now in full swing and the war in Iraq is just too valuable a political topic for President Bush’s opponents to ignore. As such they have continually hammered him on two topics:

1) Where is Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and why have we not gotten them?
2) Where are the WMD and why have we not discovered them?

Well, part of the first question was answered recently with Saddam Hussein’s arrest, after he gave up without a fight (as cowards often do when confronted by superior power), and the second question looks as if it is on its way to being answered as well. A very detailed and comprehensive article published today in the LA Times entitled [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-iraqarms30dec30,1,7925533.story?coll=la-home-headlines]Banned Arms Flowed Into Iraq Through Syrian Firm[/url] gives us the first true picture of how Saddam was able to easily get around the UN sanctions imposed on his regime and purchase all kinds of weapons and supplies that were on the list of sanctioned materials. While the issue of WMD purchases or shipments is still up in the air, this at least is a very solid beginning in uncovering a highly organized and secretive operation which was, apparently, easily avoided detection by UN inspectors.

I would say the other valuable lesson taught in this article is why the President acted with such urgency against Saddam and did not give inspectors more time as so many of his opponents seemed to want. If the President suspected even half of what has been recently revealed, then I think the American people will understand how justified he was in taking such decisive action against Hussein.

To the Democrats in Washington I can only say that I’m sorry. None of the information you see in this article is going to do much to help your party in November of 2004. Next time, you might want to moderate your stance a bit rather than gambling on the honesty of a man like Saddam Hussein.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Viewpoint Journal is finally back up and running at long last! Through one issue and another, this site has been in various stages of disrepair, but I’ve finally resolved those issues.

Let me tell you though, that its very frustrating to really WANT to post commentary to my site and yet not be able to. On the day that Saddam was captured, I did not really have much to say, other than “Hoorayyyyy!!” The next day, however, was quite a different story.
>> Read more

Today, Ryan Lizza was quoted by [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com]Opinionjournal.com[/url] as saying that “the Democrats are splitting into two parties: the party of Clinton, and the party of Dean.” This was something Ms. Lizza wrote [b]last month[/b]! A very impressive bit of insight into the Democratic Party’s growing troubles.

At the same time, I think we’ve all been missing, or overlooking, a central reason [b]where[/b] this whole schizm started in the first place. The fact is, one of Clinton’s field generals is responsible for sparking this internal civil war, and his name is Terry McAuliffe.

The tactics that Dean uses have always been the Terry McAuliffe trademark approach to campaigning. The reason for this tactic is simple, Mr. McAuliffe recognized that in order to halt and/or reverse the Democratic Party’s steady slide from power in Washington, he had to ignite the party’s base.

How did he plan to ignite the base? Fear, fear, fear, and more fear! In other words, playing on the fears and anger of many hardcore liberals frustrated by a decade of failure. Its not a new tactic for the DNC and it is a very effective way of getting the party’s base to the polls. The only problem with that tactic is that it tends to turn off moderate voters who recognize these tactics for what they are… an appeal to ignorance.

So, how do you incite the hardcore liberal base of the Democratic Party without scaring off moderates? You play “Good Cop/Bad Cop” of course. So, while a Democrtic candidate is off saying reasonable things to win moderate voters, Terry McAuliffe launches the angry assault that we’ve come to know and love him for to get the hardcore voters engaged and incited.

So, while one element of the party launches their vile attacks on political opponents, the candidates can run their campaign without losing many or any moderate votes because the they can just distance themselves from the message while, at the same time, affirming the right for that group to “express its opinion.” Remember the 2000 presidential election when the Texas chapter of the NAACP ran a TV ad against the then-Governor Bush tying him to racist acts such as the one in which James Byrd Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup being driven by three white supremacists. The TV ad literally had a camera’s-eye view of what it must have looked like for Mr. Bird as he was dragged to death, all the time decrying Governor Bush’s unwillingness to support hate crime legislation.

When Tim Russert questionted Gore and asked if he would call for the ad to be pulled, big Al’s response was basically that he would not interfere with those groups that wished to “express” their issues during the campaign. In other words, “I won’t say directly that I approve of the ad, but, really, I do.”

Ex-Governor Gray Davis loved this kind of political Pearl Harbor tactic. Wait until just before the election and then lower the boom with all kinds of accusations against your opponent, but do it through other groups so that you are removed from any accusations of mud-slinging. But are in a position to benefit from the media focus.

And the liberal media, of course, is only too willing to play along. But I seriously digress…

So, in comes Howard Dean who has decided to borrow from Terry McAuliffe’s playbook. What has this done for Dean? He has focused on the very short-term goal of winning the nomination and seems to have decided that he’ll worry about the rest of it later. It’s likely, then, that he is hoping to do a quick right-turn after he wins to begin positioning himself as a moderate. In other words, Dean is playing a version of “Good Cop/Bad Cop” where he gets to play both roles.

Will it work? I seriously doubt it. Despite McAuliffe’s constant appeal to the base instincts of their voting base, they’ve made no gains at all that I can see in the past several years. I expect that Dean’s version of the McAuliffe manuever will prove even less effective.

Time will tell. Meanwhile, I think I’ll go to bed.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Its good to be back online! After taking some time off for good behaviour (and quality time with my family), I am finally coming back to begin with some new entries.

I know that for those involved in politics, its very hard to get away. I’m the same way, but, really folks, family is the first priority and those who ignore that fact do so at their own expense.

Hmmmm…. I wonder if I remember how to do this…

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com