Article

2006-08-30 Home Front: Politix

IT'S time for triangulation on terror.
The American people, as usual, don't buy either the Republican or the Democratic party lines.

They agree with the Republicans and President Bush that the War on Terror is essential. They embrace the GOP's views on the Patriot Act and National Security Agency wiretaps.

But Americans agree with the Democrats that Iraq has nothing much to do with the War on Terror. The latest New York Times survey shows that a majority believes that Iraq it not part of the War on Terror.

So it's time for triangulation. Bush and the Republicans need to stop alienating voters by arguing that Iraq is an indispensable front in the War on Terror. They should center their fall campaign to keep control of Congress on the national-security issue sans Iraq.

Bush doesn't need to reverse course on Iraq. He doesn't need to pull out the troops and send them home. He doesn't even need to set a timetable for withdrawal. But he does have to stop talking about Iraq and talk, instead, about homeland security.

Bush and the Republicans under attack - Sens. Mike DeWine, Conrad Burns, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum, and numerous House members - need to talk about the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps and the resources allocated to homeland security. They should talk about Iraq only when asked, and then only briefly.

Yes, the war in Iraq is connected to the War on Terror. Obviously, al Qaeda is behind many of the attacks in Iraq. Obviously, the streets of Baghdad are the alternative to Manhattan as the place in which the War on Terror is waged.

But, equally obviously, it is political suicide to insist on drawing the connection. So, Republicans: Don't even think about it!

Democrats are vulnerable on all of the domestic-security issues. Just as Republicans hurt themselves when they tie Iraq to the War on Terror, Democrats impair their chances to win by opposing the NSA wiretaps and the Patriot Act along with our Iraqi involvement.

The key is for Republicans to talk about the specific instances in which the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps helped us to foil terrorist attacks. John Spencer, running against Sen. Hillary Clinton, has pioneered the way by tying her December 2005 vote against closure on the Patriot Act extension and her voluble opposition to the NSA warrantless wiretaps to the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

Evidence indicates that the bridge would've been in smithereens without the Patriot Act. The act forced the sharing of information between the federal security agencies and the NYPD, which triggered the flooding of the bridge with New York cops. Telephone intercepts indicated that the terrorist charged with destroying the bridge told his handlers that the NYPD presence made the bridge "too hot." Feds have indicated to The New York Times that the NSA wiretaps played an important role in the apprehension of Lyman Faris for his plot to destroy the bridge.

Bush and the GOP need to leave a defense of the war in Iraq behind in their bid to keep control of Congress. After all, what is more important to the American people - a war thousands of miles away or the immediate threat to homeland security so recently evidenced by the plot to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic on the London-to-New York route?

Republicans can't afford to insist on being re-elected for the right reasons. But if they take what American public opinion is prepared to give them, they can yet salvage this election.

Posted by Omiper Unenter9180 2006-08-30 03:53|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Unbelievable this guy used to work for Slick WIllie.

Too bad Willie let him go. Anybody know why? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-30 08:49|| 2006-08-30 08:49|| Front Page Top

#2 IIRC Morris and Hillary couldn't stand one another.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-30 09:06|| 2006-08-30 09:06|| Front Page Top

#3 Bobby, It was due to the publication of a story of him having his toe sucked by a whore while on the Phone with Clinton.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-30 09:46|| 2006-08-30 09:46|| Front Page Top

#4 But Americans agree with the Democrats that Iraq has nothing much to do with the War on Terror. The latest New York Times survey shows that a majority believes that Iraq it not part of the War on Terror

Maybe because the NYT and MSM have buried the story in the translations of the captured Iraqi documents that do show such a connection. Now why would the NYT do that?

Posted by Sleting Ebbager4513 2006-08-30 09:47|| 2006-08-30 09:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Morris also claimed Kerry was going to win, and that Hillary will be pres in 2008.

Posted by JSU 2006-08-30 10:30|| 2006-08-30 10:30|| Front Page Top

#6 Morris has been dead wrong so many times I've lost count. On the other hand, he knows Hillary like the back of his hand. The real Hillary, mind you, not the public image she's so carefully tried to rehab in the past few years. If he were talking about her, he'd have my individed attention.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-30 11:35|| 2006-08-30 11:35|| Front Page Top

#7 His dislike for Hillary seems to cloud his judgement on anything in which she's involved.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-08-30 11:35|| 2006-08-30 11:35|| Front Page Top

#8 undivided...grrrr

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-30 11:35|| 2006-08-30 11:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Heard him on Fix a number of times, and always seemed savy. I find it hard to believe he "predicted" Kerry would win. I'm sure I heard him say something like, "Bush will lose, if he can't get his message across."

He is fun to listen to, and somethimes the dislike for the Hildebeast does overwhelm him...

Posted by Bobby 2006-08-30 11:39|| 2006-08-30 11:39|| Front Page Top

#10 "and somethimes the dislike for the Hildebeast does overwhelm him..."

Yeah, well don't blame him until you've also seen her without makeup.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-30 11:52|| 2006-08-30 11:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Morris belives that in 2008, it's Hillary vs. Condi.
I believe neither Condi or Hillary will run for pres. Oh, Hillary will start the run, but the democraps will split in half and will come up with a compromise candidate who will lose to a real American.
Republican, the party of America first.
Democrap, the party of amerikkka last.

Posted by wxjames 2006-08-30 11:55|| 2006-08-30 11:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Morris changed his tune, he said before Evita will never be king.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-08-30 11:56|| 2006-08-30 11:56|| Front Page Top

#13 I hate this self-inflated windbag, but I agree with him here. Concentrate message on security of the US. And, do something about it. Virtually no improvements have been made in 5 years. This is ridiculous and indefensible. Start talking about issues voters are most concerned about. Otherwise, if Conyers gets committee control, we're going to concentrate on impeachment.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-08-30 12:10|| 2006-08-30 12:10|| Front Page Top

#14 If we begin trumped up impeachment charges, then the democraps won't be able to buy a vote in 2008.

Posted by wxjames 2006-08-30 14:32|| 2006-08-30 14:32|| Front Page Top

#15 Morris is a piss ant.

Posted by Captain America 2006-08-30 21:18|| 2006-08-30 21:18|| Front Page Top

21:10 newc
20:17 SteveS
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS