Dining With Liberals
My Fellow Guests Had Not Just an Abiding Faith, But A Dependence on Government. They Hated Bush, Loved Hillary, and Supported Higher Taxes. As You Can Imagine, I Had a Wonderful Time.
Part One of Two
By Perry Hicks
My hosts would laugh if they were to hear me characterize the setting as “posh” for these are not limousine liberals. But consider that the dinner was held in an older part of Richmond City and the house was a larger pre-war Williamsburg-type cape with high ceilings, wainscot, old oriental rugs, brass chandeliers, and all of the furniture was antique mahogany. Thus, I would not be exaggerating if I said the atmosphere was that of some luxury. If not wealthy by celebrity standards, these people were all about taste, well educated, and quite liberal.
Although my hosts were, for the most part, thinking people- having facts and experience to support their reasoning- it was all too predictable for them to all hate Bush, love Hillary, and support ever increasing taxes. However, their thinking made them vulnerable to suggestion simply because many of their positions are, quite frankly, unsupportable. Let’s revisit this dinner and take a look at how I addressed each one of the three pillars of the present Democrat Party.
You Call Me a Bitch as If It Were a Bad Thing
It was made abundantly clear that to a person these people were salivating at the prospect of Hillary becoming the first woman President of the United States. If there is a policy question, Hillary is the answer.
Surprisingly, these same people were all too happy to acknowledge that some of Hillary’s problems stem from the perception that she is a “bitch”: their term, not mine. Even more surprising is that they not only believed that she is a bitch, they took considerable pride in it! This reminded me of a bumper sticker I once saw that read, “You call me a bitch as if it was a bad thing.”
While on face value this would seem irrational, it is perfectly logical if you just understand what it is the Hillary supporters want: A Democrat woman president. Hillary is seen as the singular champion that could oust the hated Republican from White House.
Democrats know that their present field of presidential candidates is woefully weak. Not a single one, save Howard Dean, has so much as an ounce of machismo. In Dean’s case, he comes across as more as an undisciplined hot head complaining about Bush being too secretive while he has hypocritically hid his own gubernatorial record away from public view.
Kerry, the lone Vietnam War hero, demonstrated how sensitive he is about his image as a whining wimp by over-promoting his military record. To make matters worse, Rolling Stone magazine published an interview where Kerry actually used the explicative “F” word in regard to George W. Bush’s performance; So much for a cool head and personal discipline.
Undeniably, it is Hillary whose name alone that is associated with the ruthless exercise of power. The name “Hillary” strikes fear, not “Howard”, “Dennis”, one of the “Johns”, “Wesley”, “Carol”, “Al” or “Joe”. To the contrary, one might argue that the entire field of Democrat candidates evokes some sense of tragic comedy.
The Democrat’s Dilemma: The War on Terror
There is one very cogent point where my liberal dinner mates and I agree: If the Republicans sometimes seem to be in disarray (their view), the Democrats are in utter shambles. Not only have they positioned themselves to singularly benefit from bad things happening to America, the shrillness of their rhetoric would almost seem as if they were to wish it so. It has also left them with no ideas of their own.
Particularly in regard to the Presidential race, every issue they have attempted to grasp has crumbled in their hands like sand: The economy is improving and that improvement is increasingly credited to Bush’s Democrat hated tax reduction; the Republican’s Medicare Reform Bill with prescription drug coverage was passed and signed into law with an endorsement by the powerful AARP. Then there is the Democrat’s most vulnerable position of all: The War on Terror.
Representative Dennis Kucinich opposed the war with Iraq, as did Representative Carol Moseley Braun. Senator Kerry voted for it but now disavows it as a mistake. But the champion of the anti-war Left is the self-admitted draft dodger, Howard Dean. He initially predicted that America would have to one day go into Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein. Now he speaks to the war as one where “we humiliated our allies”. In general, the Democrats insist that we go back to the United Nations, hat in hand, and beg for them to move into Iraq and pick up the pieces of America’s failure.
Amazingly, the Democrats expect this bumbling America argument will resonate with voters. The fact is that the facts don’t jibe with Democrat’s hyperbole. One attack and the U.N. pulled out of Iraq leaving the reconstruction of the country to the only entity both powerful and brave enough to attempt it: the United States of America.
Greatly Weakened Military
Then there is the matter of adequately arming our military. There simply has never been a weapon system the Democrats liked. Not the M1 tank; not the B1 bomber, the F117 stealth fighter, the Cruise Missile, satellite imaging, ant-ballistic missile weapons (Star Wars) or any of the other systems that provide America with what I will call force multiplication. With these weapons, not only can America overwhelm conventional enemy military forces, it can do so with far fewer troops.
Which is a good thing for during the Clinton administration, the military strength was drastically cut. According to a 1998 Christopher Ruddy report in NewsMax.com, if all of America’s armor and scout units (cavalry) available outside of Bosnia and Korea were to be deployed to the gulf, their combined strength would only be a single corps. Compare that to the 3 available in Desert Storm.
Ruddy goes on to report that the number of tactical air wings had been reduced from 35 to only 20 and the number of Navy ships had been reduced by about 180. At one time the Navy had about 600 active ships.
The Reserves, by necessity, have become critical components of the overall defense system. Thus, when President Bush gave the order to attack Iraq, large numbers of Reserve and National Guard units had to be activated. So weakened was the military that defense experts doubted that the United States could fight on two major fronts at the same time.
This greatly reduced military also means that troops will have to bear the burden of longer and more frequent deployments. Illogically, the Democrats complain of this situation even though it is one of their own making.
National Security Vulnerability
Liberals are quick to rail against Bush and his unwarranted attack on Iraq. They talk about how America was lied to about WMD but they never mention 9-11. It is almost as if the terror attacks on New York City never happened.
From the time when the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense, America did not endeavor to defeat her enemies but instead has accumulated them. Some observers, of which I am one, became increasingly worried that the number of hostile governments would, at some point, reach critical mass and overwhelm the United States. For a time, the fall of the old Soviet Union relieved some of this pressure but the new terror war, coupled with threats from rogue nations, has brought security issues literally to America’s doorstep.
This is why the Democrats are careful to say they “support the troops” even though they oppose the policy of preemptive war. It is why Hillary Clinton traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq over the Thanksgiving holiday. She needed to make every appearance of being pro-troops while at the same time taking the opportunity to disparage the president. After all, what is your point when you go to the front and tell the troops you support them even though they are courageously fighting a futile battle? Even though it is hardly finished, Hillary asserts that George Bush’s policy has failed. Thus, the poor brave soldiers and marines are dying for nothing.
More than anything else, Democrats are walking a tight-rope on matters of national security. Particularly after Vietnam, their record on defense, and indeed, supporting the military, has been abysmal. This is why they howled when conservatives questioned their patriotism as we went into Iraq.
While the Democrats assail Halliburton because Vice President Dick Cheney was its CEO, they are all to happy to stay mum about how the Clinton Administration’s machinations in permitting Hughes Aerospace and Loral Space & Communications to export critical defense sensitive technology has threatened America. Hughes and Loral were permitted to advance communist China’s rocket and satellite programs. Thanks to the Clinton Administration, China can now reliably launch intercontinental missiles and their thermonuclear warheads can accurately target U.S. cities.
Neither do they want to talk about the millions donated by Hughes to the Democrat Party or the $300,000 the Chinese government reported to have funneled into Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign through Clinton “good friend” Johnny Chung.
Illustrative of America’s true state of security is a 1998 Washington Post interview with Chas. W. Freeman. Freeman revealed details of a “heated” conversation between himself and Chinese officials in Beijing in 1995. According to Freeman, the unnamed officials sneered at Freeman’s assertions that Washington would react militarily if Taiwan were attacked. The officials told Freeman that they had been watching the United States in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia and that (regarding military confrontation) “…you don’t have the will”.
The Washington Post article went on to say that the officials told Freeman, “So you are not going to threaten us (with nuclear weapons) again because, in the end, you care a lot more about Los Angeles than Taipei."
If Hillary Clinton were to run for president, expect all of this, and much, much, more to come up during the presidential campaign.
In Part 2, we will examine, among other things, the liberal claim that America is not taxed nearly enough.
Dining With Liberals - Part 2: CLICK HERE
Perry Hicks is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics, and is a former Ford Motor Company technical trainer. He currently works as an Associate Professor of Automotive Technology at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College in Richmond, VA.
Contact the Author: firstname.lastname@example.org