Tuesdays with Paulie 5/8/07

Antiwar Groups Control Democratic Party
NY Times exposes power of Moveon.org and other far-left organizations

I couldn't believe it myself after reading yesterday's Washington section in the NY Times. The article titled "Antiwar Groups Use New Clout to Influence Democrats on Iraq," uncovered the frightening reality of the power antiwar progressive groups have within the Democratic Party.

The story didn't tell me anything I didn't know or have been warning my readers about for nearly a year and a half. What was so surprising was that the NY Times, which can be described as the bible of the Progressive movement, found it's final remnants of journalistic integrity and wrote a factual story about the antiwar movement and their influence within the Democratic ranks.

This past Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, sent a letter to Democratic leaders, which was nothing more than a warning of what will happen if they do not govern as they demand. “In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”

The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a time line and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”

Organizations such as Moveon.org have every right to fight for what they believe in. What is so frightening is the power they have over Democrats who desperately need their money and support when it comes time to get re-elected. Politicians often have to decide between what they believe is right and what will help them stay in their positions of power. Obviously we hope that the common good of the people will prevail, but in politics I believe that is too often the exception not the rule.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi currently find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They need to come up with a compromise bill regarding Iraq that gives the troops the funds they need, but has language that pleases the anti-war movement and doesn't have a time line for troop withdrawal, so the President will sign the bill. The problem is that their current friends at Moveon.org won't settle for mere words, they want precise language that says the United States will withdrawal their troops and soon.

Hard choices will be coming out of Washington and chances are the Democratic base won't be very happy. The real question is what will the consequences be?\


Political lessons come out of France
Clinton and Republicans sent a very clear message

Is the United States ready for a female President? Your brilliant blogger believes so, but that woman isn't Hillary Clinton. Up until Sunday afternoon, there was clear signs that the western world could be lead by a woman. Margaret Thatcher of Britain, Angela Merkel of Germany, Michelle Bachelet of Chile and of course Golda Meir of Israel. These woman all served or are currently serving with strength and determination, but if the woman is perceived as weak or emotional, such as former Presidential candidate Ségolène Royal of France, then defeat is eminent because they won't even gather 50% of the female vote.

Clinton is obviously not emotional and is perceived to be strong and determined which works in her favor. What does hurt her and help her opponents wearing the GOP tag is that just because a current President is viewed negatively, it doesn't mean candidates from his political Party will necessarily suffer the consequences. That is exactly what occurred in France this past weekend.

President elect Nicolas Sarkozy belongs to the same political Party as current President Jacques Chirac, who's approval ratings rival President Bush. However, Sarkozy has always expressed his opposition to many Chirac policies and has found ways to distant himself from the current leader. That is a lesson that all Republicans running for any office, especially President must learn. The basic notion of being a person with ideas and opinions is more important than identifying with a political Party. Granted that is not the case everywhere, especially in my neck of the woods (IL-9) where Pol Pot would be elected as long as he ran as a Democrat.

Most Americans as well as all people in free Democracies, put the person before Party affiliation. As unpopular as President Bush may be, it does not mean that he will be the defeat of the GOP in 2008. Just because Hillary has a lying cheating husband, doesn't mean she will get half the female vote.

One important lesson that can be learned from the French election as well as the last election in Germany in which a woman was elected Chancellor. The winner won on a pro-American and pro-free market economy platform. This notion that the civilized world hates the United States and enjoys Socialism, is undoubtedly a fallacy.

Paulie