Monday, February 26, 2007

I Say Give Them More Rope!


I Say Give Them More Rope!


By Frank Antenori

February 25, 2007


Strange things happened this past election cycle. One of the strangest was the large number of Democrats running as “moderates” and “conservatives.” We saw Rep. Raum Emmanuel (DCCC) and Sen. Charles Schumer (DSCC) skillfully guide their respective candidates to avoid those far left issues that almost two-thirds of main stream Americans simply can’t accept. Gun control, abortion on demand, raising taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens and cutting funding to our troops in the field were taboo subjects on the Democrat campaign trail; unless of course you took a conservative tone when discussing them.


Numerous Democrats, including Arizona’s own Gabrielle Giffords sounded more like Republicans with their get tough on illegal immigration and strong talk on national security. The media facilitated the facade by casting the image of these Democrat candidates as soft and cuddly moderates; while at the same time, vilifying their Republican opponents as harsh, right wing ideologues.


During the candidate forums before both the primary and general elections, Ms. Giffords skillfully avoided answering specific questions related to those sensitive topics by interjecting little stories of her days shoveling horse crap or changing tires in Daddy’s tire shop. Numerous times I sat amazed, knowing she clearly dodged the question, as her Kool-aid drinking minions applauded and the dumbfounded moderator refused to hold her accountable. Ms. Giffords was truly the queen of the “gray area.”


Since the November election, Democrats have tried to maintain this gray area by proposing a worthless and meaningless “non-binding resolution” on Iraq. Instead of showing leadership by exercising their Constitutional authority to cut off funding or offering a specific plan for dealing with Iraq, they continued with the tactics that they believe brought them to power; attacking the President. After all, why show leadership and possibly do something that voters might hold you accountable for when you could slap around the President a few more times?


Speaker Pelosi, so far, has done a masterful job keeping the “lefty” inside of her party from rearing its ugly head, knowing if it does it will be a disaster for the ’08 Congressional and Presidential elections.


But the Dems can’t help it. The “want America to fail” socialist and communist inside them just begs to escape. In the past few weeks, more and more left wing Democrats have submitted legislation that has begun to bring down the Democrat’s “Moderate” House of Cards.


Rep. McCarthy (D-NY) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes" a.k.a. “take your guns.” Legislation identical to the same legislation Bill Clinton himself said cost them control of the House in 1994.


This past week, AZ Reps. Pastor, Grijalva and Mitchell stood beside Nancy Pelosi and bragged how the Democrat’s “comprehensive” immigration reform bill would overturn Proposition 300, the Arizona initiative passed overwhelmingly by voters that requires illegal immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition to attend college and prohibits state aid.


Pastor and Grijalva bragged their legislation will include provisions that would allow “undocumented” students who grow up in the United States and graduate from high school to pay in-state college tuition and be eligible for Pell grants. Strangely, only three of the four Arizona Democrats were present at the event. Hmmm… anyone see Ms. Giffords? I guess she’s still in the incumbent protection program and trying to stay in the gray on the immigration issue.


Rep. John Murtha couldn’t be kept at bay any longer either and has announced the Democrat’s "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy will be to cut funding for the war in Iraq, and essentially starve our troops into a withdrawal from the region. Murtha’s policy of slowly “bleeding” the Pentagon dry by imposing specific restrictions on defense spending will have no effect other than to deny our troops in harms needed supplies and equipment. In essence, the only “bleeding” Murtha’s plan will accomplish will be the blood from brave men and women the Democratic Party plans to abandon once again.


Republicans in both the House and the Senate have said they will try every parliamentary tactic available to stop the Democrats from bringing this legislation to the floor of either body for a vote. I ask why?


Why not let them bring it to a vote. Ardently oppose it during the debate process, but give ‘em all the rope they want and let them vote.


No more gray area for Ms. Giffords. She’ll be unable to come back here to Arizona and put on this facade that she’s tough on illegal immigration and strong on national security. She’ll be forced to place her vote in history.


How will she explain her vote to give amnesty and our tax dollars to illegal aliens so they can go to college when most tax paying Arizonans will have to dig into their own pockets if they want to send their kids to the University of Arizona?


She’ll have to come back here and defend her vote for cutting funds to our troops and supporting the cut and run policy of her party. She’ll have a hard time doing it too with the large number of veterans, active duty military and defense contractors in her district. Not to mention that myself and the recently returned from Iraq, Jonathan Paton will be here with our real world experience and first hand knowledge to point out how wrong she and her party are when it comes to the war on terror.


So once again I say give them as much rope as they want and let them vote. Let them show their true colors, let the American people see them for what they are. A party that hates the President more than the enemy we are fighting, a party that favors illegal aliens over the taxpayers and a party that favors taking your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms while giving Constitutional rights to terrorists held at Gitmo.


So I say to my fellow Republicans and our GOP leaders in Washington, keep giving them rope and we’ll see who wins the next election.

Frank Antenori is a retired Special Forces Soldier and veteran of Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq. He is also a former candidate for the Republican nomination for Congress in Congressional District Eight.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on Frank! Like leaving a bait car with the keys in it to catch a car thief...let them vote their manifesto.

Did anyone see the opinion piece that Congresswoman Giffords wrote in Sunday's Daily Star? 613 words and outside of the motherhood and apple pie she only said two things:

1) she thinks that the President's plan is not "smart". This would imply that she has a different plan that is smart. Unless the best she can offer is the "W-is-dumb" strategy.

2) she thinks that any plan should include political and economic considerations. The President's proposal does tie future support to the Iraqi government's ability to step up to the plate and take greater control of economics and the insurgency. So either she called the President's plan "smart" or she called her strategy "not smart" I'm not sure. In any event, it's like reading the musings of Paris Hilton.

sirocco said...

I fully agree with getting things out to be voted on. Ultimately, the voting record is what counts. We disagree on which party is likely to get hung.

Having said that, I have so many issues with Frank's hyperbolic rhetoric, I am unsure where to start ... I'll hit some "high" points, and maybe come back to the rest later.

"... party that favors taking your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms while giving Constitutional rights to terrorists held at Gitmo."

Two things here:

1. As soon as all those people who are "bearing arms" are also participating in well-regulated militia training, then we can discuss Constitutional rights.

2. Just because an individual is detained at Gitmo is insufficient reason to automatically qualify them as a "terrorist". We know this, since the administration has already released individuals it admits were improperly held. How many more are there?

The individuals there are ACCUSED terrorists. It's an important distinction ... and yes, accused individuals should have certain rights which are currently being withheld by the administration.

"... to avoid those far left issues that almost two-thirds of main stream Americans simply can’t accept. Gun control, abortion on demand, raising taxes, amnesty for illegal aliens and cutting funding to our troops in the field were taboo subjects on the Democrat campaign trail ... "

This may have some truth in AZ 8, a somewhat more conservative district than most. However, the majority of Democratic gain were made by individuals who can not, by any means, be described as "conservative".

As for the specific instances Frank cites:

1. The majority of Americans support some "reasonable" form of gun control. The term "reasonable" is a bit of a moving target. However, as an example, a considerable majority support bans on assault rifles.

2. Only a few extreme Dems favor "abortion-on-demand". This is not a position of teh party as a whole, and one suspects Frank is well aware of this ... he is simply trying to (falsely) ascribe a position he knows the vast majority will opppose to the party in general.

Having said that, for 30 years polls have consistently shown a majority support some form of abortion, and the Roe v. Wade decision seems to reasonably meet the views of most.

3. You say "amnesty", the president calls it "comprehensive". Regardless, something needs to be tried, and again polls have consistently shown a more comprehensive approach (which combines economic penalties for employers, some form of guest worker program, some form of better border enforcement) is favored over the enforcement only approach.

This was even true in our own little disctrict (although the numbers were well within the marjin of error).

4. Polls over the last six months show a large majority favor getting out of Iraq, even if it means cutting funding for the war.

5. Raising taxes. Of the five instances Frank cites, this is the only one where he is clearly correct. It almost goes without saying we don't want to raise taxes on ourselves, who does?

"Since the November election, Democrats have tried to maintain this gray area by proposing a worthless and meaningless “non-binding resolution” on Iraq. ..."

This entire paragraph is true, and I agree with Frank. We hear about proposals along these lines, but it's time to bring them to the table and start counting votes. Where Frank and I disagree, I suspect, is what the likely fallout will be if the vote is in favor of pulling out (or cutting funding).

Should that happen, I think most American voters will greet our returning troops with ribbons and rose petals ... you know, just like the liberated Iraqis did.

sirocco said...

I need to make a correction to my above post:

I said:

"4. Polls over the last six months show a large majority favor getting out of Iraq, even if it means cutting funding for the war."

In fact, the latest polls (taken Feb. 22-25) show only 46% favor cutting funding for the war, with 51% opposing.

However, Murtha's proposal is heavily favored (58% to 39%) and leaving Iraq even if civil order has not been restored is favored as well (56% to 42%).

As a special bonus, 67% oppose the latest escalation, 32% favor it.



It's not exactly secret Republican political strategists and analysts have been making statements along the lines that if American forces are still in Iraq in 2008 the elections will be a "bloodbath" (Robert Novak's term, I believe) for Republicans.

If I were grotesquely cynical, I might argue it's in the Dems long-term interests to drag things out well into 2008. Sure, 1500, 2000 more Americans might be killed, 8 times that many wounded (and lets not count how many thousands of Iraqis are killed/wounded), but hey, winning elections might be more important in the scheme of things, right?

F*** that. Let's get something on the table to cut funding, force troop rest/training/etc., revoke the authority to be there, whatever it takes to get our soldiers out of Iraq. If R's block things, it only makes clear which party is NOT accepting the will of the people.

romel said...

Sirocco...Enjoyed your accurate 'sifting' of Antenori's usual puffed up/smoke blowing rhetoric. So many seem to go "with the blow" rather than factual flow! Hey, Frank, whose job are you after?

Bruce P. Murchison said...

Good article Frank. Regardless of the usual banter and tirades, you are accurate in your assessment. I agree that Republicans should let the votes occur and let the chips fall where they may. If the public agrees, so be it. However, I’m confident they won’t. As for the “dissecting” of your article, at least Sirocco tried to use facts in his tirade. Romel just threw some rocks and went and hid. Regardless of how people feel about the war, I don’t know of anyone (other than the two responders above) that has no problem with our troops having their funding, and thus, their security, cut. Even my liberal friends (yes there are liberals who will actually talk, debate, etc. with me) don’t agree with funding cuts. The next election should prove interesting, especially if McCain gets the nomination. We will probably get back the two seats we lost here in Arizona, partly because of his “coat tails” and partly because of the Democrats’ voting record. Of course, if Tim Bee or Jonathan Paton will agree to run, it won’t matter who the Presidential nominee is, either one would run over Giffords with ease.

sirocco said...

Bruce,

It is simply debate rhetoric to claim cutting funding for the war will in some means cut the security of the troops in Iraq. Even military officials have come out and said this is not the case.

What it _would_ do is force some hard decisions as to providing for a withdrawal before the money ends.

Mind you, if the administration attempted to keep troops in the theater without any money provided, that _would_ endanger their security.

sirocco said...

As a follow up for Bruce (yeah, I am poking back here off and on as work allows ... so sue me. :) ... Bruce said:

"Of course, if Tim Bee or Jonathan Paton will agree to run, it won’t matter who the Presidential nominee is, either one would run over Giffords with ease."

Mind you, the same was said early in 2006 regarding the race last year (Candidate XXX would run over Giffords). On the Dem side, there was a strong sentiment Weiss would "run over her" in the primary even.

No one is going to "run over" Giffords ... she might lose an election, but it won't be "easy" for anyone to beat her.

I don't think either Paton or Bee would make the mistake Bruce apparently makes of under-estimating Giffords. Certainly not Paton, who has lost to her in the past.



As for:

"The next election should prove interesting, especially if McCain gets the nomination. We will probably get back the two seats we lost here in Arizona, partly because of his “coat tails” ... "

It's been my understanding (from reading this site and others) there is a lot of dissatisfaction with McCain among the state Republican leaders. If so, McCain's "coat tails", were he to garner the nomination, might turn out to be surprisingly short.

Framer said...

Sirocco,

Slanderer :), I believe we have been rather even handed with McCain on this particular site. We even have his Southern Arizona Rep as a guest blogger.

We are in fact waiting on his next contribution right now.

sirocco said...

Framer,

I should make clear I wasn't saying _this_ site (or any site, really) was not even-handed vis-a-vis McCain.

I was referring to reports and analysis of events at state Republican party meetings, the election details (which, on some level, seemed like a proxy vote on whether to support McCain), etc.