"The Right Angle"

Heidi Parent

Think Negative. Vote Democrat!

The left's plan to win back the White House

by Heidi Parent
11/01/03

Leading into the 2004 campaign season, Democrats have already revealed their strategy which is to go negative and do it as often as possible. Making their negative stand on three main issues - the economy, the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq - they have solidified their party as the party of negativity. And while negativity is certainly nothing new for Democrats, employing it as they have in these three areas could prove to be quite risky.

On the economy, Democrats are using one of their tried and true strategies - make baseless claims and hope that voters buy them. And why shouldn't they? It worked in 1992. (Remember "it's the economy, stupid"?) The 2004 campaign season has given us more of the same. Take Dick Gephardt's exaggerated charge that the "President is a miserable failure" on the economy. This strategy may prove to be a risky one because the latest economic figures are trending in the president's direction. The most recent unemployment numbers are the lowest they've been in eight months. And the overall economy has picked up steam and grown at about 5 percent. And many economists are predicting the rate of growth will only get better; an increase of around 7 percent in the third quarter is anticipated. So since all indications point to a recovering economy, the Democrats' mantra of doom and gloom could end up backfiring. But the economy isn't their only issue.

Homeland Security and the War on Terror are also in their sights. But here again they are playing with fire. Polls indicate the public trusts Republicans in general and the President specifically over Democrats on national security issues. But this hasn't deterred Democrats. Attempting to put in chink in the President's armor, they first questioned whether he did all he could to prevent the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now, with their criticism of policies like the Patriot Act, they are accusing him of doing too much. But they can criticize non-stop until Election Day, the results speak for themselves: there has not been an attack on American soil in the more than two years since September 11, 2001. And that is what voters will remember. Moreover, Democrats are employing a strategy that will be labeled a success only in the wake of a national security crisis and that should speak volumes about their quest for power at any cost.

That brings us to their third issue - the War in Iraq. Very few Democrats openly support the war, most prefer instead to ride the fence: "I don't support the war, but I support the troops." They believe this allows them to appeal to their base (against the war) and mainstream America (support for our troops) at the same time. While in the meantime, they continue to toss out charge after charge in a let's-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks strategy.

Take their claim that the President lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. The boldness in this strategy is stating it as fact. We don't know for sure that the weapons no longer exist, the only thing we know for sure is that they haven't (yet) been found. But to presume that because they haven't been found means they never existed is a huge leap. And it's one that may prove very costly should the weapons eventually be discovered.

Another angle they're using is coming out against the President's request for money to rebuild Iraq. This alone should make it clear to voters that Democrats are opposed to any policy that would guarantee our success in Iraq, and as a result make it easier to run against the President's (in their eyes) failed record.

But none of these strategies is really surprising based on their history of consistently, albeit incorrectly, predicting American failure. Before the war in Afghanistan they predicted quick defeat of our troops at the hands of the battle tough Afghan forces. They had beaten the mighty Soviet Army, after all. But we won in short order. Then they predicted we would get humiliated in Iraq by Saddam's elite Republican Guard. But after a few short weeks Baghdad fell. Now in the aftermath of the war we're hearing whining that rebuilding Iraq will be too hard, cost too much, or take too much effort. Based on their history, are we to believe this prediction will be the one that comes true?

In this campaign season Democrats have staked their claim and positioned themselves to profit from America's losses. But the fact is that outside of a small percentage of crackpot leftists, Americans don't want to see their nation lose. And they especially don't want to hear their leaders hoping to profit from that loss. Which should be good news for Republicans and the President come 2004.