2008 Woodie Awards
Kiss My Donkey
GOP holds no monopoly on U.S. safety
Stephen Yellin
Issue date: 2/15/08 Section: Opinion
On Feb. 7, former Massachusetts governor and failed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney withdrew from the 2008 race for the White House, in effect handing the nomination to Arizona Senator John McCain.
In his withdrawal statement, Romney wrote the following: "Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." He was referring to the two remaining Democratic Party candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and their positions on the Iraq debacle.
It is the latest in a long line of distortion by the Republican Party in regards to our nation's foreign policy, with the intent of defining the Democratic Party as "weak" on national security and international issues in the minds of the voters. This tactic goes back to Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War, and has been usually quite effective. It is also a complete whitewashing of the truth.
First, let's examine what the Republican Party means when they refer to Democrats as "weak." The usual explanation is that the average voter can't rely on the Democrats to protect him or her at home, and is unable to expand American power and prestige around the world. The specifics of that argument change depending on the situation. In 1972, Nixon claimed that Democrat George McGovern would abandon South Vietnam and fail to support America's allies in the Cold War.
Ronald Reagan's mantra in 1980 and 1984 was that Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were incapable of standing up to the Soviet Union and rolling back Communism.
Finally, George W. Bush's campaign strategy in 2004 was to portray John Kerry as unwilling to continue the occupation of Iraq and the "War on Terror" in general.
By contrast, all three Republicans, as well as George H.W. Bush, declared that they alone could keep America safe and secure.
The problem with that argument is that there is a fundamental difference between being "strong" on national security and being reckless. Ronald Reagan's concept of "standing up" to the USSR was to launch a massive "arms race" against the Soviet Union, thus plunging the United States into record deficits.
In his withdrawal statement, Romney wrote the following: "Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." He was referring to the two remaining Democratic Party candidates, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and their positions on the Iraq debacle.
It is the latest in a long line of distortion by the Republican Party in regards to our nation's foreign policy, with the intent of defining the Democratic Party as "weak" on national security and international issues in the minds of the voters. This tactic goes back to Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War, and has been usually quite effective. It is also a complete whitewashing of the truth.
First, let's examine what the Republican Party means when they refer to Democrats as "weak." The usual explanation is that the average voter can't rely on the Democrats to protect him or her at home, and is unable to expand American power and prestige around the world. The specifics of that argument change depending on the situation. In 1972, Nixon claimed that Democrat George McGovern would abandon South Vietnam and fail to support America's allies in the Cold War.
Ronald Reagan's mantra in 1980 and 1984 was that Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were incapable of standing up to the Soviet Union and rolling back Communism.
Finally, George W. Bush's campaign strategy in 2004 was to portray John Kerry as unwilling to continue the occupation of Iraq and the "War on Terror" in general.
By contrast, all three Republicans, as well as George H.W. Bush, declared that they alone could keep America safe and secure.
The problem with that argument is that there is a fundamental difference between being "strong" on national security and being reckless. Ronald Reagan's concept of "standing up" to the USSR was to launch a massive "arms race" against the Soviet Union, thus plunging the United States into record deficits.
Be the first to comment on this story