August 26, 2008, - 4:15 pm

How the Dem Platform Shifts

By Debbie Schlussel
I’ve been at movie screenings all day (seeing lotsa pure dreck), but am back now.
I hope you’ll note how the Democratic Party Platform has shifted in just four years. Good-bye, national security and terrorism, hello . . . gay rights, gun control, and illegal aliens.
Oh, and it gets worse. Not only do the dems not think terrorism is a problem, they think we need to “understand the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism.” More liberal BS about the “root cause” of terrorists, rather than condemning them. Nauseating:

dempartyplatform.gif

In 2004, national security and terrorism had top billing and took up the first half of the Democratic Party platform, which was the first since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The platform promised retaliation for a terrorist attack with “overwhelming and devastating force,” making reference to the “war on terror” seven times. It identified winning “the global war against terror” as the primary national-security challenge.
A draft of this year’s platform refers to a general “war on terror” just once and argues for policies that “expand our understanding of the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism.”

As for the planks that sound like “moderation,” it’s as phony as Barack Obama.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




6 Responses

I think that in essence, the Democratic Party has been essentially changed since the 1972 convention when McGovern got the nomination, except to slowly become more radical and anti-American, as new anti-American social movements devolved. Whatever a candidate may have said to win an election, the DP has been anti-military, pro-abortion, pro-union, anti-Israel in practice, pro affirmative action, etc. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 he ran as a ‘moderate’, but governed as an anti-American who was pro-Socialist. Even if he had wanted to be conservative, the all-consuming radical core of the DP would have made it impossible. When I hear the media burbling about MO’s speech & its nuances, Biden’s nomination, & its nuances, they’re just wasting all of our time, because we all know what this loathesome political organization stands for.

c f on August 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Sorry, I meant to say the DP was essentially UNchanged since 1972.

c f on August 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm

We are not dealing with generic terrorism; it has a name, and it is Islamic Terrorism. The root cause of this current incarnation of terrorism is deep inside the very foundation of the RoP. The Democrats do not have the will to say so. They are afraid that they will not carry Dearborn in November, and they would rather spend their days hating the USA.

Pelayo on August 26, 2008 at 5:17 pm

The Democrat Party has drifted so far to the left, that they’ve fallen off, and will need a 24-foot or more extension ladder to get back up. The clueless, and duped into “Hope-nosis,” will never attempt the climb, and will forever be stuck in Jackass purgatory!

Jackson Pearson on August 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Debbie said: “Not only do the dems not think terrorism is a problem,
**they think we need to “understand the circumstances and beliefs that underpin extremism.”**
That’s not such a bad statement if to understand it meant realizing Islam’s doctrinal texts are the complete source to “the circumstances and beliefs that underpin ['Islamic'] extremism.”
Then I woke up.

heroyalwhyness on August 26, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Liberalism is about two things only, money and power. The rest is just talk.
The proof is the liberals should be far more hawkish against Islamic terrorism. Nobody is more anti-women’s rights and anti-gay than Muslims.

Jeff_W on August 26, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field