How can we summarize the Democrats’ political positions going into the final month before the elections? And what I mean by that is how do we synthesize down to the essence of what the Democrats stand for and remove all their lame spin and rationalizations? Well, thankfully there are some great minds out there commenting on the political situation. And one of them is Michael Barone:

Today, Democrats are pretty much back to the third person plural. Yes, they still talk of “our troops” from time to time, but usually only to call for them to be “redeployed” from a mission that has been more successful than not, but has not been completed. They seldom mention any soldier’s heroism unless they can persuade him to run for office on the Democratic ticket. They talk, instead, about George Bush’s war, even though most Democratic senators and nearly half of House Democrats voted to authorize it and — remember? — said that they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Well, to summarize this would be to note many aspects of the Democrats. If they had legitimate concerns for “changing their minds” one could give them some leeway for being quitters in the face of slow, steady progress. But since they have no good rationale, just claims that Bush fooled them into Iraq, we are left with the conclusion they are two-faced

The Dems did not vote to go into Iraq because they believed anything being said at the time. This is by their own admission into being fooled by Bush. They were too cowardly to express their resistance to fighting Saddam and decided they could turn on Bush later, when being open and honest about their views was to their political advantage. Basically they are the ones who sent our troops to Iraq under false pretenses. Bush and the Reps believed Saddam was a risk that had to be removed. The Dems saw Iraq as a political land mine where they would lose seats if they truly expressed their concerns (voiced by their anti-war base quite loudly and through the Dean campaign for President). That is why they have graduated to “two-faced” on this issue. They misled everyone because they were too afraid their views would hurt them politically. We see that in the Kerry statement “I voted against the war, before I voted for it”. He lied to everyone, and probably himself. Bush has been open and consistent. The Democrats have not.

What about battling terrorism? The Democrats get a “two-faced” on that issue as well:

And most Democrats are willing, even eager to take unprecedented stands that will retard the fight against terrorism. More than four-fifths of House Democrats voted against the military tribunals bill this week, though military tribunals have always been used to try unlawful combatants, and the bill gave those charged more protections than in the past.

Many have taken the astonishing position that National Security Agency surveillance of suspected terrorists abroad, undeniably legal, must cease when the subject calls someone in the United States until a court warrant can be obtained.

What Michael Barone does not remind everyone is that the FISA Court will not authorize any warrants based on NSA intercepts alone. Basically this democrat iillogic results in only one conclusion: we cannot monitor terrorist contacts with people here in the US. If we intercept them by the NSA, but cannot use that intercept to get a warrant, then we let the bastards roam free. Which is how 9-11 happened in the first place. Only someone truly confused would find a way to rationalize going back to the pre 9-11 days when terrorists here in the US were free to openly talk to their masters back in the ME.

There’s more indicators of what Democrats mean when they spin. The Democrats, based on their opposition to the Patriot Act, are not interested in military actions against terrorists, but also want to make terrorism less critical – crime wise – to our nation than drug dealing. They want to lawyer up terrorists and make it impossible to interrogate them beyond “please” and “pretty please” because the Geneva Convention doesn’t allow a detainee’s feelings to be hurt. The Dems were all for the NY Times when it exposed the legal and successful SWIFT program that monitored where the terrorists were spending their money (if they have money going to LA we can assume they have something of interest going on in LA). We must conclude the Democrats not only want to pull back militarily, but they also want to pull back on homeland defense and law enforcement (this is not in doubt, the only question is whether they conciously understand what they are doing or not).

It boils down to this: Democrats are not focused, or apparently even concerned, about protecting America. They have lied to America about their true views on Iraq and terrorism by claiming to be for something, sometimes even voting for it, when they clearly did not support the actions. The Dems hid their intentions from us until they felt they could find a way to thrust them on us in a way that could gain them votes. They did this because they were interested in keeping power – not the issue of the day and its relationship to national security.

The Dems are myopically focused on one thing: gaining political power. This obsession of theirs has made them lose sight of our enemies because they only see Bush as ‘our’ enemy. They have lost site of what we need to protect us because for Bush to win on terrorism means they lose at the ballot box, and therefore protection is bad. They have lost site of everything except their anger and not being popular anymore. The Democrats have shown one trait – they will do anything to win this fall. They will smear, they will mislead, they will expose our defenses, and they will surrender to Al Qaeda if it means they win control of Congress. It is about time to decide whether America will pay too high a price for the Dems to win. They offer us nothing, but they have shown us everything they represent. We have a choice this fall.