We know that the Democrats have made substantial gains by tolerating (encouraging?) the existence of the moonbat fringe in their body politic. We also know that this tactic could very well backfire on them when it matters most, as it backfired for the Howard Dean during the previous election cycle.
But why is this so? Have they violated some strategic law? Actually yes, according to Sun Tzu. Gary Gagliardi at The Warrior Class Blog explains:
Sun Tzu taught that the ground on which a position is built is very important to its stability. One of the four types of ground he discusses are marshes, where the footing is uncertain. In modern terms, marshes define positions that are built on ideas and information that is uncertain… Sun Tzu also teaches that, as you advance your position, you have to be wary about what kind of ground you are moving on top…
The Democrats have done an excellent job villifying President Bush. However, they have pushed it to the point that twenty-two percent of those who describe themselves as Democrats in this recent Rassmussen poll believe that President Bush knew about the September 11th attacks in advance. This is swampy land indeed. To add to that, another 22% are [un]certain whether or not the President knew in advance, which means that 44% of Democrats think that it is possible that an American president could be in on such a conspiracy.
And how does advancing onto swampy ground get you into trouble?
Well, what happens if a Democratic candidate is asked [at] some point to take a stand on whether or not the President and/or the CIA knew about 9/11 in advance? This puts any Democratic candidate in a difficult or impossible bind of either repudiating the beliefs of a large number of Democrats or embracing beliefs that most people think are insane and only espoused by the most demented of the Hate-America-First crowd.
This explains why the Democratic candidates need to stay away from “unfriendly” news media (such as FOX) for their debates, because they are depending on the MSM not to ask such polarizing and alienating questions.
Nobody seems to exemplify the shuffle the Dem leadership must do to avoid sinking into the muck than Hillary Clinton, who dearly wishes there were some way she could keep the support of the rabid anti-clue crowd at the same time that she tries to appear moderate. That is how, just in case you were wondering, she is able to call for an end of the war in Iraq at the same time she is acknowledging progress and insisting troops should remain to carry on the fight. Come on, Senator, you’re not making this fellow happy. Or this fellow. Or even these fellows for that matter.
I’ve already quoted half of Gary’s article so you may as well go read the rest.