Posted on 09/27/2002 10:33:35 AM PDT by gubamyster
Posted: September 27, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
What a week the Democrats have had:
Al Gore emerges in San Francisco to summon the peace caucus to his side (and the City Council of Santa Cruz obliges the next day with a 6-0 vote condemning the Bush push for war);
The Democratic governor of Kentucky is revealed as a cad and a con;
The Democratic senator from New Jersey dispatches Team Torricelli to the federal court to keep documents secret that detail the disgraced incumbent's ties to a federal prisoner;
Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin's campaign is forced to apologize for Nixonian dirty tricks;
Zogby's numbers strike fear in the Wellstone camp – as well as many others;
Gov. "Clouseau" of California actually had to cancel a fundraiser because of media interest in his many apparent conflicts of interest;
Democratic Congressmen McDermott and Kucinich are rallying the wingnuts to the banner;
And the union heavies are demanding that they run the Homeland Security Department. Daschle tried to change the subject on Monday with a speech about the cost of pills and other pressing matters, but nobody noticed. Gore had stepped on him. And the Republican lead in fund-raising is enormous. So what did Daschle do?
He had his "Muskie moment." In early 1972, then-candidate for president Edmund Muskie stood outside the Manchester Union Leader and denounced the paper's coverage of his wife. He broke down. His candidacy was over.
Daschle lost it as well yesterday – and he did it not because the president had challenged anyone's patriotism, but because the president has repeatedly challenged the Democrats to give national security issues the top priority. The Democrats have refused, and in the context of the Homeland Security bill, it is a politically devastating failure.
The most searing critic of Daschle and the Democrats has been Democratic Sen. Zell Miller who thundered from the Senate floor after Daschle was finished that the country was exposed and that the Senate risked the wrath of all Americans if another attack struck in San Francisco, Louisiana or Newport, R.I. Miller chose his hypothetical targets with care, for senators from those three states were key in blocking the Homeland Security department from emerging ready for the war on terrorism.
Daschle and the Democrats are fighting for the National Treasury Employees Union, the Federal Personnel Manual, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Democrats want their within-grade step increases and their Federal Employee Health Benefits brochures. In short, they want the standard deal for federal employees which makes it practically impossible to fire incompetents and to discipline malcontents.
They want hearings and appeals and seniority. The president doesn't care about any of that. He's not against it in other contexts, but he thinks it is patently ridiculous to be arguing about such matters when there are tens of thousands of radicals who want nothing but an opening to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The president has the better argument, and he will carry the day if the debate is carried to the people. Which is why Daschle attempted with his tirade to intimidate the president and all those who question the Democrats' priorities. Daschle is attempting to immunize his colleagues from questions about their judgment by equating such questions with challenges to their patriotism. I don't think it will work. In fact, I think it failed the moment that Daschle drew attention to the underlying issue. Focus is the last thing the Democrats needed on this issue.
Then there is Robert Byrd. He is out of control, and increasingly appears around the bend. The Democrats are stuck with him, and even veteran hand-holders like Joe Biden are increasingly exasperated by his cranky outbursts. But there he was on Wednesday, shouting at the top of his lungs, and embarrassing not only the Democrats but all Americans. Daschle is Exhibit One in the fall campaign, but Byrd is surely Exhibit Two.
The campaign is now destined to be about large issues and serious arguments. Republicans welcome such a debate. The Democrats fear it. And that explains why the Democrats had such a bad week: The country does not suffer fools – especially in times of war.
Well, Hugh... now you know!
Ba ha hah ahhahh!
"They ARE on the offense!"
(More like the laughing stock of the nation!)
"Muskie moment" is damn good too. But Muskie was more pathetic. Daschle had more of a temper tantrum, IMO. Some wag will entitle Daschle's outbursts with the best analogy. The act deserves such.
"...So what did Daschle do?This is Hugh's SPECIAL EDITION in WorldNetDaily...He had his "Muskie moment." In early 1972, then-candidate for president Edmund Muskie stood outside the Manchester Union Leader and denounced the paper's coverage of his wife.
He broke down. His candidacy was over.Daschle lost it as well yesterday – and he did it not because the president had challenged anyone's patriotism, but because the president has repeatedly challenged the Democrats to give national security issues the top priority.
The Democrats have refused, and in the context of the Homeland Security bill, it is a politically devastating failure..." - Hugh Hewitt
...in honor of "DEMOCRATIC MELTDOWN" week!.
(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)
...CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: With his six foot four inch frame, low key manner, and wry humor, Edmund Muskie was often called Lincolnesque, and that made him an ideal vice presidential candidate for the ebullient Hubert Humphrey on the Democratic ticket in 1968. Still, it was a losing ticket. In 1970, Muskie's star rose when he responded in a nationwide speech to a divisive Republican campaign that attacked the patriotism of college students and Democrats.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE: (November 1970) In the heat of our campaigns, we have all become accustomed to a little anger and exaggeration. Yet, on the whole, our political process has served us well.
CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: After that, Muskie became the favorite to win the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination. But being the front-runner for over a year proved difficult. During the New Hampshire primary, Muskie choked with anger and seemed to cry because of a couple of nasty articles in the "Manchester Union Leader." One article proved to be a hoax. The other attacked Muskie's wife. Muskie then attacked publisher William Loeb.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE: (February 1972) By attacking me, by attacking my wife, he has proved himself to be a gutless coward. And maybe I said all I should on it. It's fortunate for him he's not on this platform beside me. A good woman--
CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The episode came to symbolize the collapse of Muskie's Presidential campaign because of the perception that he was weak. Muskie then went back to the Senate and headed the powerful Budget Committee until President Carter tapped him to be Secretary of State in 1980...
Hugh Hewitt alert!!!Thanks for the PING!
See also, from www.HughHewitt.com:
September 27, 2002
My second WorldNetDaily column of the week can be read here. The disarray of the Democrats was too great a subject not to write on in a timely fashion, but even the piece was overtaken by events. By the time it had appeared, Barbra Streisand had dispatched instructions to Gephardt and the federal court had released a prosecutors' letter concerning Torricelli pal David Chang, (Read the New York Times' account of the Chang letter by Golden and Kocieniewski.) The Democratic Party is now in the ditch. Efforts to pull them out will have to wait until next week, but the stubborn insistence of taking care of unions before it takes care of the national security will haunt the Party through the elections and beyond.
As will silly "chickenhawk" comments by would-be Congressmen. The Dems have nominated Mike Feeley to take on Bob Beauprez in the open 7th District in Colorado. Feeley took Daschle's cue at a debate on Wednesday night and demanded a Presidential apology. If an apology wasn't forthcoming, Feeley threatened to name every Republican "chickenhawk" who was running for office who had never "worn the uniform of the United States" but who wanted to send other people's children to war. This bullying and blustering has blown back on Feeley who won't give any interviews. (You can send him an e-mail viat www.feeley2002.com and you can send Beauprez a check via www.beauprezforcongress.com.) Feeley must have thought Daschle knew what he was doing, and Daschle must have thought Gore knew what he was doing, but no Democrat appears to know what to do, which is vote for the resolution authorizing force and vote for a Homeland Security Department which isn't hobbled by union perks.
What you should do is contribute to Norm Coleman at www.colemanforsenate.com as Wellstone is the surest vote against the war with Iraq...
 |
| Tue Sep 24, 9:30 PM ET |
|
Barbra Streisand is emerging from self-imposed retirement as an entertainer to help out her old pals in the Democratic Party. Two years after bidding farewell to her career as a public performer Streisand will sing nine songs at a benefit for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, organizers said September 24, 2002. Streisand is seen backstage at the Academy Awards in Hollywood, March 24. Mike Blake/Reuters) |
"DumpDAVIS" FReeps are currently scheduled for:"Dump DAVIS!"
Sunday (9/29) - 6 pm to 8 pm - Kodak Theatre in Hollywood - confirmedPlease FReep-mail me for details, and to get on my list for a SECRET "Dump DAVIS!" FReep - coming soon!
(note NEW times)
Barbra Streisand and Barry Manilow will be raising $4 million for the DNC - starts at 7:30 pm
theme: "Hollywood Hookers say 'eGray' Davis is UNFAIR competition!"
(Hooker/pimp costumes encouraged, but not required!)Monday (9/30) - 11 am to noon - Nixon Library in Yorba Linda - confirmed
(note NEW start time)
Bill Simon speech/lunch - starts at noon
theme: "Gray Davis: debate DODGER"
(Bring ANYTHING that says "Dodgers" - hats, posters, uniforms!)Monday - (10/7) - 11 am to noon - Los Angeles Times building - confirmed
(note the NEW start time)
Simon/Davis debate - starts at noon
theme: "Dump DAVIS"
("Dump DAVIS" posters, sanitation worker outfits, dump truck?)Saturday (10/19) - noon to 4 pm - Capitol building in Sacramento - confirmed
state-wide "DumpDAVIS" FReep in SACRAMENTO!
FReepers from all across Cailfornia will gather on the Capitol Steps
Jim Robinson is scheduled to be there.
Sacramento radio station KTKZ (1380-AM) would like to do a LIVE remote broadcast from the FReep!
theme: "Dump DAVIS"
(possible GIANT dump truck, dumpsters - use your imagination...)
One thing I never knew:From the Google cache of http://bioethics.net/in_focus/in_focus_cook-hoas.php:
Why was the late William Loeb attacking Jane Muskie in the first place?
Why exactly did he say about her? The news coverage never really said, as I recall.
Irreconcilable Differences? Seeking Boundaries for Privacy and Technology
By Ann Freeman Cook, Ph.D, The University of MontanaHelena Hoas, Ph.D., The University of Montana
e-mail: hoas@selway.umt.edu
In an essay on post-modernism, Walter Truett Anderson suggests that in a pluralistic society such as ours, "there are lots of differences and there are also different sorts of differences." (Anderson, 1995) These differences are rooted in competing world views. As the differences become more discernable, truth becomes more elusive; indeed truth becomes an artifact or construction of a particular world view. One could borrow that kernel of Anderson's argument, add the lure of information technology, and privacy could certainly be regarded as an equally elusive quarry. Even levels of privacy that historically have been regarded as sacred, such as the physician/patient confidentiality celebrated in the Hippocratic Oath, are increasingly under siege.This siege is not new, but it has certainly intensified since 1972, when William Loeb published articles in the Manchester Union Leader that vigorously questioned the mental health of Jane Muskie. Muskie, the wife of a presidential contender, had received mental health treatment. Those articles, and the public response to them, demonstrated how easily disclosure may result in personal disaster. Thus it is no surprise that by 1979, the need to find a balance between protecting the confidentiality of personal information and providing access to individual data for research and statistical purposes became intensified... (Flaherty, 1979)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.