Square Pegs and Round Holes - The Democratic Disconnect

Democrats and Republicans are people; after that any similarities seem to disappear.

For example, when it came to what they saw and heard during the State of the Union Address, our political leaders heard what Mr. Bush had to say, however, the Republicans listened to the President and retained the information, the Democrats, steeped in their dogma, could not.

According to Green Party Presidential candidate, and champion of consumers, Ralph Nader, Democrats and Republicans are the same, "if you stack up the similarities, they just tower." I think he is wrong.

President Bush said, "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida." Adding, "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes."

Democrat Congresswoman Diana DeGette of Colorado said, "…didn't hear anything new about why we should have a unilateral attack against Iraq."

Senator Edward Kennedy said the military should not go to Iraq on the basis presented by the President to date. Kennedy wants another congressional resolution requiring the President to present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat."

New York Congressman Charles Rangel said, "President Bush failed to demonstrate that there is an immediate threat from Iraq to us or our allies."

Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords said, "I don't think there's anything, after listening to him, but that they've got their minds set on war and they're going to go to war. That's very sad."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "He did not make a convincing case that the use of force now is the only way to disarm Iraq, or that removing Saddam from power would guarantee that a new regime would not pursue the same policies. The clear and present danger that our country faces is terrorism, and the president did not explain how a war with Iraq would not compromise our efforts against terrorists."

Congressman Jerrold Nadler said, "What I didn't like was his reiteration of all of the policies we've heard him say over the last few months that we know are very harmful," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said, "He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said, "Tonight, the president used all the right rhetoric, but he still has all the wrong policies. Regrettably, he passed up this opportunity to close the widening credibility gap that is putting him further and further out of touch with the American people."

The Gallup polling organization says 67 percent of people who watched the speech believe the president made a convincing case for military action. Before the speech, only 47 percent said Mr. Bush had made his case. Perhaps Mr. Daschle's perception of what constitutes "wrong policies" is not the same as his constituencies'.

President Bush said, "Health care reform must begin with Medicare, because Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America." Adding, "My budget will commit an additional 400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare."

Presidential candidate Howard Dean said, "The president continues to threaten war without making a case for war." Adding, President Bush "proposes no serious health care reform."

President Bush said, "Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs mean more taxpayers – and higher revenues to our government." Adding, "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes – and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep – this year – an average of almost 1,100 dollars more of their own money. A family of four with an income of 40,000 dollars would see their federal income taxes fall from 1,178 dollars to 45 dollars per year. And our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses."

New Jersey Congressman Rob Andrews said, "This is trickle-down, the sequel," adding, "It didn't work the first time and it's not going to work this time."

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt said, "The president failed to ease the nation's anxiety over his economic plan and fell short of addressing the nation's increasing concern about the future."

Senator John Edwards said, "The President just doesn't get it. Giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans should not take priority over the real economic, health care and security concerns facing regular people."

According to a CBS News Poll, 59% of Americans before the Address, approved of the job President Bush was doing and 54% said the Administration's priorities were the same theirs. After the President gave his State of the Union Address, 81% of Americans agreed that the President's priorities were the same as theirs and support for President Bush rose to 71%.

The disconnect between Democratic Leaders and Republican Leaders is becoming ever more obvious, the disconnect between the Democratic Leaders and the American people is becoming ever more ominous.

Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduatestudy in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number ofyears in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now a California attorney.Paul can be contacted at paul.walfield@cox.net

Even Democrats would admit this has been a gawd-awful week for them. Indeed, not since the fall of the Berlin Wall have Democrats had a week quite this bad. Nothing seems to go right -- oops, I mean Left.
Take the Super Bowl game last Sunday. In the weeks leading-up to kick-off, speculation grew of another 9/11 in the works, Qualcomm Stadium being smack-dab in Jihad cross-hairs.
Among the deep/heavy thinkers, the deep/heavy thinking went something like this: New Year celebrations went fine 'n' dandy, true, but don't let that fool you. Al-Qaeda -- Reconstituted! Stronger than ever! Ruling Afghanistan! (See Tommy Daschle) -- was poised to strike. Bush, fixated on Saddam, no longer focused on fighting al-Qaeda, can't prevent it -- he's in no position to. So why no terror over the New Year? Ah, retorted the deep/heavy thinkers, Osama, big football 'fan' that he is, kept the powder dry in lieu of a huge Super Bowl media splash. After the game, of course.
Problem was, while the handwringers were handwringing, Team Bush, little did they know, was already on the case. The Office of Homeland Security gave the event a "level two readiness" designation, a gauntlet of Secret Service and FBI, buttressed by local authorities, provided security. As a result, that 71,500-seat stadium during game hours and after may have been the safest spot on earth.
Bottom line? Whatever terror was in the works for the game -- and there were reports of plenty 'chatter/noise' -- didn't happen.
Democrats, led by Florida Senator Bob Graham, have sought to undermine public confidence in the Bush administration, peddling the 'Bush-Isn't-Doing-Enough-On-Homeland-Security-While-Chasing-Saddam' pap on the Sunday shows week after week. Indeed, so 'concerned' was Bobby boy about the homefront, that he voted against the Iraq resolution because a *yea* vote would only make Saddam, already mad that Bush has been so mean to him, even madder still -- mad enough to use Weapons of Mass Destruction that Donkeys like Bobby Graham insist Saddam couldn't possibly have because bully 'Bush hasn't made his case', you see.
Anyway, the upshot is this: Three of the biggest events of the year -- Christmas, New Year, Super Bowl -- came and went, yet, no terrorism. The anticlimax put Democrats on defense, their charges that Bush has been derelict on Homeland Security more discredited than ever.
After Blix's scathing interim report Monday on Iraqi non-compliance, then, of course, came Bush's State-of-the-Union Address Tuesday. In it, he vowed to take away from Democrats the two things they most cherish in life: Tax money and Saddam Hussein.
You know a Republican SOTU speech is good when Teddy Kennedy can't stop sleeping. Everytime the C-Span lenses peered towards the Hero of Chappaquiddick, there he was....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Okay, maybe he wasn't snoozing the whole time. In fact, come to think of it, something Bush said at one point seemed to rivet his attention -- something about Saddam possessing thousands of liters of this and thousands of gallons of that. Bush, of course, was talking about Anthrax spores and botulinum, but, put yourself in Teddy's shoes for a moment. There you are, drunker than Maureen Dowd after learning Catherine Zeta Jones got pregnant again. Discombobulated, you're barely able to make out a sentence, but you pick up a word here and there.
So what's a dopey, punch-bowl happy juicehead like Teddy supposed to think when words like gallons and liters are thrown around like that? Wine gallons! Whiskey liters! Booze! What else? 'Saddam's a moonshiner!' the poor boozehound probably thinks. 'No wonder the French are so chum-chum with Saddam!' Teddy imagines.
Moonshine -- a Weapon of Mass Destruction? 'Poppycock!' says Teddy.
(Then again, Saddam's son Uday Hussein once forced two liters of Whiskey down the throat of some crony who came late to a meeting.)
Given the Kennedy family history, Teddy feels a special bond, a special, er, chemistry with moonshiners like Saddam.
So strong, in fact, Teddy now seeks to revisit the whole Iraq war resolution, vowing to introduce new legislation which, if enacted, would force evil Bush to get explicit approval from Congress before launching military strikes on illegal distilleries in Baghdad.
"Much has changed in the many months since Congress debated war with Iraq," Teddy said in a press release right after Bush's State-of-the-Union Address.
Okay, I know what you're thinking: The Iraq war resolution that Teddy now seeks to repeal passed a Democrat-controlled Senate overwhelmingly, but Teddy thinks repealing it stands a snowball's chance in a GOP-controlled Senate? Well, what did you expect -- the guy's a guzzler, for crying out loud!
At any rate, the State-of-the-Union Address didn't sway many Democrats, who urge Bush to turn over control of U.S. foreign policy to France and Germany and Susan Sarandon.
Short of a mushroom cloud over New York or Chicago, followed by a live confession from Baghdad, the odds that Democrats will move away from Saddam are remote.
And even a mushroom cloud may not do it.
"I don't think the administration has presented adequate, convincing evidence" fumed Sen. Tommy Daschle Wednesday, dismissing White House charges about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Tommy backs Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who calls Bush's charges "baseless." Both challenge the Bush administration to present 'proof'.
Appearing earlier on ABC's "Good Morning America," Aziz said that "the accusations of Mr. Bush in his statement last night are baseless, simply baseless!"
Aziz, in the same interview, hotly denied any Iraqi links to al-Qaeda.
"We are quite different people," he said.
Again, Democrats agree -- no way would Saddam hang around scummy terrorist low-lives, you know. Look, Saddam may have killed tens of thousands of innocents with chemical weapons, but would the dude stoop to break bread with the likes of Osama? No way! say Democrats. C'mon, it's not like Saddam doesn't have morals and stuff, right? Even dictators have principles!
But the bad news for Democrats just kept on coming, with polls showing the President had rallied the country on Tuesday.
In one post-SOTU poll, people were asked if Saddam was cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors. Most Democrats in Washington say yes, but a resounding 80% of Americans disagree with the Democrats.
In a CBSNEWS poll, respondents were asked if they supported military action to remove Saddam. Democrats in Washington don't just say 'no', but 'hell no!' A whopping 77% of Americans disagree with the Democrats, the poll showed.
The latest bit of bad news for Democrats: The President not only rallied the country, even Europe -- new and old -- is coming his way.
In an letter published in 12 European newspapers Thursday, the leaders of Britain, Denmark Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungry pledged their solidarity with America and the Bush administration, further isolating Baghdad and its cronies, U.S. Democrats.
"The Transatlantic relationship," they wrote, "must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security. Our strength lies in unity."
In a rebuke to Baghdad allies Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, the 8 leaders wrote that "the Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction present a clear threat to world security." The statement was signed personally by all 8 heads of state.
Call it Bush's 'coalition of the willing' versus Saddam's coalition of Democrats with the willies.
Anyway, that's..
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"

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.