Posted on 11/16/2003 2:48:34 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
You might remember MAD - the Cold War policy of Mutually Assured Destruction in which the United States and the Soviet Union each planned to obliterate the other in the event of a nuclear attack.
Well, among themselves, the Democratic presidential candidates have triggered their own version of mutually assured destruction.
If the economic gains being reported now prove to be a genuine start of recovery, it could put a big dent in the Democrats' 2004 campaign plans. But right now, they are facing another formidable danger.
For some weeks now, a visitor from Mars, observing his first election campaign, could be forgiven if he thought the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination were advance men for George Bush, so eagerly have they been tearing each other down.
Most of these forays into political fratricide have targeted discrepancies between past and present positions on a variety of issues, implying deviousness or inconstancy or both.
And most have been aimed at front-runner Howard Dean. Richard Gephardt denounces Dean for flip-flopping on Medicare, having previously supported cuts in the program. John Kerry contrasts a statement Dean made in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, suggesting we might need to re-evaluate some of our civil liberties, with his present attacks on the USA Patriot Act.
For his part, Dean likes to borrow the late Paul Wellstone's quip: "I belong to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," the implication being that his opponents aren't real Democrats. And Dean accuses Gephardt, Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards - all members of Congress, all supporters of the war resolution - of trying to get off that hook by asking questions now that they should have asked before voting for the resolution.
The newcomer, Wesley Clark, who entered the race flying so high, might have been brought down the most, at least in the short term. The former general has been fired upon because of remarks he made in support of the Bush team while he was still in uniform - implying that he is not a true Democrat, but merely a political opportunist.
On a lighter note: In one recent debate, Dean called Kerry's positions "Bush-lite." A questioner told Lieberman the phrase also is the rap on him, but Lieberman indicated that he thought "Bush-lite" fit better on Clark. And so it goes.
Interestingly, these candidates do agree on quite a number of important things, including a more cooperative foreign policy in place of Bush's unilateralism and a "war on terrorism" that includes relieving the desperate conditions in countries where terrorism is spawned. They agree that Social Security and health care must be reformed, that the promise to leave no child behind must be truly kept and funded, that Bush's relentless dismantling of hard-won environmental gains must be reversed, and, last but hardly least, they share a passionate desire to expel Bush and what they call the radical right from the White House and break their grip on Congress.
Of course, there are serious issues of substance and of detail separating candidates, and to some extent this is both natural and healthy. Resolving such conflicts is how any party composed of different interest groups develops its platform and game plan for the general election.
But the personal attacks the candidates have been making on one another are anything but healthy.
Without making any judgment about the accuracy of individual charges, these attacks uniformly ignore any possibility that the accused might have, with time and experience, simply changed his mind on an issue (of course, the outrage caused by Dean's Confederate flag gaffe should be classed as a self-inflicted wound).
But one thing should be obvious to everyone: The damage done will not go away after the nominee is chosen. It will persist, and it will be used by the Republicans against whomever the chosen one might be.
Indeed, the leading Democrats might be writing the Republicans' campaign book for them.
A contested primary always is a process of elimination. For the Democrats, the problem with this one is that it threatens to eliminate them all.
True conversions are quite rare and are frequently accompanied by other changes in one's own overall philosophy. Again as applied to criminals, how many expressions of remorse are believable.
Translation: "No Christians should be in government."
IIRC, Hanoi Walt, was seriuosly considered to be asked as John Anderson's running mate in 80.
What ever there was, didn't stick with me. I remember watching '20th Centrury' a lot. Grew up thinking WWII was fought in black & white. Was actually shocked to finally see the color films. Thought Walter was a great guy until he proved himself otherwise.
Hey, Walt, you senile old coot. Do you mean Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19 terrorists hailed from? Do you think a country which employs their natives to run the bureaucracy and imports foreigners to do everything else (from cleaning their houses to pumping their oil) really needs more help from the beleagured American taxpayer?
I've always felt Walt's trust was due to his uncanny resemblance to Captain Kangaroo. Both worked for See BS and they were never seen together.
Well, that's not completely true. I'm sure the rats think Bishop Robinson would make a fine addition to the government.
Oh, wait, he isn't a Christian, is he. I guess he would be a CINO. So he's OK.
Do not be shocked to see tv shots of Bush standing next to Hitler in ads purchased by George Soros and produced by Howard Deans folks in Hollywood.
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.