Posted on 12/13/2003 2:11:13 AM PST by Mia T
|
The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2
hyperlinked images of shame |
|||
by Mia T, 4.6.03
Mia T, THE ALIENS
Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."
Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.
From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.
That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will
which means both in real time and historically.
When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)
Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.
With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively
and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.
With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)
and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.
The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
P.S. As for pathologic self-interest, check out Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview; the interview is contained in my latest virtual hillary movie (below), hillary talks:ON TERROR; it is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in breathtaking detail.
Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.
Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy and essential stupidity, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that such inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL
|
I think Gore would have used the same words no matter who he chose to endorse, and he would have endorsed the frontrunner, no matter who it was.
But my question of the week? Where's Bill Clinton? He comments on everything....but hasn't said a word about Gore endorsing Dean. Wierd.
Fred Barnes bump !! ...
I'm afraid the thought is not ridiculous to a good portion of dumbed-down, uninformed, somnambulant voters, who know little of her true character and past actions.
The mainsrtream media has protected her and promoted her, and it is their design to get a Dem. elected. So I'm sure the idea is not ridiculous to many, many Americans. They are way too influenced by the communist/socialist/liberal/one-worlder/Democrat lamestream media. It is still true that the great majority of Americans get their political impulses from the influential propaganda of the ever-present lefty media.
For instance; how many voters know that Hillary is the woman who told folks on the campaign trail that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, of Mount Everest fame? The same Edmund Hillary who was an obscure bee-keeper in New Zealand when Hillary made her lamentable appearance on earth. Dear Edmund didn't scale the mountain until six years later.
How many voters were informed of this lie by her protecters and promoters in the mainstream media? Hmmm.
Don't give Americans the benefit of the doubt. They are nearly all blind and ignorant about Hillary, and it's all a very well organized and relentless plan to keep them that way.
Have you ever wondered why Life magazine decided to do a feature on her in 1969 at the Wellesley commencement? - "Life magazine had featured Hillary in a piece titled, "The Class of '69," which showcased three student activists whom Life's editors deemed the best and brightest of the year." BARF
Hillary's grooming goes way back, and most Americans don't know her, and would most likely not find the idea of Hillary running the military so ridiculous!
It's ugly out there. There are storm clouds ahead.
Gee! More of the same....."bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world".
The only thing that might be different is if Howard Kurtz, Paul Begala, or Judy Woodruff would 'blow lunch' one day on a photo of George Bush on CNN!
Or, if the ever-corpse-like, bitter, and thin-lipped duo of Eleanor Clift and Geraldine Ferraro would just go ahead and stick pins in a doll of The President some evening on FoxNews.
That would be a little different!
This trio of lamebrains has, no doubt, been congratulating themselves (itself?) over the years but then....I believe they probably would have picked Hitler, Musssolini and Tojo in earlier years!
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.