Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Self-destruction: Democrats seem intent on helping Republicans win
Scipps Howard News Service via The Gleaner ^ | December 30, 2003 | BETSY HART

Posted on 12/30/2003 5:35:16 AM PST by PJ-Comix

We are days away from 2004, and it's a very important year for America. It's the year we'll find out if our country still has a vibrant, two-party system. Or, should we cancel future elections, and just let the Republicans rule?

A big "no thanks" on that one from me.

But that's where we could be headed if the Democrats don't get their act together -- fast.

Here's what Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean had to say in a major foreign policy speech the day after Saddam Hussein's capture was reported: He said it offered America an opportunity to "move ahead," but "the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer."

Um, OK, I'm assuming he really believes that. How he believes it is beyond me, but I'm assuming he really believes it.

But what might be more telling is that on the day it was reported we had Saddam, Dean actually made comments that were complimentary of the administration and called Saddam's capture a great day for America.

Obviously, when he had time to ponder the matter, he decided to go in a different direction. Left.

But Dean said something else even more revealing, as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer reported in a column entitled "The Delusional Dean": Dean told interviewer Diane Rehm that he found something he heard to be to be a most "interesting" idea: that the Saudi government tipped off President Bush to the fact that the Sept. 11 attacks were coming. What?

Later, when pressed, Dean said he "didn't believe" it of course. No, but he was awfully happy to put that outrageous rumor out there. The latest polls show Dean ahead in the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic primaries, only a month or so away.

What is going on? There was a time when partisan Democrats really thought America was great -- that a strong America was a force for good in the world.

They wanted big social programs and all that, but one still got the impression they were on our team.

Perhaps that's why 50 years ago, almost half of the electorate identified themselves as Democrats. But by 2002, it was only 34 percent.

Most amazingly, Democratic pollster Mark Penn recently revealed, today only 22 percent of white men identify themselves as Democrats.

As David Brooks reported in the Weekly Standard in an article aptly entitled, "Democrats Go off the Cliff," Democratic Senator Robert Byrd recently said that because of President Bush, "This republic is at its greatest danger in its history," and John Kerry said that Bush "deliberately misled" America in order to start the Iraq war.

"Greatest danger" to the Republic? What? Bush bold-faced lying to Americans in order to start a war half way around the world? Crazy.

Yes, there's Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democratic senator and presidential contender who condemned Howard Dean's response to the Saddam capture.

He seems to be the one sane Democrat running for president, sort of in the mode of JFK: pro-American, strong on national defense, fairly liberal on domestic policy, without being for big tax increases. (JFK actually cut taxes.) But, Lieberman is floundering in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes. Apparently he's too, well, reasonable.

Of course, there is a Democratic "stop-Dean" coalition. But few Democrats seem to be listening.

And that's the problem. It's the talk of Republicans -- what in the world is happening to the Democrats? Is their hatred for Bush eating them alive or just making them irrelevant?

Here's the problem for people like me. I'm a conservative, not a partisan.

I want, and conservatives should want, the political competition that a responsible Democratic party provides. Contrary to what many Republicans might think, if 2004 is the year the Democrats fully implode, it will NOT be a happy new year.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; betsyhart; howarddean
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Of course, there is a Democratic "stop-Dean" coalition. But few Democrats seem to be listening.

That's because the LOONEY LEFT is now running the party primaries. Dean can say anything, no matter how nutty, and he stays just as popular. Face it, Demmycrats. Your core supporters are now identical with DUmmie members.

And that's the problem. It's the talk of Republicans -- what in the world is happening to the Democrats? Is their hatred for Bush eating them alive or just making them irrelevant?

YUP! Their insane hatred for Bush is making them lose any sense of rationality and the result is that the incredibly nutty Dean will WIN the Democrat nomination. A year ago we all thought that Al Sharpton would prove to be an embarrassment to the Democrats. Who could predicted last year that a LEADING candidate would arise who would be so nutty that he even makes Big Al look like a font of rationality?

Contrary to what many Republicans might think, if 2004 is the year the Democrats fully implode, it will NOT be a happy new year.

Contrary to what you think, it WILL be a Happy New Year!

1 posted on 12/30/2003 5:35:17 AM PST by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
"There was a time when partisan Democrats really thought America was great -- that a strong America was a force for good in the world."

I musta blinked..... I missed it.

2 posted on 12/30/2003 5:42:13 AM PST by Feckless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I want, and conservatives should want, the political competition that a responsible Democratic party provides.

A big "Amen!" to that.

3 posted on 12/30/2003 5:59:58 AM PST by Coop (God bless our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Doesn't the democratic party demise have the Clinton's fingerprints on it? If the Dems do poorly next year, guess who is instantly the Dem nominee for 2008? Hillary.
4 posted on 12/30/2003 6:13:49 AM PST by joonbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Democrats seem intent on helping Republicans win

(snicker)

Yeah...kinda makes one wonder.

5 posted on 12/30/2003 6:15:37 AM PST by BureaucratusMaximus (if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feckless
I'd say Truman and JFK were in that mold.

Truman didn't blink at dropping the A-bomb on Japan. And JFK, in his inaugural address, famously said that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
6 posted on 12/30/2003 6:15:47 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joonbug
Let me get this straight: Betsy Hart doesn't want a Republican juggernaut, but she is a conservative. She wants a return to sanity for Democrats, but she fails to see that the Democrats lost all principles when they elected Clinton. This article should be filed under Total Denial.
7 posted on 12/30/2003 6:19:38 AM PST by Galtoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Feckless
"I musta blinked..... I missed it."

Scoop Jackson ... Sam Nunn ... Harry Truman ... and I'm sure that there were others ...

Zell Miller ... Breaux from Louisiana ...

8 posted on 12/30/2003 6:20:09 AM PST by BlueLancer (Der Elite Møøsenspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmååndø (EMØØK))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
if 2004 is the year the Democrats fully implode, it will NOT be a happy new year.

I disagree with that. If the dims do implode we will still have a two party system. The conservative and the not so conservative branches of the Republican party. All of whom will be patriots and the only disagreements being on social policy.

I know - I'm dreaming.

9 posted on 12/30/2003 6:21:23 AM PST by Holly_P
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
I struggle with this. From a "free market perspective," you always want competition, especially in politics.

From a historical perspective, however (just my personal---but I think, academically informed, opinion), the Democrats ORIGINATED in one "principle," the acquisition and maintenance of power to sustain slavery.

Oh, some of the founders like Martin Van Buren (NOT Thomas Jefferson, as his party evolved into the party of James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams) argued that they were only trying to "save" the Union. But most of the "true believers in the period 1830-1860 supported the Dem party because it was THE PARTY OF SLAVERY, end of story.

Therefore, is it really bad that what is (again, IMHO) an evil party disappears? I don't think so. A new party, perhaps grounded in real principles, might take its place to generate new competition.

10 posted on 12/30/2003 6:29:46 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Feckless
I think to the extent that JFK believed anything, he believed the U.S. was a force for good in the world. Ditto Harry Truman.
11 posted on 12/30/2003 6:30:34 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Holly_P
It all comes down to what to do with federal revenue.
Defense vs. social programs;
tax cuts vs. social programs;
less intrusive government regulations vs. government running small business.
12 posted on 12/30/2003 6:31:09 AM PST by Galtoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Galtoid
Again, I think she is writing from 'free market' principles---that competition always produces a better product, including in politics. I don't think she's approaching it from the morality perspective, in which case you are right on.
13 posted on 12/30/2003 6:31:38 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix; Galtoid; Holly_P
Agreed.
14 posted on 12/30/2003 6:31:42 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Contrary to what many Republicans might think, if 2004 is the year the Democrats fully implode, it will NOT be a happy new year.

I'm with you on this. Maybe not a full implode but reduction to 25-30 percent of the votes would give them what they've earned and warm my chilly chilly Republican heart.

15 posted on 12/30/2003 6:34:54 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Most amazingly, Democratic pollster Mark Penn recently revealed, today only 22 percent of white men identify themselves as Democrats.

This number is probably the exact number of white male homosexuals + metrosexuals in the country.

hee hee

16 posted on 12/30/2003 6:36:38 AM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
It's the year we'll find out if our country still has a vibrant, two-party system. Or, should we cancel future elections, and just let the Republicans rule?

What a stupid statement. Kind of like saying the world needed the Soviet Union to counterbalance American power.

We need to just let the Democrats go the way of the Soviet Union and disintegrate. Then the Republican Party can define the leftward boundary of political debate, and a conservative party would be the alternative to the Republican big spending nanny state agenda.

But at least both sides would more or less be on the same page when it comes to defending America against foreign enemies.

17 posted on 12/30/2003 6:51:54 AM PST by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
What a stupid statement. Kind of like saying the world needed the Soviet Union to counterbalance American power.

Didn't some prominent Dems say just that? I'm thinking it might have been Albright, but don't quote me on that.

18 posted on 12/30/2003 7:08:22 AM PST by KarlInOhio (A little bloodletting and some boar's vomit, and he'll be fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
A stable, moderate Democratic party is something like a stable, democratic Iraq...desirable and noble sentiment but somewhat unlikely for the near future.

We'll just have to let the 'sunni' and 'shiite' factions of the Democratic party have their clan wars and infighting, and while they are preoccupied quite insanely with slugging each other and whining to the DNC, we will quietly accept another 4 years of adult leadership in these difficult times.

19 posted on 12/30/2003 7:12:30 AM PST by Sender (We are now at Code Ernie - stock up on barbecue, beer, duct tape, ammo, batteries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
If the GOP plays this right, the democratic party, which has been taken over by the looney left, will get slaughtered in not only the Presidential race, but in Congressional and state races as well. From that, a new party made up of Bill Richardson, Ed Rendell, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, etc could form and nominate Hillary in 2008.
20 posted on 12/30/2003 7:24:49 AM PST by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson