Posted on 01/29/2005 5:21:06 AM PST by Quilla
ON THE EVE of the election in Iraq, Democratic senator Edward Kennedy called President Bush's Iraq policy "a catastrophic failure." He demanded that American troops immediately begin to withdraw. "We have no choice," he declared, "but to make the best we can of the disaster we have created in Iraq." Kennedy said the retreat of American forces should be completed "as early as possible in 2006," and suggested that, in Iraq, American troops are a bigger problem than terrorists.
Though appalling, Kennedy's statement was not out of character for Democrats these days. "I don't like to impugn anyone's integrity," said Democratic senator Mark Dayton, before impugning the integrity of Condoleezza Rice. "But I really don't like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally. It is wrong, it is undemocratic, it is un-American, and it is dangerous." After Rice took exception to being called untruthful by Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, Boxer complained on TV: "She turned and attacked me."
This is madness, but there is method in it. The talk among congressional Democrats is about the tactics Newt Gingrich used as House minority whip in 1993 and 1994. As they remember it, Gingrich opposed, blocked, attacked, zinged, or at least criticized everything President Clinton and Democratic leaders proposed. It was a scorched-earth approach, Democrats believe. And it worked, crippling Clinton and resulting in the 1994 election that gave Republicans control--lasting control, it turned out--of the House and Senate. Now Democrats, after losing three straight elections, hope brutal tactics will work for them.
So they ganged up on Rice, accusing her of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, though they had relied on the same faulty intelligence about WMD. They blamed Alberto Gonzales, as chief White House counsel, of fostering the torture of captured terrorists. All he had done, however, was render a legal opinion on the status of terrorists under the Geneva Convention. As most experts agree, terrorists aren't covered. Kennedy threw the word "quagmire" around like confetti. And so on. What was the initial response of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to the president's idea of reforming Social Security? Bush wants to "destroy" the system, Reid insisted.
Yet Democrats act as if they're taking the moral high ground. Listen to Howard Dean, who's favored to become the next Democratic national chairman. Asked in an un-aired interview with Fox News to list his supporters for chairman, Dean said: "It's not likely I'm gonna make an announcement like that on Fox . . . because Fox is the propaganda outlet of the Republican party . . . . I have to weigh the legitimacy that it gives you."
Dean is delusional. He and other Democrats cannot confer or deny legitimacy. Nor do they really understand the lessons of the Gingrich era. True, Newt used rough tactics to tear down Democratic proposals and challenge Democratic leaders. He was relentless. But he was also an idea factory of conservative concepts and initiatives. His goal was to attract conservative voters who weren't Republicans. And he succeeded.
The 1994 breakthrough "was the culmination of a long process in which voters' ideology finally got in line with their partisanship," columnist David Brooks explained recently in the New York Times. "The Democrats today . . . have all the liberals. What they lack is support from middle-class white families in fast-growing suburbs. But by copying the Gingrich tactics--or what they think of as Gingrich tactics--of hyperpartisanship and ruthless oppositionalism, they will only alienate those voters even more."
Brooks is correct. Democrats misunderstand their situation. Their view is that Republicans have been mean and bruising while they've been too nice and forgiving. That's right. They think former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who was plainly obsessed with obstructing Bush at every turn, was too kindly. The lesson of the 2004 election for Democrats, then, is that they need to play rough. The real lesson, of course, is that blatant obstructionism is a failed strategy. It's what caused Daschle to lose his seat.
The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can't afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006.
I think that under the Freeper by-laws, even this briefest of mentions requires that a picture be posted. At least, that's what the strict constructionists tell me.
Start by recalling Boxer.
Democrats, The Party Of Peace.
All of the chest-thumping and roaring from the Rats actually seems to scare the Republicans. I never see Pubbies on the attack the way Dems do routinely. The Rat convictions are garbage, but at least they are willing to stand up for them.
"Newt used rough tactics to tear down Democratic proposals and challenge Democratic leaders. He was relentless. But he was also an idea factory of conservative concepts and initiatives."
I do not recall Newt using personal character assassination - Newt promoted ideas and debated the Democrats' socialist tendencies. The media, of course, destroyed Newt personally, because he was so effective in his public discourse.
Great observation...
Kennedy's "cut and run" tactics aren't anything new...
It's how he's handled several of life's little...."difficulties".
Regarding Little Theodore Kennedy.....he is either drunk or Dr. Evil...
He is a drowning man that will take everyone around him down.... OK by me....
Boxer is not the epitome of the RAT party today but she is the epitome of what's running it.
Rush says that the democrRATs are 'incapable' of turning it around right now, even the ones that realize the disasterous direction it's headed.
Maybe Osama Obama yo Mama can turn things around :)
If you've ever seen a headstrong teenager argue with their parents, its the same story as the Dems have been doing for years. The parent eventually becomes defensive and gives in to their kids, and the kids have learned this with appeasing parents.
Perhaps someday we'll give the Dems what they deserve, a good whack on the behind.
Anything to help them over the cliff.
New 'Rat slogan: "Back to the sticks /In '06!"
I don't think Bush should ignore what they're doing, but instead play it up in a very low-key way, talking over the talking heads directly to the people, delivering a low-key version of Harry Truman's winning formula: "That do-nothing Eightieth Congress!!"
If the Dems are helping stall our efforts against the jihadis, the people will know it.
"Start by recalling Boxer."
I recall that visage frequently and shudder. "Help me, doctor!"
The sooner these mindless, worthless, low-life, aging hippies drop into the oubliette of history the better.
As for Dr. Rice-- She towers over these Nebelungen by her mere presence. She's dealt with such many times before and left them behind in the dust, like so many vermin, as she soars to ever new heights!
Condoleezza Rice is the face of America!
She is what Americans and all the world can honor, admire, and respect.
She shows the world the heights to which we can all aspire.
As for these low-life Democrat vermin-- They are also teaching the people of the world--exactly what not to emulate.
Good analogy. Absolutely, children is what the Dems are most comparable to. They want to know why Bush did not stop the terrorists before 9-11. Then they want to know how can he justify arresting potential terrorists when they have not done anything yet. I understand that their adolescent pose actually is hurting them with the voters, but it's still infuriating to watch.
Maybe the right strategy is to let the Democrats play out their hand and wait until after the 2006 election to pass major legislation. The only problem is that the the final two years of the Presidency does not give Bush much leverage with party members already lining up behind 2008 candidates. Accordingly, there is too much poitical risk of not accomplishing major goals.
I think the Republicans need to target and hammer every Democratic senator up for re-election in 2006 on the issue of obstructionism so that they have to justify their votes on ideological grounds. At some point their respective electorates will realize that Democrat senators are putting party ahead of the nation, and then the senators will have to choose between survival and party. That is when major legislation can be passed.
The real problem I see is that the Democrats know that if major legislation is passed that proves acceptable to the general population they are looking at being the minority party for generations just as the Republicans were from the 30's to the 90's. They are trying to fight that tide, but they don't have any ideas to fight with other than prevent passage of the Republicans' ideas.
.....But he was also an idea factory of conservative concepts and initiatives.....
This is the most important sentence to understand Newt. He is a historian who looks at history in the very long term.His current actions reflect his view of the path to the future. He is hated and feared because of his dangerous vision that sees getting out of the current rut and striking out cross country.
Bush has taken the same course. He has quit playing the game and started a completely new game, with his own rules and game pieces. Rather than spinwheels making tiny gains playing the old and well understood games, he wins big time playing his new games. By the time the opposition understands there is actually a new game being played, they are so far behind they can never catch up.
The Social Secrurity reform is typical of the new game. Bush chose to cpmpletely redo and take SS as his, that is a conservative initiative. In so doing, he has gained the support of those younger than 45 in great numbers while not losing many of those older. When viewed through Newt's historical prism, the New Deal has become an anacronism. It is obsolete.
The Rats have no ability to look forward and daily demonstrate an allegiance to the past that has been obliterated. The old rules don't apply to the new game.
The same is true for the concept of freedom. The young girls of America are taught that they must do something that matters to make their lives worthwhile. They must become advocates for some idealistic cause that will provide increased self esteem. One of these advocacies is peace. Working for world peace is near ultimate feelgood advocacies. This whole 60's concept is being rendered obsolete.
Peace can only occur if there is Freedom. That is to say, where there is a need to attach one's idealism to a cause, Freedom trumps Peace. There is no need for the airheads to abandon their quest for peace, because by switching to an advocy for Freedom they get both.
The past is gone, the new rules rule. Rat idealism is transformed and coopted. The new game is being played, Rats lose. Behind the curtain, hidden from view and media attack, Newt's mind is providing the rules and pieces for the new games. History of the Republic is being transformed.
Hey, thanks for using the term "oubliette" in your post. Reminds me of the fun I've had in the past visiting torture museums in Europe. I was going to say Teddy could use a good ducking, but he's already had one of those. Maybe time to go straight to the thumb screws.
bttt fb
....Nebelungen....
Translation please. I don't have that word in my vocabulary yet.
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.