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.
This is why I don't like Newt, Rush and other blowhards.
..."...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."...
Rush is not a politician, he's an entertainer. But he shows no class. Gingrich is so self-centered, that introspection other than to change tactics is a stranger to him.
Now, Rice gets the brunt of that bad behavior. WHY the Dims have to resort to that trash is another issue. They are disgraceful.
"oubliette"
Love that word! Thanks for the contribution and as a prize, we award you one "Ring of the Nibelungen."
It is not far-fetched to believe that one of the effects of the offering of 45 million human babies as sacrifices to Satan would be that at least some of those involved would find themselves possessed by demons. One of the signs of "perfect possession" would be the unerring instinct to do evil under any and all circumstances, and the lack of distress at one's condition. Look around, and you will be able to find certain personalities who have reached a state of evil infallibility--i.e., they infallibly favor killing more babies, they infallibly favor whatever policy will result in more terrorist murders, etc.
The problem is not Fox News. The only problem republicans have are the lilly-livered republicans in the US Senate. If they ever find their balls, we'll have action on some of Bush's priorities.
Yea, just like they stood up for Dr. Rice during her crucification, er, I mean confirmation hearing.
Please see my post 37 above.
You are still playing the old game. The new game is more fun and you can win.
Come play with us.
Translation please. I don't have that word in my vocabulary yet.
Uhhh... I'm not sure. Nebel means "smoke" or "fog" in German.
Maybe "the fog-bound people" or "the ones who are of smoke." (?)
(steely)
Also more effective if you have ideas or better plans. Newt had the contract with America...the average Dems. liked some of the ideas in that contract. That's why the Republicans won.
In Kennedy's own words.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
and in Al Gore's words
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Since when do quotes from several years ago matter. There is new information we have now and there is a chance from political gain.
What the idiot Dems don't ever say, what would happen in the whole middle east if we pulled out. Militant Islam would kill everyone who even spoke with us and we would be looked at as weak.
What's amazing to me is that anybody really cares what Ted Kennedy says anymore. The man has not been right about anything in decades. If it weren't for his last name, he would probably be a discredited ex-convict (for the 1969 homocide of Mary Jo) living in a rest home for recovering alcoholics.
Actually, maybe its a good thing the Left keeps on listening to him. It will help accelerate their slide to irrelevance.
You are correct, the dims had to destroy Newt because he was brilliant. He helped them along with his personal life, I fear. If Rove ever wants to retire Newt would be perfect directing things from behind the curtain.
Good article. Thanks for posting! :)
"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 whining from the Dem ranks is laughable and does work in our favor in many ways. The part they don't get, and never WILL get is that if you have complaints, you sure as chit had better have IDEAS as to how to change things for the better to counter your complaints. I truly believe the Dems have not had a new, original or unstolen idea in fifty years.
Their demise and re-creation is taking way too long for my tastes as sadly, we DO need a viable two-party system to keep our Democracy cookin'. Their demise will make us lazy, and we're already showing signs of laziness as it is, IMHO.
The Clintons are still waiting in the wings. The situation with the Dems is nearly ripe for Hitlery to swoop in and save the party as a moderate (though we all know she's anything but!) and that makes me very, very nervous.
The rumor in the senate (with a small s) is that in the new rules being drafted, there is no provision for fillibusters at all. The belief is that in the final rules fillibusters will be back, but limited. IMHO they should totally eliminated. This device gives way to much power to the minority and allows these morons to have their way.
'twon't happen unless Frist grows a spine.
The Nibelungs were a race of dwarfs who were the original possessors of treasure later won by Siegfried.
It would be nice if there were enough conservatives in Mass. to recall T. Kennedy. That would send a sword and terror through the hearts of all liberals.
The effort should be made, even if it fails. Even the effort would scare the living daylights out of them.
Do you ever get the feeling that if pubs controlled 95% of both the House and Senate they'd know what to do with the power? They are afraid of their own shadows. We need NEW Republicans. The ones we have now (with a few execeptions), have breathed the foul partisan DC air so long, that their nuts have fallen off.
Chuck Grassley is a good example. He's been in DC so long that he's become part of the problem.
Savage Beast,
Add me to the list of those who will require a trip to the dictionary... :^)
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.