Posted on 03/08/2006 1:44:46 PM PST by Jean S
How many times have you heard Democrats describe George W. Bush as “arrogant”?
Too many to count. And truth be told, a number of unhappy Republicans are using the A-word themselves when referring to the president these days.
But if you want to see arrogance — lots and lots of it — you need look no further than the Democratic Party’s plan to win the House and Senate this November.
Simply put, Democrats believe they can ask voters to give them control of the legislative branch without revealing any sort of policy or plan to deal with the most pressing issue before the country today: the war in Iraq.
And Bush is arrogant?
Not only do Democrats not have a plan, they’re proud of not having a plan.
Last December, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sat down with a group of reporters and editors of The Washington Post. The journalists asked what Democrats would do about Iraq were they to win power in 2006.
“Pelosi said Democrats will produce an issue agenda for the 2006 elections but it will not include a position on Iraq,” the Post reported. “There is no one Democratic voice ... and there is no one Democratic position,” Pelosi said.”
It was dramatic proof of the party’s disarray on the war, but the Post gave the story the most charitable headline possible: “Pelosi Hails Democrats’ Diverse War Stances.”
A better choice would have been: “Pelosi: Dems Have No Clue On Iraq.”
Now, three months later, Pelosi’s party is no closer to having a clue. And unfortunately for them, the voters know it.
Just look at the results of the latest Post poll, released this week. In the survey, the paper asked, “Do you think the Democrats in Congress do or do not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?”
Seventy percent of those polled said the Democrats do not have a clear plan, versus 24 percent who said they do. (If there is anyone among that 24 percent who would like to share what the clear Democratic plan is, he or she should call Nancy Pelosi immediately.)
Of course, just 34 percent say the Bush administration has a clear plan, but that leaves the question: Why give power to a group that has even less of an idea what to do?
The Post also asked, “Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?”
Despite all of the setbacks in the war, despite its growing unpopularity, Democrats had no advantage. Forty-two percent chose them, and 42 percent chose Republicans.
The Democrats’ numbers on that issue have been falling for months. In November 2005, 48 percent of those questioned by the Post trusted Democrats to handle the situation in Iraq — versus 37 percent who trusted Republicans. In December and January, the Democrats’ number ticked downward to 47 percent and has now fallen to 42 percent.
That’s not exactly a show of confidence in Democratic leadership.
Nor is there much faith in the party’s ability to handle other issues. The Post asked, “Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?
Forty-two percent said Democrats, and 40 percent said Republicans, while 14 percent said neither.
As recently as January, Democrats had a significant lead in that category, 51 percent to the GOP’s 37 percent. Now, nearly all of that is gone.
The paper also asked whether respondents have a favorable or unfavorable impression of each party. Results for Republicans were 51 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable. For Democrats, it was 55 percent favorable, 41 percent unfavorable.
After Abramoff, Katrina, prescription drugs — after everything, that’s not much of an advantage.
As for that elusive agenda, Pelosi and her colleagues are still working on it. Even without Iraq, they don’t appear to be able to agree on much of anything. There were reports the agenda would be out last year, and then early this year, but so far nothing has happened.
Questions that were unanswered many months ago are still unanswered. Should they come up with their own version of the Contract with America? Some say yes, and some say no. Right now, “no” is winning. Tomorrow, maybe “yes” will be winning.
And how about a slogan? Surely that’s simple enough that everyone can agree, right?
Well, it took Democratic leaders months to come up with their big, catchy sales pitch: “Together, America can do better.” But now the Post reports that “there is an effort afoot to drop the word “together.” It tests well in focus groups and audiences, Democratic sources said, but it makes the syntax incorrect.”
Ouch. After all that work, they’re still looking for a few words to summarize what they stand for.
Well, if “together” tests so well, how about “Together, together, we can’t get our act together”?
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: byork@nationalreview.com
Truth bump.
We can always do better, as long as somebody wants to pay for it. Somehow, I think the slogan-slingers don't want to foot the bill, though.
The Democrats are relying on the liberal media to put them back in power. Fortunately for America, it has yet to dawn on the Dims that the alternative media has broken the MSM's monolopy and their tactic is about 12-years out of date.
That is what I've been saying for a while. Good article.
No one doubts that the overwhelming majority of that party wants a complete withdrawal, yet their own party refuses to rescind their support for this war, despite knowing full well that an unambiguous anti-war position would fire up their base like nothing else.
This party has no instinct. It's constituency is too lofty and undisciplined. A conflicted mess. The party can't trust its own base because the base is soaked head to toe in mindless relativism. The problems with this party are so fundemental and obvious that they'll never figure it out.
Every time Howard Dean speaks, another 10,000 people decide to vote Republican.
L
bttt
It is arrogant to claim superior virtue.The reason that journalism is sympatico with the Democratic party is that liberals toady up to journalism for good PR, while journalism arrogantly claims the virtue of objectivity.
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.