Thuggery on grainy black and white video is not the stuff political comebacks are made of.
What the hell is going on the the Dems? It's like the edifices are all falling and crashing into each other.
First insane, incoherent, out of control speeches by 2 leading members (Gore and Daschle) on consecutive days.
Kennedy and Byrd then amplify the stupidity and reconfirm their irrelevancy.
Then other prominent members (Bonior) offer aid and comfort on Iraqi soil the following week. McDermott overtly sides with Saddam over Bush.
Then, the next day an uncontrollable corruption scandal forces out another Democratic leader (Toricelli). One who had given a national Democratic position speech over the weekend!
Meanwhile, a major segment of the Democratic leadership is now in direct opposition to the two-thirds of Americans who took them at their very words of just a few years ago that Saddam was an unacceptable danger (Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Byrd). Now after 4 years of unsupervised acquisitions, Saddam, they argue is no longer a threat!
These people have lost it.
They were just defeated in a Presidential election against all historical odds. They are about to lose seats in both houses against all historical odds, and in a year with many more Republican seats up for grabs!
The current political dynamic appears to have the individual leaders in a race to the left, which is disastrous for the party as a whole. It's like a 'runaway greenhouse effect' -- a positive feedback process between overheated liberal rhetoric, and simmering anxious liberal outrage.
Can you just imgaine their response when Bush starts appointing judges with Talent in office on November 3? Watch out for spontaneous combustion.
I noticed back in April or so they, meaning the talking head top DC democrats + Gore were trying to make "Bush" the issue. McAufliffe basically said it outright. It failed to get traction then, and just sounded silly.
I thought the strategy came from the limitations of their experiences as talking-heads on a 24 hour news cycle. Also there was a meanness to it. Maybe the "science" behind the attacks was the theory that midterm elections go against the party in the executive seat, so attack the executive.
Then, over the summer, there was not much DC-centered politicking.
A few months ago they started making noise about consulting congress about Iraq, using, for one, the ridiculous "unilateralism" rhetoric of the Eurocentric elites. So Bush did this dog and pony show with Blair, getting Italy, etc., on board, leaked stuff about WMD, even nukes, and even agreeing to get the UN somehow involved.
Then, over the past few weeks, fear must have re-arose in them. And the Bush-centered attack plan came out again. Da$chle made his economy speech on the floor of the Senate with charts, etc. And he seemed perturbed that it didn't make more than one night's news. Very egocentric and self-important man.
Next, they scaremonger about the Iraq bill - using the old rhetoric about "allies" and the UN. They appeared to have not done anything but look in the mirror for the past months since Bush was putting together for public show the "allies" and such. (I believe Russia and France extracted extra concessions seeing this domestic disarray)
For support, they bring out Byrd and Kennedy, who just embarrassed themselves. Any person who quickly reads USA Today is more informed about Iraq than them spouting off "unilateralism". My bet, som West-Wing type hack with no foreign policy experience clipped pet phrases from various lefty news stories and put them together as a "policy." Or Rob Reiner and folk are reading the UK Guardian on the web - which they poorly imitate, BTW.
Anyway, Daschle gets upset about the "War Talk" he himself fomented. He combines that with a huffy temper tantrum on the Senate floor about insults by Bush and Cheney that didn't exist or are of the variety politician say about their foes everyday. He adds that Bush is contriving to take the public's mind off the economy by the Iraq stuff, as if Daschle couldn't make the economy the "issue" himself. He wants the issue to be Bush.
The temper tantrum and speech were contrived, as shown by Gore's calculated resurrection where he said much the same the next day. But Gore also sounded ignorant, and petty. Defaming the US efforts in Afstan as easy, then taunting Bush's father, it was like a 10 year-old boy.
Then more Daschle about the economy - not what he would do about it, but that Bush is stopping discussion about it.
That's how I recollect the Beltway "debate". Blowback might be a good term to describe the Demo dilemma. Maybe they feared a war before election day. Maybe some Saudi money (they want the status quo in Iraq) fueled some of the opinion makers in the Demo party establishment. (Bonior will probably get some arab-related consulting job on the backside after his term ends this year)
But I see a lot of egos who think the election should be about themselves, and are disconnected from the people and the issues. I don't know anyone whose voting for the congressman about Iraq. They want to hear other things. What's coming out of DC is a circus.
"I believe the final straw was the confirmation late last week of a convenience store security tape with Torricelli and the union boss intimidating Chang.
Thuggery on grainy black and white video is not the stuff political comebacks are made of."
When speaking of this, Rush actually used the term "mob connection".