Why the Democrats lost the election (Where Were Hillary, Daschle, Lieberman...)

JEDDAH, 8 November — THE DAY after the US midterm elections this week was a dark one for Democrats: President Bush and his Republican candidates swept the elections, regaining control of the Senate, adding seats to their majority in the House of Representatives and winning a few key governorships in New England (Massachusetts and New Hampshire).

No matter that the Democrats had won the governorships of Michigan and Pennsylvania, key industrial states, the losses in the Senate were humiliating enough. My take on the whole debacle is that the Democrats have been scared ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, frozen in time, too afraid to speak up for what they believe in. The Democrats have been too scared to speak up against Bush’s tax cuts that are supposed last for the next 10 years, despite a stock market that virtually collapsed post Sept. 11th, and the fact that huge federal and state budget deficits beggar the question of where Bush and his allies are going to get the money needed to pump-prime the economy, let alone finance a costly invasion of Iraq.

The Democrats were also too scared to speak up and vote against giving President George Bush Jr. the power to go to war with Iraq whenever he sees fit to do so. Where were Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman when the House and Senate gave Bush the green light to assault Iraq? They voted for the resolutions, too afraid of being tagged unpatriotic if they stood up for what they really believed in.

In America today, it’s considered unpatriotic to be against aggressive American action abroad, no matter how uncalled for it is. Bush has cleverly managed to divert most Americans’ attention away from the crumbling economy (more than 1.7 million jobs lost so far according to conservative Patrick Buchanan), and the mounting corporate scandals by playing on Americans’ fears of further terror attacks post Sept. 11. What Bush and his fellow hawks surrounding him don’t realize is that unwarranted US aggression abroad is just breeding more hatred for America and Americans, a hatred that will endanger Americans for decades to come.

The recent deadly missile attack on the Yemeni Al-Qaeda leader Abu Ali and five supporters in the Yemen was quickly claimed as being the work of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is strange that the CIA was so quick to claim responsibility, but when viewed in context of the general unabashed bragging practiced by most Bush administration officials, it’s not that surprising. Just this past Wednesday morning I watched the hawkish Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz actually burst out loud laughing when a CNN reporter asked him about the missile attack in Yemen. The obvious pleasure Wolfowitz felt at having dispatched an Al-Qaeda operative to the great beyond, was without question. My suggestion to the Bush administration: Gloat all you want in private, but when you’re on CNN International, for Pete’s sake, show some decorum!

Although the Bush administration has failed miserably in making any connection whatsoever between the thuggish regime of Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda group, Americans have been badgered and scared into believing that regime change in Iraq is of utmost importance to future American security. No matter that Saddam was just as thuggish and brutal before he invaded Kuwait in 1990, no matter that the US and Britain turned a blind eye to that fact in the 1980s and were then the major arms suppliers to Iraq. Despite the best efforts of Bush warmongers, there is a vocal minority of decent Americans who are vocally opposed to invading Iraq, and they represent some of the best values of America in my opinion.

What we fear here from abroad is that the overwhelming success of Republican candidates at the polls this week will send Bush the wrong message that it is OK to invade Iraq and otherwise bully the rest of the world into submission using America’s power and military might. While I do support using America’s power when absolutely necessary, such as the US bombing of Afghanistan earlier this year to overthrow the Taleban regime, I do not think Iraq fits the bill of being absolutely necessary. Yes Saddam is a dictator, and yes he does oppress Iraqis, but I think regime change would be much more acceptable if it came from the Iraqi opposition (with covert US help) or other Arab countries, rather than from the US alone.

Today's democrat party is disconnected from leadership power at every level of government.

1) The democrat party doesn't have the White House.(1R-0d)
2) The democrat party lacks a majority in the Senate.(51R-48d-1)
3) The democrat party lacks a majority in the House of Representatives.(226R-209d)
4) The democrat party lacks a majority of Governors seats across the 50 states.(25R-25d)
5) The democrat party lacks a majority of State Houses across all 50 states. (25R-22d)

Today's democrat party doesn't enjoy majority leadership at either the state or federal level.

will send Bush the wrong message that it is OK to invade Iraq and otherwise bully the rest of the world into submission using America’s power and military might.

But..but..Islam is good. Islam means "Submission", right? SO:

What is the difference between America beating the world into Submission, or Islam beating the world into itself?

Actually the writer made some good points. For example, surely we would LOVE Arabs states to take down Sadam, or we would dearly love a covert coupe.

So I shall not be as sarcastic to this article as I am to most from That Quarter.

"The obvious pleasure Wolfowitz felt at having dispatched an Al-Qaeda operative to the great beyond, was without question. My suggestion to the Bush administration: Gloat all you want in private, but when you’re on CNN International, for Pete’s sake, show some decorum!"

I might be in agreement with this guy, if it weren't for all of the images of Arabs dancing in the streets and throwing candy to their children on 9/11/2001. The terrorists are evil, twisted people, and I think we all have every right to feel better when any of them are "dispatched".

Amazing that the author turns an article on how the democrats lost into a dissertation on how the good people of America suck.

Sad, really.

Yep - the silver lining in the 8 years we endured Clinton is the eventual demise of the left wing side of the Democratic Party. This is the only thing I can think to be grateful for his term as POTUS.

...and the fact that huge federal and state budget deficits beggar the question of where Bush and his allies are going to get the money needed to pump-prime the economy...

Pump-prime the economy? Hasn't Keyensian economics died as a serious model for discussion yet? Reagan ignored the "pump priming" model his entire presidency, beginning the greatest economic boom in American history. Clinton never got his "pump priming" stimulus package passed during the last recession, and yet by some miracle the economy recovered anyway.

Crazy idea - how about the backward Arab economies study the American model for economic success, rather than lecturing us about Keyensian "pump-priming" nonsense we've already disproven.

"regime change would be much more acceptable if it came from the Iraqi opposition (with covert US help) or other Arab countries"

So why don't the other Arab countries do it, Rasheed? Why don't they provide the covert help?

Gloat all you want in private, but when you’re on CNN International, for Pete’s sake, show some decorum!

This from the party that turned a funeral into a 3-hour TV party. Whoo-boy, do I feel chastised.

Well, my boy, guess what? You are right to fear that President Bush was given that message. You are WRONG in your statement that it was the "wrong message." Your whole concept of America wanting to "bully" the world, has been disproven by the past 50+ years of history when we were the preeminent power of the world and have not made any attempt to conquer even the white flaggers of France.

"What Bush and his fellow hawks surrounding him don’t realize is that unwarranted US aggression abroad is just breeding more hatred for America and Americans, a hatred that will endanger Americans for decades to come."

They already hate us; the problem is that they don't fear us! I suggest that their attitude will be a whole lot better once we kick them in the teeth!

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.