"Of course, I did not know whether the election had gone for Mr. Gore or George W. Bush. As a partisan, I did not care. I was convinced that Mr. Gore was by far the best-qualified candidate and the man most fit to lead the U.S. Mr. Bush was not only untested nationally, but he seemed to me bereft of the character or intellect to become a real leader, and I feared that four years, and possibly eight, under Mr. Bush would set the country back.
"How wrong I was. Since the murderous terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush has come alive in a way I did not think possible. It was as though the attack on America -- which he rightly called an "act of war" from the start -- gave him a focus and clarity I had not earlier seen."
Obviously Mr. Posner was deeply affected by 9/11 and is one of the few libs who has actually learned from it.
I believe that there is a subset of dems -- the rational thinkers -- who will never again vote for a democrat.
hyperlinked images of shame |
|
by Mia T, 4.6.03 Mia T, THE ALIENS Al From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections." Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem. From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason. That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will
which means both in real time and historically. When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.) Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent. With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively
and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity. With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)
and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity. The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11. |
The REAL "Living History" -- clintoplasmodial slime
Q ERTY8
Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent
missus clinton's REAL virtual office updateBUMP!