Replies

Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent: Mia T, 5.5.03

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003.

by Mia T, 4.6.03

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

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

Gen. Shelton shocks Celebrity Forum, says he won't support Clark for president

RAPIST SHOWING LEG:
An Extension of the clinton Complex-Question Fallacy Scheme

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update^BUMP!

Q ERTY9
BUSH: "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather."

President's Remarks
view

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. (Applause.) We will confront them with focus and clarity and courage...

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.)

State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
Q ERTY8^BUMP

"I AM NOT A MILITARY MAN"

(indeed)
PING

"That problem is that much of the Democratic base still doesn't take national security seriously."

This would indeed embody him as the second coming of Clinton, only Clinton with a bloody mindedness that'll turn this country into another UN dictatorship. Don't forget, the Clinton administration only ordered the tanks. Clark provided those tanks.

"First, there was John Kerry, whose Vietnam heroism supposedly inoculated him against GOP attacks, his incoherent Iraq position notwithstanding."

Correction: his alleged Vietnam heroism couldn't insulate him from his fake medal tossing protest or his complete lie to congress about war crimes committed by American troops. Kerry's seen as a worm of the worst sort by most of his fellow Vietnam vets. His vote for military force which he said he didn't mean to be a vote for military force was only the icing on the cake.

"Maybe Clark does indeed have a proactive, coherent national-security message. But with his Kerry-esque, have-it-both-ways position on Iraq, he certainly hasn't articulated that message"

Maybe he'll order an attack on the Russians and turn military barracks into commune-like dormitories...oh wait, he's already done that.

"They've consistently overstated the cost by a factor of severalfold."

"That night, President Bush did what Democrats had been demanding: He abandoned the fiction that Iraq could be rebuilt on the cheap. His $87 billion request even included new money for Afghanistan, where Democrats had hammered his insufficient commitment to nation-building....."

First, that would mean they were mad because he UNDERSTATED, not OVERSTATED the cost, and sedond, that they're mad he didn't ask for ENOUGH money even while complaining that THIRD he asked for too much.

Yep, sounds like Democrats alright.

"We already know who is going to share the cost with us: almost nobody. Estimates suggest the Bush administration will receive roughly 10 percent of the international aid it wants for Iraq. That's awful - and at least partly the Bushies' fault"

Yeah, when UNweenies were getting jollies and headlines by calling a moron and comparing him to Hitler, he should have smiled, nodded, bent over and grabbed his ankles, then everyone would have been happy with him.

" 'I will not support a dime to protect the profits of Halliburton in Iraq,' proclaimed Bob Graham at the CBC debate. But, for better or worse, rebuilding Iraq and securing Halliburton's profits are now intimately connected, and it is not exactly a sign of foreign-policy seriousness to propose abandoning the former in order to prevent the latter."

The fringes of both sides of the aisle love that phrase though. The more intelligent among them would understand that abandoning a formerly terrorist country to the loving ministrations of other terrorist countries is suicidal. Dean, Kerry and Graham no doubt prefer we spend each dime to line the pockets of Total Fina Elf instead. At least Halliburton is an American company.

"If Democrats had a distinct post-9/11 vision, it was partly that the War on Terrorism required a Marshall Plan as well as a Truman Doctrine: We needed to build schools in the Muslim world, not just crack skulls. Yet now, with the Bush administration. finally recognizing that defeating terrorism requires making sure Iraqis have electricity and clean water, the Democratic presidential candidates are looking for any excuse to avoid saying yes."

The Bush administration recognized the need to rebuild right from the beginning, though it had underestimated the decay of infrastructure under Saddam. The basic sentiment is true though.

Your post makes a valid point: we know what the dems are against, but we do not know what the dems are for. Oh sure, the dems spout their litany of being "for the underdog," but who is not? The dems have no plan except to increase spending and increase taxation.

List one democrat who favors downsizing the non-military Federal Payroll. Downsizing is what the rest of our Nation is using to keep our economy viable, so it makes sense for the Feds to downsize also.

A non-military Federal hiring freeze would be a good start, as normal yearly attrition is about 5 percent for most organizations.

...all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.

Or events.

5.56mm