Posted on 11/06/2003 10:55:06 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:10:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Senior Senate Republicans said yesterday that unless Democrats disavow a plot to use the traditionally nonpartisan intelligence committee to wage political attacks on the Bush administration, they would consider taking away Democrats' power-sharing privileges.
Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said that if Democrats expect cooperation from the White House in the investigation of intelligence failures that preceded the war in Iraq, "they've got to stop the politics."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
[squidly]: Another great moment in statesmanship, brought to you by the Democratic Senate Caucus.
_______________________________________________________________________
Maybe a West Virginian can explain what JR is saying here.
The Democratic Party, with few exceptions, is acting precisely like defense attorneys.They are willing to lie, cheat, cajole, bully, blackmail, and smear. They will use any loophole, gimmick, trick, feint, bluff, or battle if it helps, even briefly, their struggle.
...And this gradual metamorphis from an honorable Party into the Party of trial lawyers is having some extreme effects. For one thing, Democrats were once almost two thirds of all registered voters in America. Now they're only 32%. Clearly Americans have become increasingly turned off by the Democratic Party "message" (which seems to be: say and do *anything* that helps today, regardless of the long term consequences).
For another thing, it has made the Democrats dependent upon special interest groups. Their internal struggles now center around keeping these ever-conflicting groups on their plantation while raising money; Herculean tasks, both.
And what do they have to offer? The special interest groups that comprise the core of the Democratic Party have few women, no Blacks, and no gays in positions of internal power. It's become an Orwellian white-bread Party that can have lilly-White men talk down to Blacks, women, and gays (don't ask, don't tell, and no you can't have any AIDS funding) with near impunity.
Moreover, they have no comprehensive Vision, no new ideas, and no policy plans. So they vote to authorize using force against Iraq. Then they claim that using force is a bad idea. Then they want us out of Iraq (give it to the UN). Then they reverse themselves again and don't want to "cut and run" from rebuilding that land.
It's laughable. Look at the California recall election. Neither Cruz Bustamante nor Gray Davis could tell the voters why or how they would save the state if given the chance on October 7th. Worse, the Democrats don't even have the advantage of feedback from honest discussion; the news media won't even permit the mentioning of this failure to offer Californians a plan to save the state from its crisis. In contrast, Schwarzenegger said that he'd perform a comprehensive budget audit to ferret out waste, repeal the car tax to stimulate the economy, reform the workmens' comp plan to save businesses, etc. Then Arnold brought in the best advisory team since Bush 1, Bush 2, and Ronald Reagan. Surprise! Arnold had a plan. Arnold won.
Now look at the 9 placeholders who are currently wasting our time by pretending to "campaign." None of them have a comprehensive plan. None of them have a message of hope. none of them has an all-American "Vision."
And thus, none of them stands even a remote chance of winning next year.
But this has *not* gone unnoticed in Democratic/Leftist circles. Sharpton has denounced their filibuster of Brown. Former Governor Wilder has denounced their lurch to the Left. Former Governor Jerry Brown has told them that they have to actually govern when they are in office. Senator Zell Miller has pointed out that they have so ignored and alienated the entire South that the whole Party has become a regional, rather than a national Party. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch has criticized their anti-Iraq-war views (and endorsed President Bush). Even Andrew Cuomo has told them that they have to find their own "Vision" if they are to stand a chance. Likewise, fellow Leftist Tony Blair has shown them the Third Way from across the Pond.
It's just that the Democratic Party elite aren't listening. They want to fight and smear and lie and obfuscate as if they still had a full monopoly on the entire news media.
Well, that simply won't work any longer. The ways of Begala, Carville, and McAullife are obsolete (at best). Their strategies and plans have become so outdated and so beaten that they are now resorting to hoping and wishing for bad economic news. Now they cheer when tales of our casualties make the news wires.
Pathetic. They *deserve* to lose control of this great nation...and they are.
We HAVE a winner here! Great post!
Coming from the people who brought us the Lott scandalette, the Plame scandalette, the SOTU 17-words scandalette, and the trumped up "outrage" at President Bush's judicial appointments; this is truly HILARIOUS!
Oh, that's right. It's the GOP that's the problem here, not the Democrats playing with the lives of our military.
Funny how you keep posting this junk. You're working far harder to help out Jay Rockefeller than any Republican ever would.
But the foundations of the Democratic PARTY were corrupt and evil. It was founded primarily by Martin van Buren and William Crawford out of good intentions---to keep the nation from a civil war over slavery---but with the worst assumptions, namely that people can be "bought."
VB and Crawford designed a party that would protect slavery by enlisting national support based on a reward system called "spoils" or "patronage." The essential idea was that people would choose money over morals (i.e., the morality of slavery). If they supported the Dems, they made a deal with the devil NOT to address slavery as a national issue. Every major Dem politician between 1828 and 1860, no matter what his "personal view" on slavery, accepted this deal with the devil, including one of the otherwise more honorable men, Stephen Douglas.
To use your modern-day analogies, it is similar to the abortion debate, where "I'm personally opposed to abortion but don't want to legislate against it" is the position of virtually all so-called "pro-life Democrats."
So, over the next 150 years, a few honest, honorable, and decend Democrats could come to the national scene, but these were exceptions, bound by the limits of the corrupt party VB founded.
The Republicans, on the other hand, for all their early big-government procilivities, were AT THEIR CORE the party of liberty, i.e., freeing the slaves. Again, many (including Lincoln) didn't saty this was their explicit goal, but their writings reveal that was unmistakably their direction.
So, South, you have one party founded on corruption and slavery, another founded on the principle of liberty. I suggest both parties have, to one degree or another, come back to their roots.
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.