WHY DEMOCRATS ARE ALL BOXED IN!!

Newsweek ^ | 11/23/03 | Joe Klein

[Elkiejg]

We have reached a moment of transcendent weirdness in American politics and perhaps a defining moment in the 2004 presidential campaign. In Washington last week, Newt Gingrich and the aarp—who battled each other over old-age entitlement spending in the 1990s—joined the White House in support of a new $400 billion Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Odder still, the Wall Street Journal's ultraconservative editorial page opposed the bill, as did ultraliberal House leader Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and most of the Democrats running for President. This, after a decade of Democrats pleading for just such a benefit and lambasting Republicans for blocking it. This, in the same week that Tom Daschle and George Bush joined forces to support the fetid enormity of a $31 billion energy bill, which was quickly dubbed the Hooters and Polluters Bill, since it funded, among many other things, construction of an energy-efficient Hooters restaurant in Shreveport, La. This, in the same week that Massachusetts moved toward legalization of gay marriage.

Confused? Overwhelmed? Appalled? Yes, yes and yes. This was an awful week for the Democrats, who are likely to lose— politically—on all fronts. And it was a shameful week—substantively—for the Bush Administration.

The political equation is obvious. The President will be able to say the Democrats opposed prescription drugs for the elderly whether the Medicare bill passes or not (just as he campaigned in 2002 saying the Democrats blocked Homeland Security because they wanted labor-protection provisions in the bill). The same is true, to a lesser extent, of the energy bill, which Senators of both parties managed to stop, perhaps temporarily, last Friday.

The President can still say, "We proposed energy 'reform'; the Dems opposed."

Not many Americans will scour the fine print. As for gay marriage, my guess is that Bush will remain above the fray. The issue is too raw—and his Vice President has taken the same position as most Democrats have. But Bush will benefit nonetheless from the anguish and agitation on the religious right, which will use the ruling to invigorate turnout among Christian conservatives.

[ex-Texan]

*BUMP*!

[RippleFire]

With all due respect, this article isn't from Newsweek - it's from Time: http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,548959,00.html

[jmaroneps37]

rats that are starting to get it make me laugh. They act like its a new emergence that they're in trouble.
This 04 election will be a perfect storm for the rats and their pals.

[Paleo Conservative]

[untwist]

I think we would be shortsighted to underestimate the Democrats' stupidity. They are working from sheer passion, not pragmatism. The judicial blocks are having an affect on the undecideds in our favor and the liberals know it. I think that as a first-step this is the best way to go. We need to remember that the Johnson Great Society did not start to create great financial pains for a generation. The momentum of the weight of the cost will push us irreversibly to move to a more market-driven system but we won't get it all at once. Gingrich is not stupid on this. The key is that we get a start to the market-driven system. Within 10 years (this is to start in 2010) I believe we will have means-testing and medical savings accounts will be a necessity. The times will drive the laws and I believe that we are taking a right step to turn the ship around.

The demographics are clear - the young people now registering to vote are going republican. The elderly who are most fearful and will pass on in the next 10 - 20 years are mostly democrats. We are in the midst of a big demographic shift here and I think this, as a first step will help us to position correctly.

[untwist]

I am in agreement with you. The weight of the cost and the changing demographics in our country will push us to a market-driven system. If you look at the current job situation in our country, one of the biggest contributors to the heavy layoffs is the very high cost of medical and dental benefits for the workers. I work for one of the biggest conglomerates in the world and I can tell you that a lot of high-skilled people were let go and some are now back as contractors. They are getting good pay but are now having to find alternatives for health care because the employer can't carry the load by themselves. I believe that a real phenomena of the jobs recovery will be a high-skilled, mercenary workforce who because of today's technology don't necessarily have to move every time they get a contract job. So much can be done remotely, and many project, on-site tasks (that can't be farmed to India) will require people from here. The key is how will these people be able to insure themselves and their families? I think we will see a privatized system come into fruition sooner rather than later.

The world is changing so fast and the radical democrats are without clue as to a plan to deal with it. They are career politicians who don't understand the concept of balance sheets and profit and loss. The media is as ignorant as they are. Put Bush, Cheney, Snow, et. al and their experience in real business up against the Kennedy, Daschle, Peloso, Hillary mindset and it really is the adults against the children. I have a lot of optimism long-term.

[untwist]

The current bill will not be put into effect as it is. This is political maneuvering but the poison pill for the democrats is any movement toward privatization. This will be their doom. Our country will move in the coming years to a privatized system or we will collapse. I am confident that we will not collapse.

[Charlotte Corday]

Chris Thanks for a great post, the real heart of which is

We will pay for all this in the end. But we will pay for this because it is what we want.

Brings to mind two questions:

What party/candidates should those of us support who don't want "this"??

In a hundred years, will it make a difference whether our republic falls to external terrorist attacks, or if our republic falls in internal collapse because there is no one left to cash the checks we keep writing to ourselves ?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Excellent post.

From my point of view, the #1 issue in 2004 is keeping the U.S. safe, in the wake of 9/11. You have to have a country that can function, before you can worry about what programs we should and shouldn't have, how much government should be involved in social issues, etc.

I may oppose some of Bush's domestic agenda -- and I think the Patriot Act went too far in some quarters. However, the only Democrats who I think actually get that the nations needs to be protected are Lieberman and maybe Gephardt, both of whom I have other issues with.

One other thing. Within the Socialist movement were the Fabians. Their strategy was not immediate revolution, but slow, incremental steps. Looking at how things went through the 20th century, the Fabians seem to have won out.

The Fabian strategy is admirable. The country is not philosophically or emotionally ready to be dropped into a stripped down conservative/libertarian society, no matter how much many of us on Free Republic would like it. Adding free market aspects to federal programs is a small Fabian-like step. It's not great by purist standards, but by practical ones -- well, it could easily be a lot worse. I think some of the left recognize that and know their history. That is why they're going nuts.

As for the stripped-down government, it's not going to occur until the people are ready and wanting it. That means ground level work in creating a society where personal responsibility is the expected standard, honored in the observance, rather than in the breach. A lot of hard, Fabianesque slogging to get that done. But the way society is going, it may well get done -- though I suspect I'll be an old man when I see it, if I ever see it.

[section9]

The Republicans and Bush, if only because they have a clearer understanding of the stakes in this war.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Beachcomber]

I think the Democratic Party is reduced to its core constituency:

Homosexuals and Trade Unionists.

This means the battle for the 21st century is the polarization inside the Republican Party, which will splinter and assume the 2 party position.

The Democratic Party, I predict, will dwindle to marginal status in the next decade.

Homosexuality and Trade Unionism are the core issues they are passionate about.

[doug from upland]

Did I miss something? Isn't W a coke-head, National Guard runaway, stupid, drunken, fraternity mentality, syntax deprived nitwit? He's not? Oh. That's why he keep cleaning their clocks.

[Clintonfatigued]

I think that the strategy is to incite the 'Rats into filibustering the bill, thus causing no bill to pass at all, and then blaming the 'Rats for their obstructionism. Then, after Republican gains in 2004, a better bill can be bought. Bush and Frist have learned that Daschle & Company will mindlessly oppose anything that's perceived as benefitting Republicans, and this is the bait. If so, then they get my kudos for clever strategy.

[Clintonfatigued]

Does anyone remember the term "triangulation"? It was popular in 1997 as Dick Morris's clever strategy for reelecting Bill Clinton in 1996. Back then, Clinton took small portions of the Republican agenda and made them his own. Well, I see Bush and Rove have made the strategy their own, and the 'Rats are stewing.

[Tennessean4Bush]

Chris, you had some good points. I would have included some other things that Bush is doing that are obviously because he is pricipled, not just pragmatic.

Judges in particular, which I would argue is his most important item on his long-term domestic agenda.

[FRgal4u]

or think further ahead, assume a Bush win in 2004, medicare bill got passed, and in 08, assume the worst, the hildebeast got the nod in the WH, and bamm, medicare, social security ran out of money, big deficits, and what will the dems WH do then..sure, the beast can blame the bill signed now, but my golly, they have to do something, how about the beast calling for cutbacks in medicare, means testings, mkt reform, and raising social security benefits age - oh wow, now would that be fun to see a dems to undo all those great society bs...

[wildbill]

Absolutely right. The Dems won't win by continuing to "misunderestimate" Dubya.

As for Karl Rove, no doubt he's good--but Dubya has to make the final decisions on who,how, when, and why.

It's always amazing to see the comments by leftists who have only heard the party line--after they meet Bush. Without exception they say the same thing: They've misunderestimated the man.

[EGPWS]

Well said!!!

One for the archives.

[Go Gordon]

I think the Democratic Party is reduced to its core constituency: Homosexuals and Trade Unionists.

Gotta add Environmentalist wackos, feminazi's and inner city residents

[tet68]

"...what will the Democrats run on? Their intellectual cupboard is bare..."


Bill Clinton took the only bone they had.