Posted on 07/07/2006 5:50:56 AM PDT by jennivinson
The Party Of John F. Kennedy
By Jenni Vinson Trejo
July 7, 2006
Former President Bill Clinton spoke to the Democratic Leadership Council back on December 3, 2002. Clinton has always been politically astute. Most of what he warned his party of seems to have been prophetic. He was speaking to the Democrats after the loss of the Presidency and months after 9-11 had occurred. The following are excerpts from the speech he gave.
“First, I don't think you can underestimate the impact of the psychological toll of September 11th on the American people. We long to be united and we long to be strong. … September the 11th, the Iraq issue, the attacks in other parts of the world have left our people feeling both anxious and patriotic in the best sense. We all have a psychological need for unity.
Secondly, the Republicans won on message, money and turnout… The problem with our message was that to Democrats and Independents, we were missing in action in national security and we had no positive plan for America's domestic future”.
Clinton went on to tell the Democrat Leadership Council: “We have a heavy responsibility to cooperate in uniting this country on security issues and also to come up with better ideas across the board. We don't have to be more liberal but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way. We have to have a clear and strong national security stand. We have to compare the results of their efforts and ours. And we have to be tough and disciplined”.
Clinton admonished the Democrat leadership to solidify their positions on the war on terror: “First, on national security, the facts are that the majority of the Democrats have been clear and virtually unanimous in the fight against terror, and in supporting defense increases. The majority of us stood up and said, yes, we do have to have unlimited and unambiguous inspections in Iraq and the ability to use force, if necessary, if those inspections and the mandate of the UN are not honored. That's what we wanted all along, exactly what has been done. We need to make that clear. We now have a homeland security department and that's fine. It'll probably do more good than harm.
Al Qaeda should be our top priority, Iraq is important but the terrorist network is more urgent in terms of its threat to our immediate security”.
Clinton advised that electronic technology SHOULD be used by the federal government to filter out terrorists. He said: “Someone also has to be accountable for making sure that we modernize information technology. Before we go round up all these people and profile them because they're Muslims or Arabs or wear turbans, it'd be good to know that the government has the same information, checked it on a weekly basis, that's already in the computers of every mass mailing company in the country on the rest of us. We're all in somebody's computer.
We also ought to do more on weapons of mass destruction. I approve of what's being done in Iraq now and the way it's being done, but it's not enough. We (should) do other things that would minimize the nuclear threat".
He called for more Homeland Security intervention: “It's not important just for political reasons; it's important because people's lives are at stake here. I believe we'll prevail on this if we stay together and advocate it…. I was able to raise a child without having to worry about whether she was going to be blown up in a nuclear explosion. I was able to live the life of my dreams because George Marshall and Harry Truman understood that security was about more than scaring your enemies; that we needed to take a little money to build more friends and fewer enemies”.
I’ve gone back to revisit Bill Clinton's words today as America now worries about the missiles being lobbed around by North Korea. Liberal Democrats are already calling for us to tie our hands behind our back and simply try to reason with the madman, Kim Jong Il. Missiles were set to aim for Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, San Francisco and Hawaii. Thank God the missile launches failed, but he tried more than seven times. North Korea has aggressively sought to engage in an act of war against America.
Democrats have no idea what we’re really up against in North Korea. No one does, but Liberal Democrats seem to be willing to risk us in order to gain political points again.
I used to point out that the Democrat Party is no longer the party of John F. Kennedy. It’s just changed so radically, but now I see that the Democrat Party is not even the same party of Bill Clinton. The leadership has dragged the party too fat to the left. Before Bill Clinton wrapped his speech to the Democrat Leadership Council back in 2002, he warned them: "We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way." To that statement, he added: "When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."
I’m Jenni Vinson Trejo. The Party of John F. Kennedy is My Opinion. Thank you for listening.
President Anyone?
The GOP is doing well,
The future looks certain and clear,
They’re not so sure at the DNC
As 2008 draws near.
Hillary is breathing hard,
Edwards is getting a “do.”
Kerry wants to try it again,
And Clark is saying “me too.”
Dean is pumping out hatred,
Daschle has built up his shoes;
Gore is nervously watching
To see how Hillary moves.
Anything is possible
As far as politics go,
But the chance of this crowd winning ‘08
Hangs between zero and no.
Demos oppose the war in Iraq,
And tried very hard to mislead.
Now they’re beginning to self-destruct,
Like a Roadside IED.
Great poetry. Flows beautifully!
And to those who watch for spelling erros:
"The leadership has dragged the party too fat to the left".
I saw it too late--my far got fat!-- Jenni
JFK is the president who betrayed the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs and who guaranteed Fidel that America would never invade Cuba to topple him, a promise that our doughty Republicans have felt utterly bound to observe.
The party of John F. Kennedy is long dead.
Geeezzz-- wake up Jenni-- lol!!!!
"We long to be united and we long to be strong. … September the 11th, the Iraq issue, the attacks in other parts of the world have left our people feeling both anxious and patriotic in the best sense."
The Dems took this to mean that anyone dissent must be crushed.
Secondly, the Republicans won on message, money and turnout... The problem with our message was that to Democrats and Independents, we were missing in action in national security and we had no positive plan for America's domestic future”.
A stark admission you don't see in the MSM.
Clinton went on to tell the Democrat Leadership Council: “We have a heavy responsibility to cooperate in uniting this country on security issues and also to come up with better ideas across the board. We don't have to be more liberal but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way. We have to have a clear and strong national security stand. We have to compare the results of their efforts and ours.
He's darn close to making sense... good thing he adds idiotic qualilfiers like, "in a progressive way".
"yes, we do have to have unlimited and unambiguous inspections in Iraq and the ability to use force, if necessary, if those inspections and the mandate of the UN are not honored. That's what we wanted all along, exactly what has been done. We need to make that clear.
Another Dem failure to attain a goal.
We also ought to do more on weapons of mass destruction. I approve of what's being done in Iraq now and the way it's being done, but it's not enough. We (should) do other things that would minimize the nuclear threat".
Like opposing "Star Wars" (SDI)? Or like selling W88 missile technology to the Chinese?
George Marshall and Harry Truman understood that security was about more than scaring your enemies; that we needed to take a little money to build more friends and fewer enemies”.
Interesting that he truly believes that money can buy friendships with substance.
Note that the Dems have painted themselves into yet another no-win situation: If they gain enough seats and power in the next two election cycles, they're doomed on Iraq. If they don't pull the troops, they're hypocrites and lose friends they might have been trying to make in the region. If they do pull the troops, then any negative effects (and they will be plentiful and obvious, although the more subtle ones will be the really tragic loss) are placed squarely at their feet. If they don't have a moment of clarity soon, they'll ensure that any success they have will be immediately followed by more failure.
Great post. Go back and read his admission to the existence of WMD's in Iraq!
Clinton held back ABM research for the 8 years he was in office. With North Korea in the headlines we need to remember that.
If the Party of JFk were alive, I'd vote that way rather than for a party that puts politics, money and illegal immigrants ahead of working Americans, the voters. Unfortunately, JFK and his party are long gone. The Dems today are close to the Commie position of the 60s and the GOP tiday is close to the Dems in those days. I dread where will be 40 years from now, if we are around.
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.