Posted on 12/07/2002 11:55:07 AM PST by Mia T
The Man From Might Have Been
n a way, it took Bill Clinton himself to tell his deflated fellow Democrats that the Clinton party is over. That was hardly his intended message when he spoke this week to his old colleagues at the Democratic Leadership Council, the faction that flourished for eight years under his "triangulation" strategy of stealing the electoral middle ground out from under the Republicans. Much of his speech was a recitation of accomplishments he has been tirelessly claiming for his presidency in wandering the political afterlife.
But he also revised his signature campaign message to tell them in so many words: It's homeland security, stupid. He literally wagged his finger at Democrats still stunned by the November result that leaves them in the minority wilderness in both houses of Congress.
"It was amazing they were able to make such a big deal of the homeland security bill," said Mr. Clinton, expressing open admiration of the Republicans in his post-mortem for pulling off the sort of issue hijacking that he certified as his art form.
Mr. Clinton argued that his party could have attracted more votes by attacking Republicans for stealing the security issue yet never really putting adequate resources into protecting bridges, tunnels, water supplies and the other nuts and bolts of homeland defense.
But Democrats must question whether they stayed one cycle too long with a Clinton game plan that lacked Mr. Clinton, blurring differences with tangential distinctions on big issues and counting on the Terry McAuliffe money machine to hold their own. Mr. Clinton did ably counsel them to attack the Bush administration more clearly for magically making Iraq seem a more immediate domestic threat than Al Qaeda.
Actually, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was attempting to make just that point on the same day Mr. Clinton spoke, arguing that President Bush had deliberately elided from Al Qaeda to Iraq in his potent war-president's imagery in order to bury the nation's economic troubles as an issue. That will not happen in the next presidential campaign, vowed Senator Kerry, who was, however, not widely heard as he began his run for the nomination. Mr. Clinton was sucking up much of the day's Democratic oxygen, ultimately sending the message that the party needs a post-Clinton leader far more than it needs his advice.
|
|
It is obvious to anyone who bothers to remove his political blinders. It is so patently obvious that even those whose political blinders are a permanently fixed fashion statement -- that is to say, even Hollywood -- can see it. (Just ask Whoopie Goldberg...or Rosie O'Donnell...) Bush's poll numbers are a reflection of this self-evident truth.
What is manifestly obvious and confirmed on a daily basis is the plain fact that Democrats are, by definition, constitutionally unfit to navigate the ship of state through these troubled, terrorist waters. Democrats were unfit pre-9/11, but few could see it then. It was 9/11 and its aftermath that made this truth crystal clear even to the most simpleminded among us.
The unwashed masses, the uninformed, the disinformed can see it now. All America can see it now. Self-preservation is kicking in, trumping petty politics at every turn.
And this is why Democrat demagoguery and stupidity and sedition are achieving new lows...
We are witnessing the last gasp of a political relic. The Democrat party is not merely obsolete. As 9/11 and clinton-clinton-Daschle action and inaction have demonstrated, the Democrat party is very dangerous.
We must now make sure that this fact, too, is obvious to all... |
||
|
11-30-01
Malpractice and/or malfeasance by "compartmentalization" redux... It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes. Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9-11 horror and its aftermath ? (Note, by the way, the irony of Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements, pointing to clinton "policies," not achievements, (perhaps understanding, at last, that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real--perhaps understanding, at last, that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all).).
|
|
The New York Times clinton Endorsements: Then and Now by Mia T, October 22, 2000 The New York Times' endorsement today of hillary rodham clinton is nothing more or less than a reprise of its shameless endorsement of her husband four years ago. Like the 4-year-old disgrace, this endorsement reveals more about The Times than it does about the candidate. The Times' endorsements of the clintons are not merely intellectually dishonest--they are laughably, shamelessly so. An obscene disregard for the truth, a blithe jettisoning of logic, a haughty contempt for the electorate, a reckless neglect of Constitution and country, they are willful fourth-estate malfeasance. Inadvertently, ineptly, ironically, these endorsements become the metaphor for the corrupt, duplicitious, dangerous subjects they attempt to ennoble. The New York Times must bear sizeable blame for the national aberration that is clintonism and for all the devastation that has flowed and will continue to flow therefrom. I have included both endorsements below. One has only to re-read the 1996 apologia today, in 2000, after eight long years of clinton depravity and destruction, to confirm how spurious its arguments were, how ludicrously revisionist its premises were, how wrong its conclusions were, how damaging its deceits were. The Lieberman Paradigm I have dubbed the Times' convoluted, corrupt, pernicious reasoning, (unfortunately now an all-too-familiar Democratic scheme), "The Lieberman Paradigm," in honor of the Connecticut senator and his sharply bifurcated, logically absurd, unrepentantly Faustian, post-Monica ménage-à-troika transaction shamelessly consummated on the floor of the Senate that swapped his soul for clinton's a$$.
(You will recall that Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .) Nomenclature notwithstanding, (nomenklatura, too), it was not the Lieberman speech but rather the 1996 Times endorsement that institutionalized this Orwellian, left-wing ploy to protect and extend a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and as is increasingly obvious-- dangerous -- Democratic regime. "A Tiger Doesn't Change its Spots" Reprising its 1996 model, The Times cures this clinton's ineptitude and failure with a delusional revisionism and cures her corruption and dysfunction with a character lobe brain transplant. But revisionism and brain surgery didn't work in 1996, and revisionism and brain surgery won't work today.
|
Remember though, the Republicans had some help in keeping the Homeland Security Bill before the public consciousness. The continued horrific suicide bombings against innocent Israelis, the sniper spree by admitted Islamic John Muhammed, and the unending public threats against Americans by Al Qaeda were constant reminders to the people of the utter failure of blow job bill and the RAT pack to protect the citizens of this nation!
And the public finally began to understand that to the RATS, homeland security has never been "such a big deal." Their only purpose in life is to obtain power over others by "any means necessary" and to use "any means necessary" to hold on to that power. Stinking, dirty, diseased RATS!
Mia, your work is art!
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.