Posted on 09/21/2003 5:37:33 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON As far as many Democrats are concerned, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that pursued President Bill Clinton did not close up shop after he left office.
Impeachment. The Florida recount. The California recall. Redistricting in Texas. Some of President Bush's critics say they see a pattern of Republicans using courts, legislative power and other maneuvers to overturn election results.
"An attack on American democracy" is the allegation lodged by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a presidential contender who met with Texas Senate Democrats during their recent sojourn to New Mexico.
The only pattern is paranoia, Republicans counter, arguing that Democrats want only to shift attention away from the shortcomings of Mr. Clinton, Al Gore, California Gov. Gray Davis and the Texas Democrats who fled the state to deny a quorum to GOP legislators seeking to redraw congressional districts.
"They seem to prefer to blame it on a nonexistent conspiracy rather than taking responsibility for their actions," said Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
Political analysts said few voters take the conspiracy theories seriously, and perhaps the candidates don't either. But voicing the allegations serves another purpose, particularly for Democrats seeking the presidential nomination: They rev up the party's most passionate supporters.
"Not a lot of independents are going to buy it, but the partisans eat this kind of stuff up," said Charles Cook, publisher of Washington-based political newsletter.
The criticism augurs an election in which Democrats and Republicans play mostly to their liberal and conservative bases, figuring turnout will be more important than swaying large numbers of independents.
"It could be that swing voters have become relatively less important than motivating your base. Independents are shrinking," Mr. Cook said.
One of the reasons for that decline: Nonpartisans are turned off by all the bickering. And the various conspiracy theories portend another nasty election, analysts said, because as Democrats accuse Republicans of subverting democracy, the GOP is sure to respond in kind.
"We're looking at a hard fought and ideologically divided election next year," said pollster John Zogby.
A push 'to the very limit'
Many members of the Democratic rank-and-file are receptive to an anti-Republican message. They called the impeachment of Mr. Clinton a purely political effort to oust a duly elected president, and their anger intensified when George W. Bush prevailed in the contested 2000 election resolved by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Bush's decision to invade Iraq fed liberal anger, and many Democrats detected Republican gamesmanship in the effort to recall Mr. Davis. They also have cried conspiracy with Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts in Colorado and Texas to favor GOP candidates.
Democratic presidential candidates have picked up the theme. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri said Republicans are "not satisfied with elections, so they push the legal process to the very limit – in what I think is an illegal manner in order to try to get the results they want."
He added: "What you're into is what I call a cycle of near-violence, and it just goes on and on and on and it just gets worse and worse."
Mr. Dean said: "We have got to put a stop to winner-take-all partisan politics."
During one of the Democratic debates, New York City civil-rights activist Al Sharpton called the trend "a nonmilitary civil war."
The leader of the Democratic state senators who fled Texas in July, Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, carried the flag in the party's national radio address Saturday.
"The three R's recount, recall and re-redistricting are the new playbook for a narrow Republican majority attempting to use government to expand partisan power," she said.
Republicans, such as party chairman Ed Gillespie, have accused the Democrats of "political hate speech," and of attacking Republicans because they have no positive message of their own.
Republicans also dispute the Democratic bill of particulars.
Impeachment? Republicans noted that Mr. Clinton was held in contempt of court and had his law license suspended over his testimony in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct case, in which he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Recount? Republicans say that in Florida, Democrats sought recounts only in certain Democratic-leaning counties and advocated questionable forms of ballot counting. They also pointed to various recounts conducted by news organizations, which showed that under almost all ballot-counting scenarios, Mr. Bush won.
Recall? California law allows for it, and more than a million voters dissatisfied with Mr. Davis' leadership signed petitions seeking an election, Republicans say.
Redistricting? Republicans say it's ridiculous to have a Democratic majority in the congressional delegation when every statewide office is held by Republicans. Plus, they note, the current map was decided by the courts, not elected officials.
Counterproductive?
CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said that while the Democrats' charges are "a way of rallying the base," Democrats run the risk of appearing too negative.
"When you run for president you've got to have a positive message," Mr. Schneider said. "Americans don't like to elect angry men or angry women."
Angry appeals also have countereffects, he added: "They're revving up the Democratic base at the risk of revving up the Republican base and alienating moderates and independents who wonder what they're so mad about."
Mr. Schneider also pointed out that many Democrats add another R to the list Bush adviser Karl Rove, who has outlined a strategy to create a long-lasting Republican majority. Democrats have called on Mr. Bush to rein in more aggressive Republicans, but White House officials deny any involvement in the California recall or redistricting efforts.
Other analysts said Republicans could suffer if nonpartisans see them as playing unfairly.
"The Republicans have neatly handed an argument to Gray Davis, first and foremost, and it has spread to the Democratic presidential candidates," Mr. Zogby said. "This could refuel the 2000 year sense that the Republicans stole the election."
Some said they doubted that conspiracy theories would change many minds among independent voters, however few, who still decide close elections. Hardcore party members who believe the worst of their opponents probably have their minds made up.
"You know how these partisans are," said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "They think everything is a conspiracy against them."
Screw 'em. They ran the show in both houses of Congress and most state legislatures for over 40 years, now we need at least 40 to straighten out the messes they have created.
In psychology I believe this is called "projection".
Coined by the junior criminal from New York, the paranoid socialist pandering to her puppets. The rapist enabler(specific charge) loves the non-specific.
Impeachment. The Florida recount. The California recall. Redistricting in Texas.I can't speak to the recount and the redistricting, but AFAIK, the impeachment and the recall have followed previously approved procedures for making change in government. As long as this is the case I don't see where the RATS have a leg to stand on. In fact, they're making themselves look foolish.
Perhaps we need to choose something other than the Liberty Tree to meet under?
Until the Democrat Organized Criminal Enterprise ceases to exist, we on the right have to defend the principles upon which this country was founded. They would love to have us stop, just because they accuse us of doing that which they have been doing for many, many years.
After explaining the resons why Bush won the election in 2000 to dems who fall for this sh_t, I get the same stupid replies. “Jeb Bush fixed it!... ” “Electoral College, whazzat?... ” “They put up roadblocks on election day!” or “It doesn't matta'!”
I now politely say “Fu_k you moron.” They understand that pretty good.
It's not just that members of the two parties disagree. It's that the disagreements have recently grown so deep that liberals and conservatives don't seem to perceive the same reality.
How long do we have before one side convinces itself that the other side is criminally insane and a clear and present danger to the world as we know it? How long do we have before one side demonizes the other sufficiently to kill it's opponents with equanimity, as a sort of distasteful but necessary civic duty little different from shooting a rabid skunk? How long do we have before one side decides the other is not only not fit to live, but must be exterminated immediately lest the world be destroyed? And while the inhabitants of the planet's sole remaining super power are engaged in this bloody work, what becomes of the rest of the world?
The election of 2008 will have distressing historical parallels to the election of 1860. God Save The Republic.
Lyin' Dick ought to know. Late in the afternoon during the last Presidential election, a gentleman, who assumed the identity of a dead man, filed a discrimination suit to keep the polls open. A judge, and former Gephardt campaign manager, ordered the polls in St. Louis and KC to stay open past the 7:00 PM closing time. A federal panel overturned the order at 7:45 but people were still voting hours later. Algore even appeared on local TV stations to rally the Rats. Thus, a dead man was elected to the Senate and a Rat governor was elected in a very narrow race.
The Florida primary that shut out Janet Reno in favor of handpicked by McAuliff, McBride was also rife with fraud.
Forget conspiracy. The more the anti-sovereignty left-wing pukes try to destroy another war time administration it's fast becoming a vast right-wing army.
Destroy the American administration, seize power, and hand the responsibility for the war on terror to internationalists. Yield our sovereignty. Entrust our inalienable rights to international courts and police. That is today's Democrat party platform.
The leaders of the Democrat Party complain that resistance creates a "cycle of near violence," "winner-take-all partisan politics," and "a nonmilitary civil war."
If only Republicans and pro-America Democrats in Congress would join in the defense of our Republic by investigating just what the hell is going on. Why won't they? Why do they hide in fear?
Re-establish the House Committee on un-American Activities. That'll drive a few of the chicken hawk revolutionaries into the streets where their violence and treason can be dealt with and the rest can be tracked down-- unless we have no one to lead the defense of America here at home.
Our forces won all the battles in Vietnam. We lost the war here at home. That sucks. This is a war within a war and together it's for all the marbles.
VRWC! Say it loud and say it proud! VRWC! LOL
Florida Supreme Court, also known as the SCOFLAWS.
The 9th. Circuit........and they claim a RIGHT wing conspiracy.
Not that the media would ever point out the total lawlessness of these courts.......nor the lawlessness that seems to have pervaded the US Supremes lately.
I see we have our examples of crazies as bad as the Dems.
Hillary was referring to the Republican party, of which I've been part of for many years. Now the democrats refer to you as the VRWC if your anything other than a <$>contributing</$> democrat.
Had the D-rats not dug their heels in on the impeachment (IOW, been statesmen, not politicians, a la the Nixon impeachment Repubs), they could have had the Gore-bot running as an incumbent and probably raised the likelihood of success.
Irony like that makes me LOL.....
You are right, but I am afraid too few people realize that.
Watching 3ID and 1st MARDIV discipline the Hadjis made me proud, but it also got me thinking about the future of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms here in this country. It looks to me like advances in military technology are going to render the deterrant effect of an armed citizenry on a potentially tyrannical government ineffective. What would make American patriots armed with previously legal semi-automatic small arms any more effective against a high-tech mechanized army than were the Fedayeen Saddam and the Baathist holdouts?
Hillary pioneered the use of high-tech military force against American citizens at Waco 10 years ago, and Wesley Clark provided the heavy metal. The US Army and Marine Corps of 2009 will have many thousands of field grade officers and senior NCO's with extensive experience in subduing civilian populations. Look around the next time you go to the mall; the 12-year olds of 2003 are the door-kickers and trigger-pullers of 2009.
The concept of the Second Amendment being the reset button on the Constitution may soon be overtaken by events.
True but its a head start. Dont leave home without your meds.
"Between two types of men who seek to create inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no alternative but force. It seems all societies rest upon the death of men."
First of all you didnt frighten me. Im still laughing. Secondly, what facts did you present in your call to armed action against perceived enemies? I must have missed them. LOL. Off to get ready for football.
I've included the following to state why I believe as I do. I don't have to convince you obviously. But anyone wondering what makes me "crazy" here are some hints.
Visit the New Democrats Online (NDOL). It is the "moderate" Democratic Leadership Council's online community. (Forget the Marxist DNC. IMO) Read "It's National Security, Stupid!" by By Ronald D. Asmus and Jeremy D. Rosner. You see, "voters trust Republicans far more than Democrats to keep them safe. Democrats must focus on national security to change that image." Gee, you gotta draw pictures for the Party dummies.
So what is the today's "moderate" Democrat call to arms to defend our Republic? Well first the plan has to be bigger than a narrow, nationalistic agenda. "It should build on the legacy of great internationalist Democratic foreign policy." We "need to go on the offensive to address the root causes of terrorism." Mostly transnational organizations should defend America. The authors do allow defending American values and interests with force when "necessary." When has it been necessary for today's Democrats to act except to war against Serb Christians to help KLA Musllim extremists and drug dealers? Show us Clinton's mass graves in Kosovo!
More call to arms in "Democrats and the War on Terrorism," by Sen. John Kerry. Strengthen our military and intelligence (no mention BTW who virtually destroyed both), says Kerry. "We must listen to the cultures and histories of other countries and . . . build coalitions and partnerships." And what of the "root cause?" We must make "significant investments in the education and human infrastructure of troubled countries."
There are many articles. These are just two. I ask, "What if coalitions demand conditions that cost the United States of America much of Her independence? Or they make demands upon Her citizens' rights -- such as the world court? Kyoto? But at least the "moderate" Democrats speak of defending America.
But heah come the judge of just what "moderate" Democrats are. The Third Way. To wit, The Third Way is a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age. Third Way politics seeks a new balance of economic dynamism and social security, a new social compact based on individual rights and responsibilities, and a new model for governing that equips citizens and communities to solve their own problems.
So how can "moderate" Democrats speak of my America with Her sovereignty fully in place and my inalienable rights safe (well, six or seven out of ten ain't bad). I like my old social compact, thank you. I like my inalienable rights, too. Screw the self-described "intellectual" chattering class of Europe and its anti-sovereignty, Third Way "moderate" Democrat allies here. Traitors! IMO.
There is no peaceful solution. This is a war within a war. The inner war definds whose America survives the war on terror.
I believe however that we have nothing to fear from our military.
I think it was George Washington who said "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Government is the only entity that can legally use force to compel you or me to do what they want or kill us if we don't. The Founding Fathers feared a large standing army as a threat to liberty. We have a large number of highly trained, rough men currently employed by our government kicking down doors, disarming the populace, and arresting trouble-makers. Right now they are doing this in Iraq, and I applaud their efforts, but I do not find it outside the realm of possibility that those same technologies, tactics and skills may someday be used on me. I do not think we need fear our military under its current leadership, but regime change is inevitable in our system. Unless the Democratic Party self-destructs, they will regain power eventually.
There is no peaceful solution. This is a war within a war. The inner war defines whose America survives the war on terror.
The DemocRATS are American transnational progressives. They do not want the Republic established in 1787 to survive.
Paranoia and the VRWC and no mention of Hillary ?? ...
The leader of the Democratic state senators who fled Texas in July, Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, carried the flag in the party's national radio address Saturday.
"The three R's recount, recall and re-redistricting are the new playbook for a narrow Republican majority attempting to use government to expand partisan power," she said.
Republicans, such as party chairman Ed Gillespie, have accused the Democrats of "political hate speech," and of attacking Republicans because they have no positive message of their own.
Republicans also dispute the Democratic bill of particulars.
Impeachment? Republicans noted that Mr. Clinton was held in contempt of court and had his law license suspended over his testimony in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual misconduct case, in which he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Recount? Republicans say that in Florida, Democrats sought recounts only in certain Democratic-leaning counties and advocated questionable forms of ballot counting. They also pointed to various recounts conducted by news organizations, which showed that under almost all ballot-counting scenarios, Mr. Bush won.
Recall? California law allows for it, and more than a million voters dissatisfied with Mr. Davis' leadership signed petitions seeking an election, Republicans say.
Redistricting? Republicans say it's ridiculous to have a Democratic majority in the congressional delegation when every statewide office is held by Republicans. Plus, they note, the current map was decided by the courts, not elected officials.
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.