Sometimes it's hard to admit to yourself that the other guy has a full sail and steadily pulling away to land ...
when you squander your command of the ship and end up adrift in the rowboat with the rest of the rats.
Posted on 08/11/2002 3:38:51 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer
LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Democratic Party chairman accused President Bush ( news - web sites) on Saturday of exploiting the Sept. 11 attacks for political advantage and of heading an "administration adrift" that squandered its domestic policy mandate.
In an election-year charge reminiscent of President Clinton ( news - web sites)'s 1992 campaign against Bush's father, Terry McAuliffe told party activists the president failed to convert his wartime political capital into action on the economy, Social Security ( news - web sites), health care and corporate abuse.
"All this trust. All this support. What an opportunity to lead. But in the end to what end? An administration adrift, with polling numbers as their only compass and high approval ratings as their only destination," McAuliffe told several hundred Democratic leaders to conclude their summer conference.
Firing back, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It's a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party when they meet and cannot unite around a positive agenda and instead can only resort to negative attacks."
In three days of meetings, Democratic leaders struggled to come to grips with a nagging political problem: How to challenge Bush's prosecution of the war and handling of the economy without exposing themselves to criticism that they are playing politics with dire national issues.
Three months before midterm election, amid jockeying for the 2004 presidential race, McAuliffe consulted with Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and other party leaders before presenting the tough new message
Just as Clinton cast the first President Bush as unresponsive to voter concerns, McAuliffe said the current president's inaction has created a "leadership void" in Washington.
"Ten summers ago, as Bill Clinton accepted your nomination, he said, `George Bush, if you won't use our power to help America, step aside. I will.' A decade later, it's a different George Bush, but the same message: Mr. President, you haven't used your power to restore economic growth, to enhance retirement security, to improve health care, to invest in education, to protect the environment," the Democratic leader said.
"So step aside. Because a Democratic Congress is coming in 2002," McAuliffe said.
Notably, he did not challenge the president's handling of the war.
McAuliffe did accuse Bush of using the Sept. 11 attacks and the economic fallout "to explain away last August's deficits" and he said the president "cynically made 9-11 the cornerstone of the Republican 2002 election strategy."
The actions violated Bush's pledge not to exploit the war, McAuliffe said.
The White House said McAuliffe failed to mention Bush's accomplishments, including tax cuts, education reform and a free-trade bill. McAuliffe's GOP counterpart, Marc Racicot, accused the Democrat of "naked partisanship."
"I am mystified by chairman McAuliffe's reckless political rhetoric and disregard for the facts. Such attacks ... are a disservice to our political system and our president's efforts to bring all Americans together to deal with our nation's most serious issues," Racicot said.
Among his criticisms, McAuliffe said the president has engaged in partisan politics after pledging to restore civility to Washington; replaced federal surpluses with deficits; failed to support election reforms after his disputed victory over Al Gore ( news - web sites); and backed special interests in the prescription drug debate.
Though disputed by Bush and GOP officials, the list is an early primer for Democratic campaigns in November and, perhaps, in 2004.
McAuliffe leveled his sharpest attack on the issue of corporate greed, questioning the past business practices of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney ( news - web sites).
"How can he restore confidence on Wall Street when he has engaged in the same practices he condemns today?" McAuliffe said.
Democrats hope the string of corporate scandals and shaky markets will be a potent issue in November.
I seem to remember that W did call for reducing taxes, which would have been a sure jumpstart for the economy. The Democrats, however killed that, except for a nominal reduction. What McAuliffe means is "Mr. President, you haven't use your power to institute more socialism."
The Democrats are completely without integrity, honor or morals.
The opposition party attacks the party in control of the White House.
What a shock...THAT's never happened before.
I can see why this made the news.
/sarcasm off.
Since when did the dems think GWB had a 'mandate'?
And you Mr. McAlliffe need to be taken out and drawn and quartered for using Regan's "Tear down This Wall" speech to describe what needs to be done w/ the Bush administration.
As for the WH being 'adrift'. LOL It has probably NEVER been more secure, grounded, full of mature experienced people and more repected, too boot.
The dems always take their GREATEST downfall and label their opponents with it. It is a way to grab the headlines and start shaping public opinion-who cares if it is the exact opposite of the truth.
Other examples of this would be calling Ken Starr 'out of control'. LOL Have you ever known of a public figure LESS likely to be out of control than Ken Starr? Of course-it was billy klinton with his depraved associates, like larry flynt or james carville, his penchant for taking chinese money, his selling of our WH, his smoozing with arms dealers, his boinking of anything that moved that wore a skirt, etc etc etc This crap made for a REALLY and TRULY out of control White House. And they knew it. So best to lie about it and spin it to a republican problem. Klinton has been out of control his entire life.
The truth has never been on the side of the liberals. It hurts them too much. In fact, nothing hurts them worse, which is why they work so hard to twist it-attacking their opponents with their own failures, and gaining some success at this because so many in the major network arena are just shallow enough to enjoy pushing the propaganda. Hitler would have understood and LOVED McAuliffe.
If by this the Democrats meant the mandate provided by Bush's conservative base I'd say the statement is more truth than lie.
When things are good the voters stay with the party that they think made them good. When things are bad, the voters go with the party they think is trying to fix things.
What McAuliffe fails to understand is that the Democrats have no plan but to attack whatever Bush wants to do. That is just plain stupid. If the Democrats were smart they would be proposing actions to fix things their way. They would be passing their plans in the Senate. They could demand that Bush and the Repubicans do what the Democrats could claim would fix things. Then it would be the Republicans stopping the Democrats from fixing things. Democrats would be in fat city.
In 1992 the economy was not so good. Bush Sr. proposed nothing. He said no fix was needed. It wasn't. But not according to Ross Perot, Bill Clinton and the voters. The voters wanted fixes. The people did not vote for Bush Sr. They voted for the guy who would try to fix things. That was Bill Clinton. It was fixing "The economy, Stupid."
Democrats figured out in the nineteen nineties that people wanted stalemate. In good times of the 90s the public wanted no change. In good times the public wants gridlock. The Democrats act like they believe that is what the public wants now. That is not true.
In bad or dangerous times the voters want fixes. They want office holders to work together to fix things. The last thing voters want these times is petty bickering and gridlock. The Democrats just don't understand what these dangerous times require. It is not the good time 90's. Those days are gone. Bush certainly understands what is happening and what the public wants. That is why he has all the right and all the center.
The way for Democrasts to defeat the Republicans and Bush is to propose fixes Bush can't accept. Then Bush would be tagged by the media as the guy keeping the country from being fixed. That is not a good place for Bush to be.
The way for Bush to continue to win is for him to constantly propose fixes the Democrats can't accept. That way the Democrats will spend all their time stopping Bush from implementing his fixes. Stopping a President from fixing things that need fixing is a terrible place to be.
I don't think the Democratic Leadership understands what it takes to win in our current situation. What it takes can be put in two sentences.
Today the voters want people in office who will work together to fix things. If the current people won't work together, the voters will elect people who will. That is why it is so important for Bush to "KEEP REACHING OUT TO DEMOCRATS". That is why it is equally helpful to Bush for the Democrats to reject his outreach. The outreach and rejection proves who is trying to fix and who is trying to gridlock. Here is a clue. The fixers will win.
Sometimes it's hard to admit to yourself that the other guy has a full sail and steadily pulling away to land ...
when you squander your command of the ship and end up adrift in the rowboat with the rest of the rats.
My brother is a union democrat. I have one sister who is a democrat based on what our dad supported. Both of them are interested in the DOJ indicting corporate criminals, and both are NOT wanting to give up the tax cut. A little nudge and they will be in the Bush camp.
Thanks for your comments. I have learned a lot from them.
Oh, the irony.
Like that vaccant space between their ears that makes that sloshing sound when they move their heads?
The convservative base has never elected anyone.There only claim to fame is electing left wing democrats.
Elections are won when one candidate gets a majority of the votes. Since 1/3 are conservative and 1/3 are liberal, and 1/3 are in the middle, the candidate who gets a bit more than half the middle
The candidate that panders to his base
Anyone who is stupid enough to think a president should tilt at windmills losing vote after vote in the Senate in a sterling effort to please the base and lose the middle is a total political fool. It is what elects Democrats.
It takes the house, 60 working votes in the Senate and a Supreme court that won't overturn, to change this nation. To change things a president must get over half the center behind him and hold them long enough to change the make up of the house and senate. Bush has a 70 percent approval rating. That is almost all the right and almost all the center. That is better than anyone has ever done. But that is worthless. It is votes in the house and senate and surpreme court decisions that change things. Not popularity contests. Bush has zero clout in the senate. The Senate will do what Tom Daschle says for it to do. The Republicans must take control of the senate. There is no way Bush can get anything through the current Senate. He can't even get them to confirm judges. Squandering mandates is bull sh*t. A mandate is control of the house and 60 working votes in the senate. That is the only mandate that has ever counted. When Republicans had sixty working votes in the senate on welfare reform, we got it even though Bill Clinton was in the White House. Mandates are media for Bull CRAP to fool the ignorant.
It would take a very very very dumb president to drive the center away by tyring for things the right would like but he has zero chance of getting passed.
The Right must take the SENATE. To do that you have to get PEOPLE WHO DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU TO VOTE FOR YOU.
The right can not understand why 2/3 of the voters don't agree with them. They have no trouble understanding that 2/3 of the population does not agree with the left.
The people on the right always think the majority is against them becuase they don't know where the right stands. Get a slight clue. Two thirds of the voters know exactly what the right stands for.. and they still are against the right.
Democrats understand that Clinton had to fold on Welfare Reform. The Right is totally clueless when Repubicans do what it takes to survive. They demand the Repubicans never do anything that would get them more than 1/3 of the votes. The right demands that the center be handed to the left.
Are you still involved with Global Crossing?
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.