Venomous Terry McAuliffe: David Limbaugh chastises desperate Dem chair's ruthless rhetoric

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, August 13, 2002 | David Limbaugh

[JohnHuang2]

Please don't doubt for a second that there's a calculated method to Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe's madness in ruthlessly attacking President Bush at his party's summer meeting in Las Vegas. He's sending up trial balloons.

The Democratic Party is testing out various claims, from the ridiculous to the outrageous, to see what may fly in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns. The party can't credibly claim that McAuliffe is a maverick out there on his own. He admitted he had vetted the speech with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and, you guessed it: former President Bill Clinton. And as far as I know, not one Democratic heavyweight has done the honorable thing and denounced McAuliffe for his remarks. The Democrats will stoop as low as they have to – and as they believe they can get away with – to unseat congressional Republicans and recapture the White House.

McAuliffe said that Bush had mismanaged the economy, tilted the White House to help corporate interests and cynically made 9-11 the cornerstone of the Republican 2002 election strategy.

Cynical? There is nothing cynical, much less wrong with Republicans campaigning on Bush's adroit handling of the war on terrorism. It would be foolish and irresponsible for them not to. The Republicans, by touting Bush's war performance, aren't politicizing the war. But Democrats, by seeking to stall the inevitable military campaign against Iraq are – and that's inexcusable.

I'll tell you what is cynical. The Democrats have been lying in wait since shortly after Sept. 11 to rake Bush over the coals on every conceivable issue, including his prosecution of the war, whenever the political landscape would permit it. As time has passed, they've grown increasingly emboldened to oppose him outright, while pretending all this time to have supported him.

But even now they're being careful in how they frame their assaults on Bush's war effort. Instead of saying he blew it in Afghanistan by not killing Osama bin Laden – though a few, such as Sen. Kerry are saying that – they are trying to commingle domestic- and foreign-policy issues, in order to taint Mr. Bush's war record with our economic problems.

McAuliffe, referring to the supposed bipartisan unity following Sept. 11, said that Bush had wasted "an extraordinary opportunity" to take the nation through difficult times. "George Bush squandered our trust, he ignored the mandate, and he wasted the opportunity."

This is quite clever, but abundantly disingenuous. McAuliffe is saying that Bush has blown it as a war leader because he could have used his political capital as a war president to remedy our economic woes. Nonsense. The Democrats opposed Bush's domestic agenda every step of the way. And they fought most vigorously against the proposals that had the best chance of stimulating economic growth: tax cuts.

But attacking Bush on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts was still not enough for McAuliffe since he knows that Bush's popularity is mostly based on the public's enormous trust in his integrity and confidence in his leadership. So to diminish the people's faith in Bush's character would be an even greater coup. That's why McAuliffe stuck the knife in further. Bush's "own past," said McAuliffe, "leaves him unable to lead on this issue (corporate reform). How can he restore confidence to Wall Street when he has engaged in the same practices he condemns today?" It just doesn't matter to this white-collar thug and rhetorical hitman that nothing he said about Bush is true.

There's more. Next, McAuliffe had the effrontery to chide the Bush administration for being "adrift, with polling numbers as their only compass and high approval ratings as their only destination." Coming from one of Bill Clinton's closest confidantes, this statement's chutzpah speaks for itself.

McAuliffe's hysterical invective shows how desperate the national Democratic Party is in the face of Bush's continued popularity, despite the cratering stock market and with a war on Iraq about to begin.

Being bankrupt of constructive ideas themselves on the economy (these are the people who even oppose tax cuts during a recession) and more so on foreign policy, their only strategy to regain power is to escalate their signature politics of personal destruction. So, they'll continue with these trial balloons of slander against Bush, Cheney and evil corporate Republicans in general until something works and they are restored to power. But this time, it's not going to work.

==========================================================

Bush is a Winner. Gore is a Loser. Get over it.
by JohnHuang2
August 12, 2002

Terry McAuliffe does it again. The DNC chairman and head of the Democrat Party inserted his size 12 foot in his mouth Sunday, accusing Bush of having stolen the 2000 presidential election from poor Albert.

Albert who?

Albert Gore, former Veep, lockbox, 'people versus the powerful' -- ring a bell?

"He [Gore] was robbed, that's a fact!", he told Sam Donaldson on ABC's The Week. Gore has to "get up every morning knowing that" he "got half a million more votes than George Bush did," he whined.

Oh, the agony! Oh, the pain!

Gee, but didn't the Tennessee slumlord ultimately concede the election? "Tonight, for the sake of our unity ... and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession," Mr Snippy said on December 13, 2000, 36 insufferable days after endless "recounts," 'hanging chads,' 'swinging chads,' 'dimpled chads,' 'pimpled chads,' 'pregnant chads,' 'deadbeat chads,' etc., etc. For weeks, Gore frantically tried to steal the election -- but failed.

That's a fact.

Or is Mr. Buddhist Temple retracting his concession?

Gazillions of media 'recounts' conducted since only confirm Bush won fair-and-square.

That's a fact, too.

Besides, methinks 'Ice Tea' Al needs a refresher course in the U.S. Constitution. Presidents aren't elected by popular vote, but by electoral votes. The electoral college system is found in Article II, section I of the constitution. In the U.S., presidential elections consist of 50 statewide contests: The candidate who gets the most electoral votes, wins. Simple as that.

Too simple to grasp for McAuliffe, I suppose.

Oops! Never mind...I forgot...we're talking about 'no-controlling-legal-authority' Al here.

Back to the ABC interview:

Asked to explain his complaint that no Democrat was invited to Bush's upcoming Economic Forum in Waco, McAuliffe stumbled and staggered. When Donaldson noted that no less than 43 'forum attendees' are generous donors to Democrat candidates and 'party organizations' -- to the tune of over $255,000 since 1990 -- McAuliffe tripped all over his 'answer'.

"Because they [The White House] put out a list of... this is not a fundraiser, Sam!"

Well, duh.

Of course it isn't, Terry. That's the precise point. Were this the Clinton White House, it would be. That's the difference.

Nor did he offer a credible explanation for the 'killing' he made in Global Crossing, turning a $100,000 initial "investment" into a mind boggling $18,000,000 shortly thereafter. McAuliffe, at the time, was trying to hook up pal Gary Winnick, company CEO, with the Clinton White House. The $18 million smacks of insider trading: The stock was dumped just before Global Crossing went belly-up.

How did McAuliffe know the company was about to tank? Nothing he said quelled the cloud of suspicion he's under.

His 'alibi' doesn't pass the laugh test.

McAuliffe was also asked about controversial remarks during his froth-in-the-mouth tirade in Las Vegas, where Democrats were holding their summer conference. The speech was an orgy of ad hominem attacks, charging the President with "exploiting" 9/11 for political gain.

A sweeping indictment of the Bush administration, the media called it.

Ah, don't think so. 'Indictment' ascribes merit to the charges. There are no merits. McAuliff's attacks were not only baseless, they were utterly ridiculous.

And -- upon closer scrutiny -- brimming with contradictions.

McAuliffe, in one breath, trashes the President of using 9/11 for political reasons. But then, in the next, slams him for failing to use 9/11 for action on Social Security, health care, the economy.

McAuliffe blasts the President for "squandering" the surplus, but then demands that Bush spend more on domestic programs.

"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," said Scott McClellan, White House spokesman.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Anyway, that's...

My two cents
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, August 13, 2002

Quote of the Day by My2Cents

[JohnHuang2]

Good morning, friend.

[Keith in Iowa]

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, tv/radio ratings, and utterances of bloviating gasbag Terry McAhole....

[goldstategop]

Terry's Bill Clinton's puppet. He says whatever Bubba tells him to say. No wonder he sounds so ridiculous whenever he opens his mouth.

[piasa]

You pegged that... here's another reminder of how the last administration put unarmed US sailors at risk in Yemen:

Redford Sailors Sent On Bus Tour In Dangerous Port

[Republican_Strategist]

[CPT Clay]

"Adrift with polling numbers as their only compass and high approval ratings their only destination"

Pretty much sums up the clinton years.

[goldstategop]

Love that EIB montage. Terry Pinocchio's figuring out "how many lies will Bubba counsel me to shout today?"

[an amused spectator]

A revolting thought:

How does Bill make the Terry puppet move without using his hands? ;-)

[Ann Archy]

Did anyone see Mansoor Ijaz last nite on Hannity?? PATHETIC!!!! Said he would vote FOR either one of the Clintons AGAIN!!

He has lost all credibilty...and I LOVED him before for standing up and then he CAVES to the Clintons. I don't get it.

He is the LONE accuser that Clinton could have had Osama's head on a platter, but Clinton refused the deal and then he says he would VOTE for Clinton. Give me a break!

[Miss Marple]

I only came in on the tail end of that, but I must admit I was totally befuddled by that statement (although I think he was referring to Senator Clinton, not her husband).

Either way, I was confused. He was SO outraged about their lack of effort on the terror front, that this made no sense.

Maybe he thinks it gives him credibility. I don't think so, but that is the only logical explanation I can come up with. Sort of reminds me of Scott Ritter's flip flop.

[Howlin]

FYI.

[bray]

Even the dumbest person can see through Terry McKettle lecturing GW on corporate ethics. How do you turn 100K into $18 million w/o insider info????

Pray for GW and the Truth

[Wait4Truth]

I wonder if there is a good artist out there who could mass-produce large posters showing clinton with mcauliffe on puppet strings. Bet we could sell tons of them plus they'd be great during the election. Would show just how much mcauliffe gets his words from bill and hill. He admitted that clinton was in on the speech.

[Ann Archy]

Sadly he said he would vote for Bill again. He lost me. He definitely pulled a Ritter out of his Clymer.

[Miss Marple]

Well, on to other things, and Mansoor will be left in the dustbin of Clinton supporters, who always come to ruin.

Too bad for him.

[Ann Archy]

The tornado aftermath yet again.

Did Alan Colmes have his eyebrow operated on?/ He didn't scare me last nite...almost looked human. But I still can't watch the show for more than a minute or two.

[NeoCaveman]

This is quite clever, but abundantly disingenuous. McAuliffe is saying that Bush has blown it as a war leader because he could have used his political capital as a war president to remedy our economic woes. Nonsense. The Democrats opposed Bush's domestic agenda every step of the way. And they fought most vigorously against the proposals that had the best chance of stimulating economic growth: tax cuts.

David Limbaugh pings.

[js1138]

You pegged that... here's another reminder of how the last administration put unarmed US sailors at risk in Yemen:

Didn't I see a recent national newsmag claim that the "U.S." had a secret plan to smash Al Quaeda as far back as January 2001? That implies to me that Clinton had people telling him what was up, but no guts to carry out a mission.

And aren't the same people blaming Bush for not taking pre-emptive action, also opposing action in Iraq?