Skip to comments.LEOPARDS CAN'T CHANGE THEIR SPOTS: AND NEITHER CAN DEMOCRATS
Posted on 11/12/2002 8:53:58 PM PST by Dr.Syn
LEOPARDS CAN'T CHANGE THEIR SPOTS:
By: Daniel Sargis There is an old fable about a
There is an old fable about ascorpion and a frog . The scorpion is looking to cross a river and the frog seems like a convenient ferry. Mr. Frog, however, is leery about the scorpions pledge not to hurt him in return for the ride. But Mr. Scorpion, with glib perseverance, convinces Mr. Frog that such a service by Mr. Frog would earn undying appreciation. Mr. Frog relents and graciously embarks upon the river crossing with Mr. Scorpion on his back. Midway in the journey, Mr. Scorpion stings Mr. Frog. As they are both about to die, one from venom and the other by drowning, Mr. Frog asks, "Why would you do such a dastardly thing when you promised you wouldnt?" With the nonchalance of a bureaucrat, Mr. Scorpion explains, "I could not help myself. It is my nature." And so goes the Democratic Party.
The whining about the Democratic Partys lack of a message is rapidly becoming tedious. This whimper has become the regurgitated mantra for politicians and pundits from the entire political spectrum. In a very perceptiveWashington Post editorial, Charles Krauthammer held forth, "The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats were defeated because they had no message. This is true The reason Democrats have no message is that they have no ideas." To this it should be added that its not the message, but the messenger.
During an unusual moment of forthright baring, David Lightman of the Washington Post disclosed that, "John Samples, a political analyst at Washington's Cato Institute, agreed (that) the party needs to adjust to the way the world is now, not the way it was in the 1970s the party has lapsed back into the image problem it had in that era, that it is led by, and too beholden to, liberal interests and special interests, notably organized labor." If the Democrats have "lapsed" back into an image as the party "turning tricks" for special interests, it must have been B.C. (before Christ) when they were last pure. Or at least September 10th, 2001!
The Dems dimmed luminary, Terry"Get-Rich-Quick" McAuliffe maintains that, ""We were very aggressive in putting out an economic message. Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle did many press conferences with an economic agenda The problem, he said, was not the message, but it was hard to break through, because of all the news about the war on terrorism and non-political headline grabbers like the sniper in Washington." (Lightman article) Ahhh you should have known, it wasnt the Dems fault it was everybody elses. A classic case of "He-Did-It".
And what was the real message of the Democratic Party? The answers get muddled. The fantasy according to Tom Daschle is that,"Democrats talked about the need to extend unemployment benefits and a minimum wage [increase], and tax cuts for small business, and corporate governance, and a recognition that weve got to do something to ensure that pensions are stronger...But for whatever reason, I dont think that was as clearly articulated and, more importantly, I dont think it was as understood by the American people as I wish it would have been." Yet, there seems to be a different reality.
The often-unbalanced New York Times seems certain that the Democratic message was shrouded by the Bush"smart strategy" , " the Republicans succeeded because of Mr. Bushs personal popularity and his smart strategy. The presidents party denied Senate Democrats the chance to pass popular bills on prescription drugs for the elderly and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security by adding political poison pills the Democrats couldnt swallow." And right they are.
In a world so full of bullshit, facts become a breath of fresh air. The Democrats did have a message and it was eloquently enunciated in their vision for the Department of Homeland Security. To paraphrase a real estate paradigm, Special Interests, Special Interests & Special Interests. Before national security, before the containment of terrorism and before a concern for your very being, the Democrats over-riding agenda was to keep their pants down for organized labor."Sock puppets of the fat cat bosses of organized labor, Democrats are insisting that those employed under this bill (Homeland Security) be unionized, forced to pay union dues (a big slice of which will be kicked back to the Democratic Party), and contrary to all similar employees in the past be virtually exempt from firing by the President on national security grounds."
But why would this be?
A quick trip to the Common Cause website simultaneously illuminates and depresses. Who was the number one donor of "soft money" to the Democratic election coffers? And, with a donation of$3,471,000.00, the winner is the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Shockingly, the labor movement "donated" $13,932,462.00 to the Democrats and only $187,900.00 to the Republicans. When the reporting is completed for this election cycle, the amounts will increase substantially. You really should take a peek at this list . And remember, this does not include the millions that are personally appropriated from pensioners À la schemes like Terry "Get-Rich-Quick" McAuliffes.
Lets get this straight. Democratic politicians have an altruistic desire to unionize the Homeland Security employees and then, as their bosses, squeeze them for political contributions and expropriate pension funds for risky personal schemes. If the Republican Party is the party of big business, then the Democrats must be the party of the concerned grifters. But why would this hypocrisy surprise anybody?
Again, from the Ponte article, "Many other commentators, from Andrew Sullivan to Bill Bennett to Charles Krauthammer, analyzed Mr. Gores political pettiness, dishonesty, and opportunism - verging on war profiteering - by putting his own political ambition above the security needs of the nation ."Kevin Willman extends this Gore syndrome to the Democratic leadership, "...the Democrats did not give people a reason to vote for them. Instead, they waged the usually predictable scare tactics about race, social security, guns, and abortion the Dems were arrogant, petty, and self-obsessed, as they were more concerned about the reacquisition of power instead of doing what is best for America."
Not only does this bastardization of national policy to please the fetishes of special interests pong to high heaven, it is criminally dangerous. Consider the morals of the self-righteous political hypocrites who: (1) impede the creation of the Department of Homeland Security for monetary gain, (2) have intentionally bankrupted the Social Security Trust to "balance" a budget, (3) practice racism and all "isms" to divide a population for electoral gain, (4) risk the quality of childrens education in a quest for N.E.A. PAC dollars and (5) tell you with practiced deceit that "the other guy did it". That is the nature of the Democratic Party leadership and that is the nature of the scorpion.
Worse are the intellectually devoid enablers from candor barren rags like the New York Times. In separate articles published November 6 & 7 respectively, the NYT at once accuses President Bush of, denying " Senate Democrats the chance to pass the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security" and, of a strategy whereby "Mr. Bush's plan for a Department of Homeland Security enabled Mr. Bush to build a campaign on the theme of national defense." Yet, the NYT never once articulated the truth concerning the huge payola that (un)motivated the Democrats. Perhaps the NYT was most honest when Paul "The Dissembler" Krugman bemoaned that, "Talk radio and Fox News let the hard right get its message out to its supporters . " Shame, shame Krugman; that Freudian slip "LET" is an offence against honesty and freedom that is reminiscent of Nazi Germany, not the First Amendment.
Whether through naïve carelessness or intentional Krugmanian propaganda, a collation of interests who lie to the American public with arrogant intention is, by any definition, corrupt. It really turns bizarre when, Àl la Gore, you actually believe your own B.S. Once convinced by illusion, the reality becomes delusion. And that is the Democratic message foisted upon the American public. It is not the message that stinks it is the messenger.
Krauthammer properly observed that, "Bush didn't win this election because of Message: I care but because of Message: I lead. Status quo leaders, who cagily game the political odds even on war and peace, find themselves deserted. In the post-9/11 world, equivocation and dissimulation don't work. Political courage does."
But dont expect much to change with any new Democratic "leadership" except for the syntax. It will be the same old deceptions shrouded in new gift-wrapping; replete with Tojan horses. Similar to prostitution, political bastardization will always exist if there are buyers waiting in the wings with sweaty palms full of cash. Special interests, twisted egos and a void of character have condemned this nation to a gridlock of division and conflict.
As the very rational Ann Coulter interprets it in her new book, Slander, "Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real consequences, the country is trapped in a political discourse that increasingly resembles professional wrestling The impossibility of having any sort of productive dialogue about civic affairs has become an immoveable reality." That "immovability" is the direct result of the special interests and their lackeys whose blood money continues to bastardize the American political landscape. In their myopic feeding frenzy, they threaten the very roots of our freedom.
But that is the nature of the scorpion.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Daniel Sargis is a freelance writer from Connecticut and is a regular columnist for Ether Zone
Daniel Sargis can be reached at email@example.com
Published in the November 18, 2002 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.
Also the "Frog in the Water" analogy, the use of "Frankly" to begin every sentence, the "Casa Blanca" reference, "I'm shocked...SHOCKED", and finally, "at the end of the day"?
If we can eliminate these few words and phrases from our national lexicon, the World would be a better place for you and me, just wait and see!
"If we can eliminate these few words and phrases from our national lexicon, the World would be a better place for you and me, just wait and see!"
Frankly, at the end of the day, I have to agree. :)
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.