The Dems' obsession

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Dems' obsession
David Limbaugh (archive)

August 2, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

The Democrats and the Old Media are getting as much mileage as they can out of President Bush's reportedly low approval ratings. But the smart money says they ought to be more concerned about their own problems.

While they preoccupy themselves with trashing President Bush and obstructing his agenda, he remains undeterred and presses forward. While they brag at their success in blocking Social Security and other reforms, he amasses legislative victories, including CAFTA, bankruptcy and class-action.

While they anxiously pant in anticipation of his inevitable irrelevance, they further secure their own irrelevance. Indeed, while they prepare to gloat over his "imminent" lame-duck status when he will have little political capital left to spend, he is busy spending his political capital as if it springs from an unlimited reservoir.

Consider his congressional arm-twisting on CAFTA, his persistence on Social Security reform despite the obvious short-term political downsides, his recess appointment of John Bolton and his unflinching commitment to the burgeoning Iraqi republic.

Ah, yes, Iraq. This is where it gets interesting. The Dems think it's the Republican's Achilles' heel, but it may well be theirs. For the Democratic Party and the press, all roads lead to Iraq. To them, President Bush's "duplicitous" scheme to drag us into war there subsumes every other issue.

So complete is their obsession they apparently don't see the need to develop an agenda of their own. They have no plan on Social Security, which they labeled a crisis as recently as Bill Clinton's presidency. They have no coherent tax policy -- other than to oppose Bush's plan. They don't even have a clue about Iraq -- whether we should stay or leave and how we should accomplish either non-goal.

When discussing Iraq, they talk nostalgically about Vietnam, the Mother of all Quagmires, fervently hoping Iraq will end up being just as bad and the vast quicksand that finally drowns the Bush presidency and GOP dominance.

But again, the profound irony is that while they see Iraq as Bush's quagmire, it has become their own. Just as their self-made myths about Republicans stealing the election in 2000 drove them to a Norman Bates-esque frenzy, their delusional "Bush-lied" ravings have driven them to a blinding monomania.

If you doubt their collective neurosis, do a Nexis search and you'll discover their ingenuity at tying every issue -- John Bolton, Social Security, Wilson/Plame, Judge Roberts -- to Iraq. To them, almost everything the administration does is either to compensate for or divert attention from Iraq.

Columnist Arianna Huffington seems upset that even some of her fellow libs are not in sufficient lockstep on the antiwar message. In a column she takes to task jailed New York Times reporter Judy Miller for virtually conspiring with the Bush administration to exaggerate the case for Iraqi WMD in order to support his decision to attack Iraq.

According to Huffington, the real scandal behind Wilson/Plame is not even Karl Rove. No, it's the reprobates who sent us to war against Iraq. She quotes approvingly from flaming lib NYT columnist Frank Rich. "The real culprit," writes Rich, "is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped up grounds … That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war."

Amy Goodman, host of "Democracy Now," is even more hysterical. On MSNBC's "Hardball," she said Sen. Frist's decision to buck President Bush on embryonic stem cells was all about Iraq, which understandably left guest John Fund rolling his eyes in disbelief.

Goodman said, "I really do think this is much more connected to Iraq than Sen. Frist having a change of heart … Because, I think, right now the Republicans are trying to separate themselves at this point of this lame-duck presidency from the Bush administration's views on Iraq."

The Minneapolis Star Tribune and others have opposed John Bolton's U.N. ambassadorship not just because he was a meanie, but because he "sought to intimidate intelligence analysts who objected to conclusions about Iraq's WMD." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid obviously agrees, saying in a floor statement, "you can see why we believe it is no small matter for us to learn whether Mr. Bolton was a party to other efforts to hype intelligence."

The Palm Beach Post asks, "Is [the president's] concentration on Social Security meant to divert attention from real crises in this country, such as … the mess in Iraq?"

The examples are endless, but suffice it to say that if Democrats don't wean themselves off their Iraq-only diet soon, even Hillary won't be able to pull their chestnuts out of the fire by 2008.

David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at DavidLimbaugh.com

Obviously Rush's parents did a good job with both theiir kids

[Red Harvest]

Yawn...same ole stuff...

When you are the opposition party, you SHOULD be doing whatever you can to block bad legislation. Allowing Dubya to pass most of his agenda would be criminal. He barely listens to the opposition within his own party. Dubya has repeatedly demonstrated extremely poor judgement and his economic and energy theories are utterly bogus. Since the Dems don't have any chance of pushing their own legislation, the only thing left is to make the best of what is out there, blocking the more extreme things coming through. While I might not disagree with them on some issues, I do value their efforts. However, I've never been in favor of single party rule. Now that opposing single party rule is obstructionist or unpatriotic I have to wonder about the state of democracy in this nation.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why would you oppose single party rule if that is the will of the nation? I could understand if it was some sort of dictatorship, but why would you want to subvert democracy just to give some token power to an unpopular rival party? They should earn their power the hard way.. you know, get elected to something.

[Goofball]

Why would you oppose single party rule if that is the will of the nation?

You would have a point if the Republican agenda was the will of your entire nation, but it isn't. The Republican agenda is the will of a thin majority. To simplify the numbers (and I'm probably even being a bit generous to the Republicans here), for every 55 Americans who approve of the Republican agenda, there are 45 who don't approve.

The purpose of the opposition is to ensure that even though those 45 people out of a hundred don't have the ability to push their own agenda, they shouldn't get steamrolled by the other 55. It's sad that the Republicans seem to think that an opposition party that's doing its job is counterproductive.

[PanzerJaeger]

I understand that Goof, but what I dont understand is Red Harvest "opposing single party rule".

Single party rule is simply the result of one party being dominant over another. Red seems to be suggesting that Republicans, or any party that has had such successes at the election booth, are bad or to be opposed simply for having control of all houses.

And by his opposition, it seems he supports giving an unelected party power that doesnt belong to it, for the sake of not having a single party system.

As long as the democratic process is kept intact by the ruling party, then the country will choose to go multi-party when it wants to, not have it forced upon them.

[drone]

As long as the democratic process is kept intact by the ruling party, then the country will choose to go multi-party when it wants to, not have it forced upon them.

That's a big assumption. The "ruling" party is already attempting to circumvent some of the rules and conventions of the democratic process. The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster being a good example of this. Fortunately that got shot down. Grid-lock is a good thing at times, it ensures that the government doesn't do anything too stupid. If the roles were reversed, and the Dems controlled all three branches (God help us...), I doubt you would have the same opinion.

You would have a point if the Republican agenda was the will of your entire nation, but it isn't. The Republican agenda is the will of a thin majority. To simplify the numbers (and I'm probably even being a bit generous to the Republicans here), for every 55 Americans who approve of the Republican agenda, there are 45 who don't approve.

I doubt that the current Republican agenda is even the will of 30%. Bush is our president because the last two Democratic presidential candidates were unelectable morons (politically). The Democratic party is currently flailing about, disorganized and idealogically bankrupt.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's a big assumption. The "ruling" party is already attempting to circumvent some of the rules and conventions of the democratic process. The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster being a good example of this. Fortunately that got shot down. Grid-lock is a good thing at times, it ensures that the government doesn't do anything too stupid. If the roles were reversed, and the Dems controlled all three branches (God help us...), I doubt you would have the same opinion.

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

Also if the dems controlled all branches of government I would certainly be against it but I wouldnt advocate giving republicans power they didnt earn.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

Also if the dems controlled all branches of government I would certainly be against it but I wouldnt advocate giving republicans power they didnt earn.

By being elected they earn the right to try and block legislation that goes against their beliefs.

[drone]

"The end-around attempt on the judicial filibuster"? Hmm, could you explain what you mean by that because the filibuster to me has always seemed like an attempt to circumvent the normal governmental process... I mean, look at what it actually is.

What it is is normal governmental process:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...er_Cloture.htm

Attempting to remove the filibuster capability was fairly short-sighted of the GOP. Not very long ago, they used it themselves, one day they will need it again. The whole affair just reminded me of children whining because they couldn't get their way.

[drone]

I find this article pretty disgusting. It's another slur, another smear, another blanket. Not all Democrats are like that, but this article would seek to put all democrats under a bad blanket regardless.

This was brought up in the buzzwords thread, and something that the GOP does very well right now.

[Don Corleone]

This was brought up in the buzzwords thread, and something that the GOP does very well right now.

It's something everybody seems to well right now, EVEN YOU, as I seriously doubt the entire GOP is out there tarring and feathering their Democratic opponents with a bunch of buzzwords.

[Redleg]

No, maybe not. But it's certainly a majority. Watching C-Span is getting mighty depressing these days.

That is why I don't watch the television newscasts - none of it is worth watching. I get most of my information from either reading this site - or cruising the net reading articles that come up from my google searches. Much more informative that way.

[Red Harvest]

It's something everybody seems to well right now, EVEN YOU, as I seriously doubt the entire GOP is out there tarring and feathering their Democratic opponents with a bunch of buzzwords.

I actually found it to be the norm in the Texas business world, they are rather shocked to find anyone holds different beliefs...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This was brought up in the buzzwords thread, and something that the GOP does very well right now.

This is a joke right? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Gawain, are you just being mean to them because they're black (the pots)?

[Devastatin Dave]

Poor leftists, can't win elections so all they can do is try to stall the democratic process. Its fine with me, conservatives will win more and more elections (something that the liberals in the US could do if they actually had a vision or answers to issues in this country) and the democrats will become less and less effective in their pursuit of their socialist paradise ,basically a small elite controlling a peasant population. Not all the Che t-shirts or communist manifesto books in the land will change the minds of those who don't want to be controlled by the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, Hilary or any other limosine liberals. How's that for buzz words!!!

[Red Harvest]

Call me old fashioned, but I believe multi-party rule with some division of powers is healthy for democracy and republics. Single party rule has been disastrous to countries throughout history. Having a single party control the whitehouse, senate, and the house have been historically very bad for stock investing in the studies I've seen.

The electorate is closely divided (and polarized.) A very polarized 51% to 48% split is hardly a mandate. It does not show a strong will of the people. It can however be used in single party rule to perfectly illustrate tyranny of the slim majority.

[PanzerJaeger]

I know you ignore me Red Harvest, but whats your answer? Do you propose simply giving power of, say the House, to the democrats just to prevent a single party rule?

[Red Harvest]

I know you ignore me Red Harvest, but whats your answer? Do you propose simply giving power of, say the House, to the democrats just to prevent a single party rule?

I don't ignore you, except when you get excited about fascism or something like that.

I don't propose giving anything away. Having majorities in the three groups doesn't need to result in virtual single party rule. The answer would be to start with a bit of honesty instead of trying to paint the democrats as pure evil incarnate. It would also include thinking long term instead of short. Using a majority to dismantle safe guards against extremism is not a wise idea.

The GOP could have been magnanimous in victory and actually worked for some inclusion. Instead they are using a conqueror/subject approach. Arrogant chest pounding by the GOP has moved my personal views of conservatives from neutral to heavily opposed. I might feel better about it if they were doing a better job of managing the country financially, economically, and militarily by the measures that matter to me.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Red Harvest do you ever post anything other than rhetoric?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, I have to hand it to Red Harvest on one thing: There is alot of arrogant chest pounding.

Yeah he does it almost as well as King Kong.

[Devastatin Dave]

Now, now, atleast he's modest about it...

[Devastatin Dave]

I meant on the part of the GOP, but I suppose it applies in that way too.

That chest pounding is actually the sound of the secret service trying to revive Dick Cheney!!! budubudabiiing!!! Thank you, thank you!!! 4 more posts to 4000!!!

[Red Harvest]

That chest pounding is actually the sound of the secret service trying to revive Dick Cheney!!! budubudabiiing!!! Thank you, thank you!!! 4 more posts to 4000!!!

That was actually funny. My old joke on this was that when he was receiving some treatment for his heart ailments, the doctors were having great difficulty because his heart was microscopically small.

[bmolsson]

I think that having more than 2 large parties in US wouldn't be anything else than a disaster. Imagine who you should be bashing if you had hundreds to select among. 2 large parties with leaders, with dark histories, is just about right to get the nation going......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think we should have incrase the number of parties.

We already have over 50.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Real parties. In the Senate. Parties as rich and powerful as Democrat and Republican.

Yeah great idea someone gets elected by winning 10 % of the electorate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Which is why we need to remove most of the power from the Executive office.

Its pretty damn weak already. If the president has a congress that doesnt like him hes pretty much helpless to do anything.

The real decisions should come from the Legistlature, where everyone is represented at some level. Not from an Executive only voted in by a fraction of the people. or 51% of the people.

Maybe you should read the constitution as this is exactly how it works today and always has.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The constituion is not perfect. I'm not a believer in following it religiously; it needs to be changed with the times and with necessity.

The your either a Lib or living in the wrong country.

[Devastatin Dave]

Why change it? It works and works better than any other legal document ever written, as long as it is followed and not "interpreted" by agenda driven judges... Ruth (Darth) Bader Ginsberg for example....