Neither party dealt with issues other than terror and Iraq because the Reps did not want to and the Dems could not.
You say that. But the reality is that Clinton handled the entire defense/national security issue in a grossly incompetent manner. It is, today, inarguable that Clinton had every opportunity to get Bin Laden and was more interested in other things.
Can you imagine, even for a minute, Geo Bush 41 in office when the first WTC bombing occurred? Can you believe that he would have walked away from Bin Laden the way Clinton did? What about the other terrorist acts during Clinton's tenure? The answer is, "Had we had leadership that understood that the most important function of government is National Security, 9/11 might well have been prevented."
Let me give you a hint...9/11 and the exploitation of it by Rove and the Republican party.
I think you've seriously jumped to conclusions with this statement. Rove/Bush did not, in any way, exploit 9/11. Had they done so, I think the voters would have revolted.
If the Dems continue to believe, as you do, that the election was about the Republicans being bad, they are destined to failure. I believe the House Minority Leader election is a great metaphor for what the Democrats face; they can choose to be reasonable and moderate and have a voice, or they can choose extremism and frankly, they will be ignored.
Why did Jeffords abandon the Republican party giving the Democrats a majority before the election? Is it because he thought Bush was a right wing extremist?
He was always a liberal, and with the Senate sitting on the fence it gave him a great deal of temporary power, which he wanted. |
