SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MSI who wrote (463022)9/22/2003 5:10:23 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 769667
 
Poppycock....



To: MSI who wrote (463022)9/22/2003 5:20:28 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 769667
 
THINKING THINGS OVER

Angry Democrats: Lost Birthright
Why they hate Bush as much as Republicans once hated FDR.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

To protect democracy, three judges of the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have just canceled elections in California. The last horselaugh, I'd hope, for the Democratic charge that Republicans are subverting democracy. As we saw in this space last week, the charge was already a pretty silly explanation of the patent anger surging through the Democratic primaries.

The anger must have deeper, perhaps subconscious roots. So let me put the Democratic base on the couch and offer my own speculation. The party's most ardent adherents are angry because they feel they've lost their birthright.

That is to say, base Democrats think of themselves as the best people: the most intelligent and informed, the most public spirited, the most morally pure. This self-image has become more than a little shopworn over the years, and now George Bush's conservative Republicans threaten to strip it away. Inevitably such Democrats are angry.

Consider the purely political side: The Democratic Party held the House of Representatives for 40 years and the Senate and White House for most of an era reaching back to World War II. Today the Democrats' last toehold on political power is the ability to muster 40 votes to sustain a filibuster in the Senate--a not-so-democratic tactic it is using in unprecedented ways to sustain the judicial imperialism on display with the Democratic appointees on the Ninth Circuit.

The party's future bids further decline, despite the narrowness of the 2000 presidential election, and despite the Republican president's momentarily fading poll numbers. In the 2004 elections, the Senate races include 19 seats now held by Democrats and 15 held by Republicans. All but maybe two of the Republicans seem safe, while three Democratic incumbents have already announced their resignations. Of the 19 Democratic seats at stake, 10 are in "red" states carried by President Bush in 2000.

The midterm 2002 elections have been largely overlooked, further, but were a historical Republican success. Almost always an incumbent president's party suffers congressional losses in its first midterm elections, but the Republicans regained Senate control and added to their House majority. The nationwide House vote was 51% Republican and 46% Democratic. In state legislatures, Republicans gained 141 seats, winning a nationwide majority for the first time since 1952.

Looking at these results, Michael Barone speculates in the new edition of the Almanac of American Politics, "It may be that history will record the years 1995-2001, when there was parity between the two parties and when Clinton was re-elected and Al Gore came so close to being elected, as a Clinton detour within a longer period of Republican majority, something like the Eisenhower detour in majority-Democratic America." This is no sure thing, as Mr. Barone quickly notes. National security was a big Republican plus in 2002, and conceivably it could become a liability in 2004. But still, the specter of a generation in the wilderness haunts the Democratic primaries.

Beyond mere politics, the fading birthright becomes a matter of self-identity. It's possible, we've witnessed, to assert moral superiority while defending the Clinton perjury, sexual escapades, vanishing billing records and last-minute pardons. But politicians, pundits and intellectuals with this record shouldn't expect much moral deference from the rest of us. Indeed, inner doubts about their own moral position is one obvious path to anger.

Even without the Clinton problems, the Democratic Party has descended into a collection of interest groups not bound together by any ideals. So we see scions of inherited wealth berating the "rich," meaning those successful at earning their own money. We see supposed champions of civil rights standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent vouchers that might give a break to black children in the District of Columbia.

We see a highly qualified potential judge filibustered into withdrawal precisely because he's Hispanic, and therefore a threat in ethnic politics. We see that once a martyred president urged us to "share any burden," his brother now belittles the war that toppled Saddam Hussein throwing around reckless and irresponsible charges of "bribing" foreign leaders--his own personal past, by the way, having produced remarkably little reticence.

Yes, above all the war; the self-identity of the Democratic base is still wrapped up in Vietnam. In fact Vietnam started as a liberal, Democratic war, so turning against it had to be justified by assertions of a higher morality, especially among those with student deferments from the draft. The notion that military force was immoral, even that American power was immoral, was deeply imbedded in the psyche of Democratic activists everywhere.

Now comes George Bush asserting that American power will be used pre-emptively to avert terrorist attacks on America, to establish American values as universal values. This so profoundly challenges the activists' self-image that they can only lash out in anger. Not many of them actively hope the U.S. fails in Iraq, of course, but they are in a constant state of denial that it might succeed.

What's more, this challenge is brought to them by a born-again MBA from Midland, Texas. This is a further challenge to their image of the best people, secular Ivy-league intellectuals. And to twist the knife, President Bush actually comes from an aristocratic family and went to prep school, Yale and Harvard. He has rejected these values for those of Texas.

Current Democratic anger will likely in the fullness of time prove to be the rantings of an establishment in the process of being displaced. Come to think of it, they sound like nothing so much as the onetime ire of staid Republicans at Franklin D. Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class."

Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.
opinionjournal.com



To: MSI who wrote (463022)9/22/2003 6:56:01 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Silencing the Majority
By Christopher G. Adamo

This week’s abominable decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to delay the recall election of California Governor Gray Davis, stands as a clear indication of the epic political struggle that is taking place in America. And though this struggle has been ongoing for more than the past four decades, only recently have those Americans, who seek to retain their heritage and uphold traditional values, joined the fight in a big way.

While sentiment against the war in Vietnam was considerable, those calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops never achieved majority status. Unfortunately, however, the only version of America regularly portrayed on a widespread basis was that warped and jaundiced view, presented by ABC, NBC, and CBS on the nightly news, in which countercultural radicals were ostensibly setting the course for the future of the country.

Throughout those same years, the concept of the “silent majority” was also promoted, suggesting that the preponderance of this nation’s people were either apathetic or indifferent to the social chaos that was rapidly transforming society around them. However, this was not the case. Rather, they were simply unable to present their opposing viewpoint in any sort of a reasonable forum, since those who controlled the dissemination of information were clearly unsympathetic to their cause. In spite of that, President Richard Nixon trounced the antiwar candidate, George McGovern, in the 1972 election, with McGovern winning only one state.

In the latter part of the 1980's, a watershed event occurred in the battle for the American culture with the advent of talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh’s nationally broadcast program. Suddenly, the left found out just how vulnerable it was in the face of logical and vocal opposition. From the aborted attempt to derail Justice Clarence Thomas’ confirmation hearings, to the Clintons’ disastrous effort to implement socialized health care, to the earth-shattering shift of power in the House and Senate in the 1994 elections, liberalism found itself increasingly on the defensive, its once-arrogant advocates often realizing the sudden necessity to run for the tall grass.

During the past decade, things have only gotten worse for those on the left. Alternative media, such as the Fox News Channel, along with the massive distribution of information over the Internet, have further eroded the ability of liberalism to dictate the agenda, since the falsehoods on which it has always been founded are inherently defenseless against thorough scrutiny.

Also during that time, those liberals who had once held unchallenged dominance of the debate, as well as its eventual outcome, steadily increased the virulence of their efforts, in hopes of eventually regaining their monopoly of power, and with full intentions of never again relinquishing it.

So now the left believes the time has arrived to strike a fatal blow to conservative America. Buried in the shadows of last week’s Senate debate over FCC rule changes is an attempt to reinstate the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine, whereby complaining listeners could literally shut down radio programs with which they disagree. The full force of the federal government would thus be available to systematically expunge “controversial” broadcasts such as Limbaugh’s from the airwaves, much as the ACLU has eliminated virtually every public reference to God from the public scene.

During the past week alone, Hillary Clinton shamelessly used the anniversary of 9-11 to foist a claim that the President allowed New Yorkers to be misled as to the environmental dangers posed by dust and debris in the rubble of the World Trade Center. Elsewhere in the media, liberals sought to mischaracterize government warnings to prepare for Hurricane Isabel’s imminent landfall as attempts by the Bush administration to increase consumer activity so as to bolster the sluggish economy.

Is this the level of uncontested debate to which Americans, regardless of their party affiliation, really desire to once again descend? Can the propagation of such absurd contentions, presented as fact without any serious challenges to their validity, truly be in the best interests of the people?

America has little time left in which to grasp the magnitude of danger posed to it by the "Fairness" doctrine and, despite individual political leanings, fight to preserve the rights of all citizens to express their views. Otherwise, the day will come when, like the people of California, the entire country must face the grim reality that its ability to determine its own destiny has been irrevocably torn from it.

aim.org