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: calgal who wrote (533780)2/1/2004 4:56:05 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769667
 
Democrats for Bush
Oliver North (archive)
January 30, 2004 | Print | Send

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- All I heard from the analysts and pundits in the past two weeks after the Democrat caucuses in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire, was that Democrats across the board are "united" against President Bush and want to defeat Bush to the point that they will vote for the "most electable" candidate.

There is no doubt that there is a great deal of hatred for this president at all levels of the Democrat Party -- and that is more than a shame. It is seen in the wild-eyed followers of Howard Dean to the divisive rhetoric of the candidates like Wesley Clark, who refuses to denounce his friend Michael Moore who called President Bush a "deserter." Clark, who friends say would be a Republican had Karl Rove only returned his phone calls, called the Bush administration "the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living history" -- which just shows that hell hath no fury like a washed up general scorned.

From day one of this administration, many Democrats in the Congress and across the country were unable to put the Florida election behind them and work with a man who had a well-deserved reputation for reaching across the aisle.

But in fact, not all Democrats are "united." Already, nearly 10 months before the election, there are signs of defection among some top name Democrats who have announced their support for the president.

Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, the author of, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" (read review), has already endorsed President Bush's re-election, saying that Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern America. Miller added at the time that many of the Democrat contenders for the presidential nomination, particularly Howard Dean, were trying to use the war in Iraq for "political advantage," which to the Georgia senator is a "disgrace."

"The way I see it," Miller explained, "is that these next five years are going to be crucial in determining the kind of world my grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in, and I don't entrust that to any of these folks that are running out there on the Democratic side."

After Miller's endorsement of George W. Bush, former President Jimmy Carter, who called Howard Dean's antiwar rants "courageous," rushed to disown Miller, accusing him of "betraying all the basic principles that I thought he and I and others shared."

Perhaps that is because the Democrats only continue to carp and complain and flip-flop their positions regarding the war. But even as New Hampshire Democrats were going to the polls to vote for their favorite antiwar antagonist, a plane was landing in Al Gore's home state of Tennessee with 55,000 pounds of material from Libya's nuclear weapons program to be tested. It turns out that all these months that Howard Dean and John Kerry and their pals were condemning George W. Bush's decision to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was getting the message that he had better say goodbye to his weapons programs, or he might be dragged from a hole as Saddam was.

And two weeks ago, another veteran Democrat publicly announced his intention to vote for President Bush, saying that though he has some disagreements on domestic issues, they "pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation." Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said that he will vote for George W. Bush because "he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism."

Koch said the team of Democrat presidential contenders, with the exception of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, "inspires no such confidence."

Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas agrees with Koch and Miller. In January, Hall, a longtime Democrat, announced he was switching his party affiliation to the Republicans. In making the announcement, Hall said: "I support a Republican president who is constantly criticized by the Democrats who seek to unseat him. In the past year, some members of my party sought to politicize our efforts in the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq to a point that the president's domestic agenda, which is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, and the interests of my district were jeopardized."

On a recent trip to Georgia, 12 Democrat state senators threw their support behind the president due in large measure to the leadership he has displayed in the War on Terror. Former Attorney General Griffin Bell, former U.S. Sen. David Gambrell and former Rep. Doug Barnard, all Democrats, have also endorsed the president.

Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and John Kerry have been chasing the support of antiwar protestors like Madonna, Michael Moore, Ted Danson and others. Throughout their campaigns they have shown that they are willing to put their opposition to Bush's efforts in the War on Terror in the spotlight.

But what we are beginning to see is that some Democrats believe national security is no longer a priority for the Democrat Party, and they are echoing the words of John F. Kennedy who said, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." Good for them.

Oliver North is host of Common Sense Radio with Oliver North and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance. Both are Townhall.com member groups.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.



To: calgal who wrote (533780)2/1/2004 4:57:07 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
The Mad Doc
Could we see it coming?

By Adam Wolfson

Not since "Dewey Defeats Truman" has the press been so surprised (and so wrong) about a political race as last week in Iowa and this week in New Hampshire. For months and months the liberal press had been declaring Dean to be the Next Big Thing. He was their darling. Time, Newsweek, and National Journal all ran cover stories on him. The New York Times Magazine and countless newspapers wrote in-depth analyses of why Dean could not lose. He was called "invincible," and his nomination "inevitable." Yet as it happens, he was a total flop among real Democrats, coming in a distant third in the Iowa caucuses, and a disappointing second in New Hampshire. What gives?











Anyone can make mistakes, of course, and Howard Dean's chances are hardly dead yet (just nearly so). But it's still worth asking why the liberal media got this one so spectacularly wrong. They had convinced all of us that Kerry was a washout and Edwards a bumpkin. I was certainly convinced. Why was the media so quick to crown Dean king?

Sure, the former Vermont governor was a money-attracting machine, and that counts for something in politics. But so was Senator Phil Graham in the 1996 Republican primaries with his "ready cash" — and look what happened to him. It now seems pretty clear that Dean's early enthronement was based less on his actual campaign prowess than certain prejudices of the mainstream liberal press.

Dean was two things that the liberal press, in particular, loved. First, he was radically antiwar. In Dean the Left had the opportunity to relive the 1960s' protests against the Vietnam War. They could throw up the barricades, march in protest, and denounce the American Imperial Power — at least vicariously. They could also, like Dean, vent their anger. And Dean gave voice to the Left's more wild claims: He wondered whether Bush knew about September 11 before it happened; he made accusations of a neoconservative cabal manipulating the president; and he doubted whether the capture of Saddam Hussein was in fact a good thing.

Second, Dean was the candidate who was thought to be a transformative political figure, some kind of charismatic leader or "change agent." He had discovered a way to raise huge sums of money through the Internet. It was claimed he would bring into the process millions and millions of new young voters. The Democratic party would never be the same again: Dean would kind of break things up all over again, 1960s style. Always on his lips were the words, "I want to change America."

Dean's antiwar message no doubt appealed to older journalists who had lived through those heady days, as well as perhaps a younger generation who believed they had been born too late and had missed out on Something Really Big. Dean made things sound exciting again. Most of all Dean provided liberal
journalists with the frisson of protest politics.

As for us conservatives, we were all too quick to believe what we read about Dean in the mainstream media. We did so either in eager anticipation of another Nixon-like landslide against McGovern in 1972. Or we did so in a mood of near religious dread for the fate of our country. The man was obviously ever so slightly unhinged. Was it really possible that so many of our fellow citizens, even liberal ones, could vote for this guy? We were pretty quick to think so.

But the fact is that protest politics only succeed under extraordinary circumstances. In retrospect, Gore's endorsement of Dean should have been the tip-off that Dean might not make it all the way. Gore has less political acumen than just about any national politician in recent memory. That he decided before a single primary vote had been cast to back Dean should have raised more than a few questions about just how good Dean's chances really were. The Democratic party is still not quite the equivalent of the French postmodern Left, and nor is it ready for a Jacque Chirac.

For Dean to win (even in the Democratic primaries) the war in Iraq would have to look a whole lot more like the Vietnam War than it presently does. Many liberal Democrats think the war is a terrible blunder, and an immoral and unjust use of American power. But Iraq is not exactly Vietnam. We have lost about 500 soldiers in Iraq so far. Each and every one of these losses is a terrible personal tragedy for the families. This is all too painfully obvious. However, it was the staggering loss of some 50,000 American lives that helped make the antiwar candidacy of McGovern a possibility. Also, today, unlike then, there was no precipitating attack on American soil, no September 11.

Many Democratic voters object to the war in Iraq, but few see it as Dean does: as the only thing worth talking about. They're in favor of reforms, but few seem to want the radical change prescribed by the mad doctor from Vermont. That's what the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries demonstrated.

— Adam Wolfson is editor of The Public Interest.