PDA

View Full Version : Don't Tread On Me



thedrifter
11-08-04, 09:20 AM
Don't Tread On Me

November 8, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jim Manion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Post reporters John Harris and Helen Dewar lead off their recent article "Democrats Skeptical of Bush Offer" with the following:

Democrats Skeptical of Bush Offer
Weakened Party Mulls Stance in Second Term

By John F. Harris and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 6, 2004; Page A01

Democrats reacted with overwhelming skepticism yesterday to President Bush's pledge this week to work constructively with them on a second-term agenda, as the party begins an intense debate about whether to seek any common ground with Bush or to be implacable in opposition.

Many Democrats said the experience of the first term -- in which they perceive that Bush promised cooperation but governed in a highly partisan fashion -- has left them reluctant to cooperate with Bush unless he takes the first step by moderating his course on such issues as Social Security, judicial appointments and limiting lawsuits.

Other legislators and strategists, however, cautioned that being perceived as obstructionists is a perilous course. They pointed to Tuesday's defeat of Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) as an example of the cost to be paid in more conservative regions if Democrats become defined largely as anti-Bush in the president's second term.

"They make a profound mistake if they think we're demoralized," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a moderate Democrat whose reaction echoed the unyielding tone that generally prevailed among Democrats of all ideological stripes yesterday. "We're not going to roll over and play dead. . . . We had a setback, but we're as determined as ever to push our own agenda."

In a victory news conference Thursday, Bush bemoaned the combative atmosphere of Washington but also made it plain that he believes his conservative platform has been newly empowered by "the will of the people" and he is not planning to dilute it. In interviews, several Democrats said they heard gloating, not graciousness, in Bush's statement -- a reaction that suggests there may be little muting of the anger that dominated this year's presidential campaign, even with the election over.

"What I heard him say is 'If you already agree with me, I'll let you work with me,' " said John D. Podesta, a White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton and an important voice of the Democratic opposition as head of the Center for American Progress.

The choice facing Democrats -- accommodation or defiance -- is one facing any party that loses the White House, but it is especially acute this year. Even some legislators and strategists who have counseled pragmatic compromise over partisanship in the past say they see little reason to treat Bush's 51 percent victory as a mandate, or wipe clean the slate of past grievances. Different versions of this debate, Democrats said, will emerge in several near-term decisions, including the choice of who is to replace Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe.

Among the leading candidates, Democratic sources said, is Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Other names in circulation, with varying degrees of seriousness, these sources said, are former Clinton aide Harold Ickes, a fierce partisan and skilled fundraiser; Donna Brazile, who ran Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000; and Antonio Villaraigosa, former speaker of the California Assembly.

The job of DNC chairman is inevitably to rally partisan loyalists with an aggressive message. More delicate are the decisions of Democratic legislators, who may disagree with most of Bush's agenda but also must answer to voters at home who do not like partisan warfare in Washington.

"No capitulation," Robert L. Borosage, a liberal strategist and president of the Institute for America's Future, recommended at a news conference analyzing the reasons for Democrat John F. Kerry's defeat. "After waging the most divisive campaign possible, the president now claims he wants to reach out to all Americans. But in his first term, reaching out usually meant trying to enlist a couple Democrats to sign on to whatever policy proposal it is the president wanted to go forward with."

Matt Bennett, a Democratic strategist and aide to retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential campaign, said a strategy of reflexive and across-the-board combat was tried this year -- and proved not good enough for a majority.

"Democrats in the Senate are going to have to face some facts -- they can't filibuster everything," he said, noting that the GOP this week increased its majority in that chamber from 51 to 55 votes. While fights on important principles are inevitable, he said, "if being an opponent of what George Bush stands for worked, John Kerry would be president."

"If there was ever a time when we turned out our base, we did it this year -- it just was not enough," Bennett added. "Kerry's equivocation on the war was not the problem. It was not that he was too moderate. It's that, fairly or unfairly, he was not seen as having an alternative vision."

The new Senate minority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), has not been known as a partisan warrior but said his party cannot be taken for granted if Republicans expect cooperation.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who will be the new minority whip, told reporters that Democrats were not intimidated by the election results but would have to "be careful to pick our battles" in light of the lost seats. It is a "gross misrepresentation" to suggest that Daschle and others were defeated because of opposition to Bush legislation and nominations, he said.

Clinton weighed in yesterday on the Democrats' future, saying in a speech in New York City to the Urban Land Institute that Democrats should not be demoralized by Kerry's defeat and should resist the temptation to "sit around and whine," according to an Associated Press report

While president and in the early part of Bush's term, Clinton regularly urged his party to try to seek constructive compromise whenever possible, on the belief that voters want results from their politicians. Now he believes that the party must be more aggressive in response to Bush's partisanship, according to Democrats who talk with him regularly.

Simon B. Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network, devoted to making the party more competitive, said he and many Democrats used to believe the key to success was to play down overt partisanship and seek common ground where possible. But many Democrats, he said, in the Bush era have concluded this approach is naive.

"What's changed in the Democratic psyche in the last two years is that we believe we have to oppose the Republicans because their agenda is not just different from ours but that it's dangerous," Rosenberg said. "We don't see ourselves arguing in a debating society between two alternative points of view. . . . We are fighting with a missionary zeal."

Sen.-elect John Thune (R-S.D.), who defeated Daschle, suggested that nothing would make him happier than for the Democrats to take this approach. "There's going to be a hesitancy by some of these [Democrats] to get too far out there" resisting Bush's agenda, he said, because they know from Daschle's experience, "if you do that, there's going to be a price."

John Breaux (La.), who is leaving the Senate, was among the Democrats who most frequently worked cooperatively with Bush in the first term. He urged Democrats to become more comfortable talking about faith and values.

"Running against the Republicans and God at the same time is almost an impossible task," Breaux said.

But the legislative agenda may make this repositioning hard. If Bush appoints social conservatives to the federal courts, including a potential Supreme Court opening, several Democrat legislators said they will have no choice but to resist aggressively. "If he does seek our advice before he makes the nominations, I think it will go a lot smoother," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.


Democrats reacted with overwhelming skepticism yesterday to President Bush's pledge this week to work constructively with them on a second-term agenda, as the party begins an intense debate about whether to seek any common ground with Bush or to be implacable in opposition.

"Overwhelming skepticism". And the decision being debated is whether to move forward in healing the rifts that have developed in this country of continuing to pout and deny that George Bush indeed won a mandate from the American people. The Democrats still don't get it. This Nation cries for unity and a common purpose. The election was not lost by the Democrats on a "perception", as former President Clinton opined, or Republican sorcery, as many Democrats are now crying. The election was not lost by the Democrats. George Bush won the 2004 Presidential election.

George Bush won by the largest popular vote in modern history. George Bush won the electoral vote hands down. And George Bush won despite the despicable efforts of the left to influence the media. And it was a huge influence. The major news networks went out of their way to denigrate the incumbent President and sanctify John Kerry.

But let's get back to the Post article.

A few quotes from Democrats:

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.): "They make a profound mistake if they think we're demoralized," We're not going to roll over and play dead. . . . We had a setback, but we're as determined as ever to push our own agenda."

John D. Podesta, a White House chief of staff for Bill Clinton: "What I heard him [President Bush] say is 'If you already agree with me, I'll let you work with me,"

Robert L. Borosage, a liberal strategist and president of the Institute for America's Future:

"No capitulation.. After waging the most divisive campaign possible, the president now claims he wants to reach out to all Americans. But in his first term, reaching out usually meant trying to enlist a couple Democrats to sign on to whatever policy proposal it is the president wanted to go forward with."

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (news, bio, voting record) (D-Ill.), who will be the new minority whip: "told reporters that Democrats were not intimidated by the election results but would have to 'be careful to pick our battles' in light of the lost seats. It is a 'gross misrepresentation' to suggest that Daschle and others were defeated because of opposition to Bush legislation and nominations, he said."

Simon B. Rosenberg, president of the New Democratic Network:

"What's changed in the Democratic psyche in the last two years is that we believe we have to oppose the Republicans because their agenda is not just different from ours but that it's dangerous," Rosenberg said. "We don't see ourselves arguing in a debating society between two alternative points of view. . . We are fighting with a missionary zeal."

continued...........

thedrifter
11-08-04, 09:20 AM
To Senator Dorgan:: You failure to honor this nation with unity, as urged by Senator Kerry, tells the public about where your priorities lie. Senator Kerry not only took the route of statesman, but more importantly, demonstrated his loyalty to this Country. Say goodbye to a term after your current term expires. People who serve in the US Senate must have the best interests of the Nation, and not their damn political affiliation, as paramount. Take a lesson from Tom Dashcle - you are next.

To John Podesta: No one really cares what you think any more, except perhaps the liberal media who are about to go down in flames. Your rhetoric only adds to the destruction of your party. Even Democrats view you as an embarrassment.

To Robert L. Borosage: Who are you sleeping with at the Post that got you a quote in an article? A liberal strategist? Come on. After this campaign, your business card puts in you in the same class as the designer of the Titanic. Good work. And, by all means, keep up the good work.

To Sen. Richard J. Durbin: Get a clue. Your mindless hamlet will probably continue to elect you, and that is a shame. This is America, and you are part of the solution or part of the problem. And you are most definitely part of the problem.

To Simon B. Rosenberg: There are those of of who view a socialist agenda and a valueless society as dangerous as well. Close to 60 million of us.

This was a mandate, plain and simple. Despite the estimated $2 Billion the liberal media contributed by anti-Bush reporting and by ignoring or burying anti-Kerry information. CBS, NBC, CNN, AP, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, and every other significant news source in major metropolitan areas of the country. All pro Democrat, and all very anti-Bush. There are a number of analyses that attribute the degree of blatant bias supporting John Kerry as contributing a good 15% to his final count.

No bias? When have a Presidential candidate's military records been off limits? When have a Candidate's FBI files remained sealed? When have a candidates tax returns, including those of his spouse, been protected? When have a Candidate's files on civil legal proceedings been given a pass, as was the case with Kerry's divorce and his wife's inheritance. The answer is never. A candidate for President of the United States needs to be an open book to those voting for him. The media has up until 2004 demanded that degree of disclosure. But the MSM (Main Stream Media) gave John Kerry a pass. And they ignored and refused to report any derogatory information that surfaced during the campaign, relegating it, they hoped, to the dark corners of of the information chain.

The internet changed that this year. The MSM were in a unique and uncomfortable position - people had a chance to think for themselves, based on mostly well documented and objective reporting. Dan Rather went down in flames, and every day CBS keeps him on the payroll results in a decline in revenue. Tom Brokaw lamented the rise of the truth, his pedestal taken away from beneath his feet. Brokaw went so far as to compare services on the internet with snipers. And Water Cronkite, the godfather of biased journalism, ranted and raved about the problems the truth created for the MSM.

Objectivity in journalism was tossed aside, and the American People noticed. It is stunning when The National Enquirer becomes a more trustworthy source for news than the MSM.

Despite the Democrat's socialist agenda to dumb down our Nation, and despite their success in destroying our public school systems and promoting the graduation of functional illiterates, the American people can still think on their own. The inexcusable abuses of the public trust by the MSM did not go unnoticed.

But more importantly, the American Public recoiled in the agenda of hate and superiority poured onto it by the Democratic Party and the MSM. This Nation was united after 9/11. The current administration carried that unity into this election. Despite what some elitist liberals think, the Republican Party did not run a divisive campaign. They connected with all people, and they won. On the other hand, the Democrats tried to divide this country. The only way they could win this election was to divide the people, and then conquer.

Keep fooling yourselves. Keep believing that the artificial kingdoms you have created in major metropolitan areas are intact. The barriers of socialism erected to convince the population within the castle walls that all of their needs will be me by the ruler, despite the contribution or lack thereof by the individual. The bastions that you have carefully engineered that promote the elite and non contributing members of society as the royal court. The admission to which only asks the use of influence to perpetuate the mutual goal of controlling those within in your walls.

The foundation for your Castles of Conceit are built upon straw. And the foundations which you relied upon to keep the public in check by controlling the MSM are quickly decaying.

You have awakened a sleeping giant, primarily by the slap of outright lies and obvious abuse of our honored institutions. We are a sovereign people, and we do place a high value on character, integrity and values. And we demand honesty and objectivity in our news services. The American public voted their conscience and their hearts in this election. The American public was insulted by the MSM's outright lies and significant bias.

And the American public voiced the needs for character, values and integrity. A leader must possess all three to even begin to lead. And the People recognized that despite all the kings horses and all the kings men. The Humpty Dumpty Democratic Party needs to figure out where the pieces fit, rather than blame everyone but themselves, the MSM and their other allies (e.g. Michael Moore).

But while you are figuring this out, you had better resist the temptation to obstruct unity in this country. There is a flag going up the mast, and it says "Don't Tread on Me". Your failure to recognize this election as a mandate will be your downfall. Continue down the path of division and obstructive tactics, and you will reap the whirlwind of American resolve.

While the Liberal Elite tries to find its way out of a dark forest of despair, it had better watch its step.

Jim Manion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Manion is a freelance writer, and a retired Major in the US Army Reserves Military Police Corps, and is an Honors Graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Mr. Manion now runs a small business in the heartland after practicing law for 24 years.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/manion/2004/manion110804.htm


Ellie