Ted Kennedy: Wrong About Everything - Again

There have been dozens of comments about Senator Ted Kennedy's speech to the National Press Club a few days ago, but no one has commented about the entire thing. I've done so here. The speech is quite interesting for two reasons: Ted Kennedy represents the extreme liberal faction of the Democratic Party, and he has a tremendous influence over the party as a whole. His words outline his intentions, and his - and possibly the Democratic Party's - vision of what this nation should become. Frankly, it's scarey to think these people could possibly be in charge of our government.

DISCLAIMER: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. If I were required to identify my political affiliation, I would have to acknowledge that I am a Jeffersonian limited anarchist.
=========================================
This is long. It was a long speech. Read it all, however,
because it's all important if we wish to understand just
what the Teddy Kennedy faction of the Democratic Party
really wants America to become.
=========================================
Text: Sen. Kennedy on the Future of the Democratic Party

Following is the full text of Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-Mass.) speech at the National Press Club on the future of the Democratic party.
-------------------------------------
KENNEDY: Thank you, Sheila Cherry, for that gracious introduction and thank you to the Press Club for inviting me here today.

I'm honored to be joined on the dais by two outstanding young persons who represent a new generation of leadership for the Democratic party and our country. Grant Woodard is a junior at Grinnel College in Iowa, president of the College Democrats of America. He brilliantly organized students for John Kerry in the Iowa caucuses a year ago. And last fall he led a national effort to mobilize student voters. So I appreciate his presence.

And Andrew Gillum is the youngest person ever elected to the city commission in Tallahassee. He was elected while still a student at Florida A M and now, two years later, the commission has chosen him as mayor pro tem of the city.

Andrew served last fall as the Florida director of the Get Out The Vote campaign for People for the American Way. I'm pleased he's joined with us here today.

These two young leaders have a passion for public service and a talent for inspiring others. After spending a few minutes with them, you'll be reassured that the nation's future is in good hands.

Ten years ago almost to the day, I stood at this podium after another election in which Democrats lost ground, far too much ground, an unwelcome distribution of power with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress for the first time in nearly half a century.

2004 was nothing like that. It was more a replay of 2000. This time a switch of less than 60,000 votes in Ohio would've brought victory. Unlike 2000, it would've been a victory against an incumbent president in a time of war.

Small swings in other states could also have given Democrats control of the Senate or the House or even both.

Obviously it hurts to come so close in all three battles and then fail by so little. We did many things right, but there is no cause for complacency.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Democrats lost by 3 million votes overall. They "won" Wisconsin by less than 12,000 votes. There is growing evidence of some 25,000 fraudulent votes from that state. They "manufactured" enough votes in Washington state to reverse the will of the people, and put a Democrat in the state house - at least temporarily. The loss in Ohio was by more than 118,000 votes, with a record voter turnout. The constant harping about Ohio is nonsense, merely a poor loser refusing to admit it's the Democrat's ideas as well as their candidate the people couldn't stand.
--------------------------------------------------------
I categorically reject the deceptive and dangerous claim that the outcome last November was somehow a sweeping or even a modest or even a miniature mandate for reactionary measures like privatizing Social Security...
--------------------------------------------------------
Good heavens, no! Can't have individuals having ANY control over their own retirement, or any opportunity to do things for themselves - what a reactionary idea! Why, that may even give them the idea they should exercise personal judgment, instead of doing what's "best" for them - what the Democratic Party says is best for them. After all, private ownership of ANYTHING is against Democratic Party principles which require us to be slaves to a socialist-welfare state. Any claim that the Republicans have a mandate is "deceptive and dangerous" - to Democrats and their kooky ideas about governing.
--------------------------------------------------------
... redistributing the tax burden in the wrong direction or packing the federal courts with reactionary judges.
--------------------------------------------------------
After all, an across-the-board tax cut is just so unfair! Why, the "rich" get a tax break! How un-American! And those reactionary judges that think the law should be interpreted as it's written, that the Constitution means what it says, instead of what a Democratic judiciary wants to interpret it to mean, for the "good of the party". Equality under the law? How reactionary! Everyone knows some elements need special treatment - especially Democratic operatives such as Sandy Berger, and good friends of the Democratic Party, like Mark Rich and George Soros.
--------------------------------------------------------
Those proposals were barely mentioned or voted on in an election dominated by memories of 9/11, fear of terrorism, the quagmire in Iraq and relentlessly negative attacks on our presidential candidate.
--------------------------------------------------------
Barely mentioned? Maybe by the Democratic candidate, but I've heard it mentioned by President Bush several times - in speeches, in at least one presidential debate, and in at least two question-and-answer segments. It's been all over the blogosphere. A Google search using the search string "Social Security Reform" +2003 resulted in 106,000 hits. Without the "2003", the number of hits goes up to 396,000. The term "tax cuts" result in 2,670,000 hits. "Conservative judiciary" resulted in 4,240 hits, while "Independent judiciary" (President Bush's perferred term) resulted in 179,000 hits. "Conservative judicial nominees" resulted in 3,810 hits. These hits reflect input from both left and right. Seems to me there was a LOT of discussion of these ideas in the last election, by both sides.

As for negative attacks on "our presidential candidate", a survey by an independent researcher showed that the media covered your candidate, John Kerry, favorably 67% of the time, while covering George Bush favorably 25% of the time. The people attacking your candidate were people who had prior knowledge of him and his incredibly anti-American behavior and lousy Senate record. Maybe they pursued a negative agenda because you had a negative candidate - isn't that possible? Of course not, silly me! He was a Democrat - he can do no wrong!

We'll get to Iraq later.
--------------------------------------------------------
In truth, we do not shrink from that debate. There is no doubt that we must do a better job of looking within ourselves and speaking out for the principles we believe in and for the values that are the foundation of our actions. Americans need to hear more, not less, about those values.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, why shirk from it when you can twist, distort, and misrepresent every single word the Republicans say so that it's unrecognizable from the truth, build unsupported arguments that even you can't understand, and play games with semantics until the entire world is wondering if you're an idiot. This last campaign is an excellent example of how Democrats "speak out for the principles we believe in and for the values that are the foundation of our actions." Those include abortion, gay rights, unionized failing schools, social welfare, higher taxes, lack of responsibility, a weaker military, reduced intelligence-collecting, more subservience of the United States and its sovereignty to the United Nations, government control of anything and everything, socialized medicine, and a host of other Democratic Party platform planks. We know all about them. Did you ever think that's why your guy LOST?
--------------------------------------------------------
We were remiss in not talking more directly about them, about the fundamental ideals that guide our progressive policies.

In the words of Martin Luther King, we must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.

Unlike the Republican Party, we believe our values unite us as Americans instead of dividing us. If the White House idea of bipartisanship is that we have to buy whatever partisan ideas they send us, we are not interested.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sixty million Americand disagreed with you - three million more than agreed. In the election system of the United States, that means you lost. There were also 286 electoral votes cast for President Bush against 251 cast for your candidate - again you lose. More people wanted the Republican ideas than the Democratic ideas. You also lost seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Trying to force the Democratic agenda on the majority of voters is tyranny, no matter how it's sugar-coated. If you don't want to work with the Republicans, then continue as you are. Don't expect, however, to improve your showing in the polls by continuing to foist the same failed ideas on an ever-more-knowledgeable electorate.
--------------------------------------------------------
In fact, our values are still our greatest strength. Despite resistance, setbacks and periods of backlash over the years, our values have moved us closer to the ideal with which America began, that all people are created equal.

And when Democrats say, all, we mean all.
--------------------------------------------------------
What the Democratic Party's ideas also mean is that all people should be created equally indebted to Government for most of their basic needs, instead of being independent, free, self-supporting, self-actualizing, and self-motivated. Any more, it also requires Americans to be self-educated, since the Democrats' values have virtually destroyed our schools, and Democratic ideas instead of truth prevail on most college campuses.
--------------------------------------------------------
We have an administration that falsely hypes almost every issue as a crisis. They did it on Iraq. And they are doing it now on Social Security.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, describes everything a Republican president does, any idea he has, as a failure or a quagmire, regardless of the truth. If you cannot accept the success of others, the truth of ideas if they're presented by someone outside your own social elite, you become a dogmatic fool.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the face of their tactics, we cannot move our party or our nation forward under the pale colors and timid voices. We cannot play Republican clones. If we do, we will lose again, and deserve to lose.

As I have said on other occasions, the last things our country needs is two Republican Parties.
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm beginning to believe an even worse fate would be to have even ONE Democratic Party.
--------------------------------------------------------
Today I propose a progressive vision for America; a vision that Democrats must fight for in the months and years ahead; a vision rooted in our basic values of opportunity, fairness, tolerance and respect for each other.

These founding beliefs are still the essence of the American dream today. That dream is the North Star of the Democratic Party; the compass that guides our policies and sets our course to freedom and opportunity, to fairness and justice, not just for the few, not just for some, but for all.

At our best in all the great causes for which our party has stood we have kept that dream alive for all Americans, even and especially in difficult times. And we will not fail to do so now.

Today, as we know too well, that dream is again in peril. The hopes of average Americans have faltered, as global forces cause the economy to shift against them. The challenge has been needlessly compounded because Republican Congresses and administrations have consciously chosen negative policies that diminish the American dream.

We cannot reclaim it by tinkering at the margins. No nation is guaranteed a position of lasting prosperity and security. We have to work for it, we have to fight for it and we have to sacrifice for it.

We have a choice. We can continue to be buffeted by the harsh winds of a shrinking world, or we can think anew and guide the currents of globalization with a new progressive vision that strengthens America and equips our citizens to move confidently to the future.

Our progressive vision is not just for Democrats or Republicans, for red states or blue states. It's a way forward for the nation as a whole to a new prosperity and greater opportunity for all; a vision not just of the country we can become, but the country that we must become: an America that embraces the values and aspiration of our people now and for coming generations.

It is a commitment to true opportunity for all, not as an abstract concept but as a practical necessity.

To find our way to the future, we need the skills, the insight and the productivity of every American, in a nation which each of us shares responsibility for the future and where the blessings of progress are shared fairly by all our citizens in return.

Obviously, we must deal with Iraq and the clear and present danger of terrorism. I intend to address that issue in greater detail after the elections there.

But I do not retreat from the view that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. At the critical moment in the war on terrorism, the administration turned away from pursuing Osama bin Laden and made the catastrophic choice instead that has bogged down America in an endless quagmire in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------
Eleven paragraphs, and he still hasn't said what he means by a "progressive vision for America". We do get off on how bad a decision it was for George Bush to attack Iraq, the invocation of the mantra of "Vietnam" and "quagmire", but absolutely no substance. Ted Kennedy - the master of hot air. No wonder we're in the midst of "global warming".
--------------------------------------------------------
Our misguided resort to war has created much more and much more intense anti-American feeling than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of. And the sooner we reverse that distressing trend, the better.

I am convinced that John Kerry could have worked with the international community to end that war and bring our troops home with honor.

Our challenge now is to convince George Bush that there is a better way ahead in Iraq instead of continuing to sink deeper into the quagmire.
--------------------------------------------------------
If anyone ever needed any more proof that Ted Kennedy is a duplicitious, lying scoundrel than these paragraphs, they're beyond help. Ted Kennedy believes (or says he believes, which is probably closer to the truth):

• that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in or supported any terrorism against the United States.
  
• that the United Nations sanctions were working.
  
• that Hussein never violated the dozen or more United Nations resolutions against him, including the one ending Gulf War I.
  
• that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or any of its allies.
  
• that France, Germany, Russia, or China may have joined with us even after the election, if John Kerry was elected (although all of them have repeatedly said, publicly, that they would never have supported the United States in ANY of its actions, regardless of who was president).
  
• that the Oil-for-Food program was untainted, did not circumvent the sanctions against Iraq, did not act as subtle bribery to keep the United States from getting United Nations authority to attack Iraq, and did not criminally subvert the diplomatic community against the United States.
  
• that Saddam Hussein would never violate the sanctions against upgrading his military forces, or that he would try to develop weapons of mass destruction, and that he'd accounted for the destruction of all those he'd had previously.
  
• that giving up, turning Iraq over to the United Nations and pulling out of Iraq is the best policy for both the United States and Iraq.
  
• that the people of Iraq really don't want freedom after all, and will gladly accept Hussein back as their rightful leader.
  
• that nothing George Bush has done in the War on Terror has been "right".
  
• that no matter what the problem is, the Democratic Party ALWAYS has a better answer (re: President Clinton's eight years of inaction, paltry action, and refusing to acknowledge that a problem existed is better than President Bush's aggressive policy of taking the war to the enemy).
  

Ted Kennedy says our war against Iraq was "misguided" and a terrible blunder. The Iraqi people, on the other hand, feel quite differently. Reading any one of the several excellent blogs by Iraqis will give one a totally different idea about how American action in Iraq is percieved.
--------------------------------------------------------
Here at home, but also for the sake of our future, in this rapidly globalizing world I strongly believe that our highest priority must be a world-class education for every American.

As Democrats, we seek a future where America competes with others, not by lowering people's pay and outsourcing their jobs, but by raising their skills.

We must open new doors and new avenues for all Americans, make the most of their God-given talents and rekindle the fires of innovation in our society.
--------------------------------------------------------
The biggest problems in our secondary education programs, are the lack of qualified teachers, the inability to promote based upon merit and performance, the inability to establish strict academic standards and enforce them, the reliance on untested, unproven, and often fallacious education theory, failure to require performance-based promotion of students, grade inflation, inability to effectively discipline disruptive students, low expectations, too much emphasis on "self-esteem" rather than performance, the attempt to stifle competitive behavior and desire for excellence, loss of local control, mismanagement and fraud. The majority of these problems are caused by the pressure of teachers' unions, one of the main contributors to the Democratic Party. No one expects the Democrats to rein in the teachers' unions. Nothing less will work.
--------------------------------------------------------
Universities and school boards cannot master the challenge alone. We need a national education strategy to assure that America can advance, not retreat, in the global economy in the years ahead.

I welcome the president's remarks today on improving our high schools, but it's clear that unless we fund the reforms under the No Child Left Behind Act for earlier grades and younger children, what we do in high school will matter far less.

We are past the point where we can afford only to talk the talk without walking the walk. It's time for the White House to realize that America cannot expand opportunity and embrace the future on a tin cup education budget.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic answer to every problem - throw more money at it, create more government rules that require more expensive administration, and demand more accountability to government and less to the parents of the children being affected. This method hasn't worked in sixty years, but it will "this time". Riiiiiight.
--------------------------------------------------------
The No Child Left Behind Act was a start, but only a start. We need to do more, much more to see that students are ready for college, can afford college and can graduate from college.

I propose that every child in America, upon reaching the eighth grade, be offered a contract. Let students sign it along with their parents and Uncle Sam.

The contract will state that, If you work hard, if you finish high school, are admitted to college, we will guarantee you the cost of earning a degree. Surely we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it. Cost must never again be a bar to a college education.
--------------------------------------------------------
I have a college-age student. She did abyssmally in high school, took no really HARD subjects (although my wife and I both encouraged her), yet she's still able to go to college. She's looking into financial aid. A Google search of "financial aid" +college turned up 8,840,000 hits. Although my daughter's grades were all "C" or below, she's been accepted by several local colleges. She's been pre-approved for some $4500 in grants and loans for this semester alone. There is no "financial bar" to college NOW. There are tens of thousands of programs available to anyone that wishes to go to college and who has completed a reasonable four-year high school education. This doesn't even begin to touch on trade schools, which also prepare a large number of people for their future livelihood. This is a non-problem. Getting children into school, keeping them there, presenting them with factual, intelligently presented information, and encouraging them to LEARN is the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------
We must also inspire renaissance in the study of math and science, because America today is losing out in these essential disciplines. Two major studies last month ranked America's students 29th in math among leading industrial nations. Over the last 30 years we have fallen from third to 15th in producing scientists and engineers. Incredibly, more than half of all graduate students in science and engineering in American colleges today are foreign students.

National standards in math and science have existed for more than a decade. We need to raise those standards to be competitive again with the international norms and work with every school to apply them in every classroom. We should encourage many more students to pursue advanced degrees in math and science. We should make tuition and graduate school free for needy students in those disciplines. And we should make undergraduate tuition free for any young person willing to serve as a math or science teacher in a public school for at least four years.
--------------------------------------------------------
A rennaissance in math and science would require several things the teaching "profession" balks at - teacher qualification, established standards, competetive enrollment, grade integrity, and quality textbooks. One of the major prerequisites for ANY rennaissance in math and science is the training of teachers in the specific discipline they're to teach, not in an "education" curriculum. Teachers MUST know what they're teaching, or they're frauds. High school students in particular have no problem recognizing frauds. When they spot one, they ignore their efforts.
--------------------------------------------------------
We need an economy that values work fairly, that puts the needs of families ahead of excess profits, an economy whose goal is growth with full employment and good jobs and good benefits for all.

To create good jobs for both today and tomorrow's economy, the private and public sector must work together toward specific goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is pure socialism, the same tired old "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" crap that failed everywhere it's been tried. The Democratic Party isn't striving for valuation of work fairly, but of government institution (and control) of pay standards. That's NEVER worked. "Profit" is not the dirty word the Democratic Party maligns it to be - it's what drives productivity, which creates jobs and keeps the wheels rolling. Market controls do a much better job of establishing true "worth" of production (work). The minimum wage is a good example: every time the minimum wage goes up, a million jobs go away because it stops being cost-effective to fill them - the value of the work isn't matched by the cost of salaries. The jobs lost are ALWAYS entry-level jobs that prepare workers for greater responsibility and greater pay - never the long-term jobs that "feed and take care of families" the Democrats purport them to be.

The government has NEVER been successful in creating productive jobs - NEVER. Only private enterprise can create jobs that actually increase Gross Domestic Product, which is the only reliable gauge of true worth. Job creation requires limits on restrictions in production, reasonable levels of taxation, qualified employees, and the expectation of a reasonable profit. Government jobs on the other hand require taxes and other restrictions on productivity to pay for them.
--------------------------------------------------------
We should reduce our dependence on foreign oil, not by drilling in the priceless Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, but by investing in clean energy.
--------------------------------------------------------
Obviously Ted Kennedy has never seen this "priceless" Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The land along the Arctic Circle is pretty much the same from Point Hope through Canada to Hudson's Bay. With new drilling techniques, the amount of land needed to capture the oil from the area would require less than 0.001% of the total land area. The Democratic Party has placed multiple restrictions on production of domestic oil, gas, minerals and renewable resources, forcing the United States to either reduce its productivity (and with it, its standard of living) or buy from overseas sources. Many of those restrictions are unreasonable, stupid, or just plain fraudulent. As long as the Democratic Party tries to force people to behave as the Democratic Party demands they do, they will be considered bullies, tyrants, and just plain words I can't type in this public forum.

There are severe technological limitations on most forms of "clean energy". The most economical form of "clean energy" is nuclear energy, but that's anathema to the Democratic Party faithful. Any time you take an option away, the costs of all others goes up. We're seeing the same thing in today's energy market - Iraqi production is hampered, the cost of crude goes up. The demand from China doubles, the price goes up. Eliminating the use of nuclear energy forces us to use less economical and more environmentally damaging options. The Democratic answer: reduce demand. The easiest way to do that is to significantly increase cost. That also drives up the cost of living to the point where it becomes impossible to maintain a decent standard of living, but hey, the environmentalists are happy!
--------------------------------------------------------
We should invest in new schools and modernize old ones to make schools the pride of their communities again.
--------------------------------------------------------
Public schools were, and should have remained, the responsibility of local communities, not the Federal government. Besides, it doesn't do any good to have state-of-the-art buildings and award-winning campuses if they're staffed by incompetent teachers, use inaccurate textbooks, and require no intellectual achievement for promotion or graduation.
--------------------------------------------------------
We should invest in research and development to pave the way for innovation and growth.
--------------------------------------------------------
Without an economic incentive, there's no pressure to do research that is actually useful, or even honest. While the basic increase in knowledge is a worthwhile goal for some research, if there's no reward - hard, financial reward - there's no incentive to push limits or work within stringent intellectually honest guidelines. "Pure research" is frequently pursued far beyond the point where a profit motive would have caused other researchers to abandon an unpromising, perhaps even false, lead.

We also need well-educated people to engage in research. As the Democratic destruction of our educational environment continues, we become less and less able to mount any truly ground-breaking research and development. When every dime is expended on social programs, the first thing that gets cut is funding for research - check the history books.
--------------------------------------------------------
We should invest in broadband technology so that every home, every school, every business in America has easy and comprehensive access to the Internet.
--------------------------------------------------------
The market is the best means of ensuring that, and it's doing a great job. Government doesn't need to get involved. Government involvement usually means government control as well, something the Internet does NOT need.
--------------------------------------------------------
We should invest in mass transit to reduce the pollution in our air and the congestion on our roads.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Mass transit" is not the be-all and end-all governments at all levels purport it to be. I've used mass transit. It's ok, if the bus is going where you want to go, and operates on a convenient schedule. If it doesn't, tough luck. Mass transit works in Europe because everything is close together. Outside the East Coast, distances tend to get farther and farther apart. Mass transit options should be left to the local community to decide if (1) it's cost-effective, and (2) if there's a demand. If neither of these answers is "yes", any mass transit will be nothing but an unrecoverable drain on the tax base.

Tremendous reductions in pollution levels have been achieved by increasing the efficiency of automobiles and other internal-combustion engines, in new techniques of removing industrial pollution from the air, and in new technologies. There are no good examples of how mass transit has significantly reduced pollution.
--------------------------------------------------------
We should stop the non-scientific, pseudo-scientific, anti- scientific nonsense emanating from the right wing and start demanding immediate action to reduce global warming and prevent the catastrophic climate change that may be on our horizon now.
--------------------------------------------------------
I guess Ted hasn't heard that 98% of any global warming (or cooling) that's occurred in the last 1000 years can be honestly attributed to fluctuations in solar output, and that there are no positive tests that has shown that mankind is responsible for it. The hypothesis that anthropogenic generation of CO2 is solely responsible for global warming, and that reductions in CO2 emissions will stop it has been thoroughly discredited. The original concern was based on inaccurate computer models which have been proven to be impossible to predict even the temperature trends of the last thirty years. There is no scientifically honest basis that indicates anthropogenic CO2 (which makes up only 5% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere), controls or drives changes in global temperature. Even those studies that exist ignore the role played by water vapor (which makes up 94% of greenhouse gasses), whose global impact is even more imperfectly known. The final nail in the coffin of the "global warming crisis"is that any activity by man to ameliorate global temperature fluctuations would have a very miniscule effect - so miniscule it's only a fraction of the margin for error of any meaningful prediction.
--------------------------------------------------------
We must not let the administration distort science and rewrite and manipulate scientific reports in other areas. We must not let it turn the Environmental Protection Agency into the Environmental Pollution Agency.
--------------------------------------------------------
We must not let the Democratic Party or its members distort and manipulate scientific data in order to impose unnecessary and unlawful restrictions upon citizens of the United States, deprive them of the full use of their own property for no other reason than the possibility that some possible endangered species may possibly be inconvenienced, much less harmed. We've seen the proven mis-use of the Environmental Protection Agency inflict damage to the community in Klamath, Oregon (salmon), and in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Preebles jumping mouse) WITHIN THE LAST YEAR. There are many, many other times when the abuse of the rules and restrictions applied by the Environmental Protection Agency have caused economic harm to individuals without compensation, and without reason.
--------------------------------------------------------
A progressive economy also recognize that Americans don't just want more, they want more of what matters in life, which is the American dream.

They want greater flexibility on the job, with more time for their families, more time for their children's schools, more time to volunteer in their communities and churches and synagogues and mosques. They want jobs that pay fairly and don't force them to work excessive hours without extra pay.
--------------------------------------------------------
People want a lot of things, many of them totally unreasonable. When unreasonable demands are forced upon an industry, that industry has less ability to compete. Eventually, the industry has to shut its doors, leaving all those employed without jobs at all. The Democratic Party has a problem with balancing rewards with costs, and limiting costs to those business can afford and still remain competetive. Failure to understand economic reality costs jobs, results in a reduced standard of living, and increases foreign dependence. That, coupled with the failure of the Democratic Party to understand the constancy of change in both the workforce and in industry leads to unrealistic demands and unreasonable restrictions on business.
--------------------------------------------------------
They want safe workplaces and the right to join with fellow employees to bargain for a fair workplace.
--------------------------------------------------------
We've finally gotten around to Organized Labor, the Democratic Party's other staunch supporter - and frequent abuser of laws, including labor laws. Of course, the Democratic Party isn't reasonable about holding Organized Labor accountable for any failings, so there's no problem - except for workers who don't want to be forced to join a union, and unreasonable union rules and demands that hamper and hamstring business.

Safety is always a good idea, but unreasonable safety demands that increase costs with no real track record of reducing or eliminating dangers cost businesses billions each year - costs passed on to consumers in higher prices or removal of products from the market. There always has to be a balance struck between potential and actual dangers, judgments based on real risk factors, and between caution and unreasonable restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------
They want companies to stop marketing cigarettes and unhealthy foods to young Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------
The nanny state (which includes a large number of Democrats) wants to impose its demands upon the population as a whole, regardless of the wishes of the rest of society. We already have rules restricting the sale of cigarettes to minors, and the advertising of cigarettes in a number of branches of public media. Most of the rules the Democrats want to impose reduce personal freedom, prevent individuals from exercising free choice, and impose restrictions that limit the development of personal responsibility. That's in line with the overall Democratic strategy of reducing personal choice while increasing government control of every facet of life. That's not "freedom", that's not "fair", and it's not realistic.

The American people don't want "food police". If people cannot make reasonable decisions for themselves, they must accept the consequences of their poor decisions. It's called "cause and effect", and it works wonders to curb excesses. People that fail to understand, or refuse to accept, consequences usually eliminate themselves (and their failures) from the gene pool.
--------------------------------------------------------
They want workplaces free from all forms of bigotry and discrimination, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------
REAL Americans want the right to live in peace, to be free to associate with whoever they personally choose, not having it forced upon them by others. The entire "gay rights" argument has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with FORCED ACCEPTANCE. That abrogates the right to practice the religion of our choice, which is guaranteed us by the Constitution. But then, the Democrats have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution - it means whatever the Democratic Party wants it to mean at a given time.
--------------------------------------------------------
For too many Americans, an illness means a cruel choice between losing their job or neglecting their sick child or sick spouse at home.

I intend to introduce legislation early in the next Congress to end that cruelty. And I urge the Republican leadership to bring it to a vote on the Senate and House.
--------------------------------------------------------
Glory Hallelujah, Ted Kennedy is going to outlaw sickness and disease! What a relief! We'll never be sick again...

The reason many young people don't have health insurance is the price has been forced up so high by unreasonable awards from malpractice cases, or unreasonable demands for coverages by groups who "know best" what's needed by every individual. I'd like a statistic that shows exactly how many people died in the United States in each year since 2000 due to not having health insurance. I DO know how many people in California have been hit with unreasonable taxes after having to pay for unreimbursed treatment of illegal immigrants - I've SEEN that statistic. I haven't seen the other one. Without that information, Ted Kennedy's words are hot air.
--------------------------------------------------------
I also propose that companies which create good jobs with good benefits should receive new tax advantages, because their mission is so important to our cause. But companies that choose not to do so, that ship jobs overseas, should be denied those new incentives.
--------------------------------------------------------
"their mission is so important to our cause" ????? Whose cause, the Democratic Party, or their owners and stockholders? Businesses create jobs to develop, market and sell products or services. They're not there to "support the cause" of the Democratic Party, or of their employees. The determination of whether to offer benefits, and what benefits to offer, have to be made as business decisions, not according to government coercion. This kind of manipulation of the business community leads to problems like the Enron scam and other injustices. It also leads to market imbalances, fraudulent reporting, and other crimes as businesses try to balance government demands against business necessities.
--------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we must act at long last to raise the federal minimum wage. Overwhelming numbers of our citizens in Nevada and Florida showed the way last November by voting for a higher minimum wage in their states. It's time for the Republican Party to stop obstructing action by Congress and raise the minimum wage for all employees across the nation.
--------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of problems with minimum wage laws, the most serious is that they're unconstitutional. Government has no legal authority to establish market value of human activity. Minimum wage laws impose unreasonable costs upon business without offering anything in return. They result in the loss of entry-level jobs, forcing more people into unemployment and poverty. They establish an unreasonable expectation within the populace as a whole, and among young, inexperienced workers in particular. IF minimum wage laws are a necessity, they should be based on the cost of living of the area involved, just as market-based wages are. It costs more to live in Colorado than it does in Kansas. Why should the minimum wage be the same in both places? The minimum wage won't even cover rent in Hawaii, but will provide a fairly good income for a young single person in Arkansas. A federal, across-the-board minimum wage is unequal in outcome. It would be much better to leave such actions to the states, as the Constitution originally intended. Of course, the Democratic Party would have a much harder time buying votes if they have to work in all 50 states to increase minimum wage - just as it would be harder for them to buy votes with other promises of government largesse.
--------------------------------------------------------
We must do more to reduce poverty. It is shameful that in America today, the richest and the most powerful nation on Earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night, because their parents are working full time and still can't make ends meet.
--------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see where this statistic comes from. The Bureau of the Census released figures for 2003, the latest year available (2004 probably won't be available until April or May). That data is available here, in PDF format. It states that the percentage of the population that lived at or below the official poverty threshold for 2003 was 12.5 percent, with 35.9 million households at or below the poverty threshold. The average income for the lowest quintile (20% of the population) was $17,984. The average income of families with two people working was just over $60,000. A single individual making minimum wage earns (in 2004, with minimum wage of $5.25/hour) $10,930.50 a year as a full-time employee. Twice that is $21,861 - above the poverty level. For children under 18, the poverty rate was 17.6% and 12.9 million. There are literally dozens of variables that affect income and poverty. These five - location, education, health, experience, and demand - account for about 90% of the variables that affect income. The one major variable affecting poverty, beyond income level, is personal choice. Many people make bad choices, not once but repeatedly. We can (and do) try to help these individuals through dozens of federal, state, local, and charitable agencies. The final determinant is the individual's choice. The Democratic Party MUST accept that people have the right to choose to fail, and the rest of us aren't to blame when they make that choice. We can increase their education, improve their health, and help them gain experience (if they're willing to contribute to the effort), but we cannot guarantee they won't fail, if they choose to.
--------------------------------------------------------
For the millions who can't find work and the millions more unable to work at all we need a strong safety net.

Social Security is fundamental to the integrity of that safety net. Never before, until now, has any president, Republican or Democrat, attacked the basic guarantee of Social Security.

Yet President Bush is talking, not just about a cut, but an incredible 33 percent cut.

We must oppose it, and we will defeat it. We will not let any president turn the American dream into a nightmare for senior citizens and a bonanza for Wall Street.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kennedy is being very disingenuous with this statement. The President has repeatedly said that those currently receiving benefits, and those that have already made substantial contributions to Social Security, won't see a cut in benefits. Ted Kennedy knows this - his disingenuous statement is a fear tactic repeatedly used by the Democratic Party to rally the senior-citizen vote. I haven't seen ANYTHING even remotely resembling a submitted bill that deals with Social Security changes, so the 33% can't possibly be part of such legislation. Until the legislation is actually proposed before Congress and available for study and debate, anything said is pure conjecture.

Social Security is a ponzi scheme, pure and simple. Changing the formula for Social Security would have to be a good thing. Social Security has been and is nothing but a scheme to buy votes for the Democratic Party, and has been since the mid-1940's. How bad an investment is it? The annual return on investment for Social Security is less than 2% for 95% of those that have paid into it. If an individual were to invest $100 per month for 45 years (an average working lifetime) at 1.75% (approximating social security), they would have invested $54,000, earned $27,000 in interest, and have a value of $81,000 for retirement. They would receive $118 per month if they used JUST the interest, leaving the principal in place. At a rate of return of 3.75% (the minimum long-term average rate of return for treasury notes), the interest alone increases to $81,731 (more than the total investment under Social Security), and the total investment becomes $135,731. Using the same interest rate, the individual would have a monthly dividend of $424. The minimum average return from the stock market over the last sixty years has been 7.8%. At that rate, the same investment of $100/month for 45 years would provide the pensioner with $436,399 in total investment, and an average monthly return at 5% interest of $1818. Which would you prefer?
--------------------------------------------------------
The biggest threat to Social Security today is not the retirement of the baby boomers, it's George Bush and the Republican Party.
--------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I see the biggest threat to retirement security as the lies and distortions of the Democratic Party and its "leaders" such as Ted Kennedy.
--------------------------------------------------------
To revitalize the American dream, we also need to renew the battle to make health care affordable and available to all our people.

In this new century of the life sciences, breakthrough treatments and miracle cures are steadily revolutionizing the practice of medicine and the quality of life. The mapping of the human genome enables us to understand far more about the molecular basis of disease and to plan far-reaching cures that were inconceivable only a few years ago.

Sadly, in America today, the miracles of modern medicine are too often the province only of the wealthy. We need a new guarantee for the years ahead that the cost of these life-saving treatments and cures will not be beyond the reach of the vast majority of the American people.
--------------------------------------------------------
The biggest expense a doctor has today is malpractice insurance, where premiums can range up to $300,000 per year. The malpractice insurance fees are so high because of huge malpractice settlements 'won' by lawyers in malpractice lawsuits. Many of those lawsuits are ill-concieved, poorly adjudicated, and the verdicts (and amounts) unreasonable. To cap the insult, anywhere from one-third to two-thirds are claimed by the attorneys, not the patient. The same can be said of class-action lawsuits, lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, and virtually every other member of the health care profession. There have been many attempts to cap exhorbitant malpractice awards, all successfully defeated by the Democratic Party. Without those caps, the cost of medical treatiment will continue to explode. At the same time, the demand that no one, including illegal aliens, can be turned away from treatment, and that the hospitals must accept the pittance the government decides to pay them for such treatment, raises costs even higher. Again, these are requirements imposed by the Democratic Party. NOTHING can change the increasing cost of medical care until these uncompensated demands are addressed. These uncompensated costs are what is driving up the cost of health insurance. The entire health-care industry must be evaluated, effective corrective action implemented, and government bureaucracy reduced, or nothing will make medical care more "affordable".
--------------------------------------------------------
An essential part of our progressive vision is an America where no citizen of any age fears the cost of health care and no employer refuses to create new jobs or cuts back on current jobs because of the high cost of providing health insurance.

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July.

I propose that, as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen from birth to the end of life.
--------------------------------------------------------
OMG, Hillarycare! Just what we want...Not! The American people have watched Canada's introduction of socialized medicine, we've listened to the British complain for years about THEIR socialized medicine, and we've seen the way Medicare works, taking decisions out of the doctor's hands and putting it into the hands of administrators for treatment. Yes, we want that - like we want to be bound and gagged and dangled by our feet 200 feet below the Golden Gate Bridge. Socialized medicine is a failure everywhere it's been implemented. Costs go up, availability of treatment goes down, service is degraded, and waiting times stretch out to eternity. No thanks, Mr. Kennedy, thanks anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------
It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low, patient satisfaction is high, unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.
--------------------------------------------------------
Who writes this nonsense for you, Mr. Kennedy - Jay Leno? Don Knotts? Whoopie Goldberg? I have NEVER heard a senior citizen say they "dearly love" Medicare. As for the administrative costs, the annual amount of discovered fraud under Medicare would pay for another trip or two to the moon. Patient satisfaction isn't "high", its abysmal. As for choice, they can choose any doctor or hospital that takes Medicare patients, which means any the government can bribe, coerce, or force into doing so. Remember what happened to Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine plans? The American public is NOT INTERESTED. Give it a rest.
--------------------------------------------------------
For those who prefer the private insurance, we will offer comparable coverage under the same range of private insurance plans already available to Congress.

I call this approach Medicare for all, because it will free all Americans from the fear of crippling medical expenses and enable them to seek the best possible care when illness strikes.
--------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, we won't have to fear crippling medical expenses, just death by starvation from all the taxes we'd have to pay to cover this ill-thought-out piece of stupidity. We only have to look at Canada once more to see what effect this monstrosity will have on health care, and how much it would cost each of us.
--------------------------------------------------------
The battle to achieve Medicare for all will not be easy. Powerful interests will strongly oppose it, because they profit immensely from the status quo.

Right-wing forces will unleash false attack ads, ranting against socialized medicine and government-run health care. But those attacks are a generation out of date, retreads of the failed campaign that delayed Medicare in the 1950s and '60s.

Today we are immunized against such attacks by the obvious success of Medicare. It is long past time to extend that success to all.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kennedy, in all due respect, I think you're still living in the la-la land of the 1960's. What you propose has been proposed before. We who are beginning to approach Medicare-age have taken a long, hard look at it, and we're not impressed. It's not the "right-wing nuts" that you're going to have to convince, but the rational, level-headed average American who has seen all this before, and know it's a suicide pact. Why do you think tens of thousands of Canadians come to the United States for medical treatment? It's not that it's not available in Canada - it's because the waiting time to get the treatment is longer than their ability to live without it. The same thing will happen here. We're NOT INTERESTED. Take your pipe dreams and peddle them somewhere else. The American people have grown up. We know there's no Santa Claus, and that "something for nothing" is a farce.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Party's proudest moments and greatest victories have always come when we would stand up against powerful interests and fight for the common good. And this coming battle can be another of our finest achievements.
--------------------------------------------------------
Only in your eyes, Mr. Kennedy, which is why your party is in a death-spiral.
--------------------------------------------------------
To make the transition from the current splintered system, I propose to phase in Medicare for all age group-by-age group, starting with those closest to retirement, between 55 and 65. Aside from senior citizens themselves, they have the greatest health needs and the highest health costs and need our help the most.

The first stage of the phase-in should also guarantee good health care to every young child. We made a start with the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. It does a major part of the job. But it's time to complete the job now.
--------------------------------------------------------
It's time for the government to get out of people's lives, stop trying to run everything, especially things they know nothing about, and to let us take care of ourselves. There should be a "safety net" for those that need it. Once upon a time, it was provided by families and charitable institutions, until the government took over and forced everyone else to back away. The problem with government is that it thinks if a little bit is good, ten times more will be ten times as good. Unfortunately, too many things don't operate that way, and government ends up destroying what was good and useful in its "one size fits all", hammer/nail relationship with its citizens. It's time for government to back of and resume its limited role in our lives. That's what the average citizen of this nation wants, not the cradle-to-grave welfare state that's killing Europe, crippling Canada, and turning the United States into a disaster looking for a place to happen. BOTH political parties need to wake up and understand this, or neither party will prosper. Somewhere, someone will suddenly realize what people really want, offer it to them, and become the new party of choice. Whether that's in one of the two current major parties or in a future third party, only time will tell. It WILL happen - get over it.
--------------------------------------------------------
As we implement this reform, financing must be a shared responsibility. All will benefit; all should contribute.

Payroll taxes should be part of the financing, but so should general revenues, to make the financing as progressive as possible.

By moving to electronic medical records for all Americans when they go to the hospital or doctor, we can save hundreds of billions of dollars a year in administrative cost while improving the quality of care.

Equally important, we should pay for health care based on value and results, not just the number of procedures performed or days in a hospital bed.

We must also expand our investments in medical research so that we can realize even more of its extraordinary promise.

We must confront and defeat the misguided ideology that in the name of life denies lifesaving cures by blocking stem cell research.
--------------------------------------------------------
More lies, more deceit. There are NO limits on "stem cell research", only a ban on Federal funding of fetal stem-cell research. California just passed a $3 billion bond issue to pay for stem-cell research, and the federal government hasn't said a word about it. Besides which, there's growing evidence that other sources of stem cells, from adult fatty tissue and elsewhere, that prove more promising of success. The cost of Mr. Kennedy's "Medicare for all" will equal about twice the current budget - bank on it. It can only be implemented by drastically cutting everything else, including Social Security, the military, and virtually every other government expenditure. Taxes will HAVE to be raised - not just raised, but doubled, maybe even tripled, in order to meet the costs. The people who will suffer the most will be the people in the lowest 80% of the income scale, or about 92% of the US population. Even worse, it gives the federal government access to the most private information about an individual - information about their health and well-being. No thanks, Mr. Kennedy. We'd prefer to do it ourselves. Just get government out of the way so it won't cost so much!
--------------------------------------------------------
Above all, as we face the forces of globalization, we must inspire a stronger sense of national purpose among our citizens in a wide variety of areas that serve the public interest.

We must affirm anew what it means to be an American. Citizenship is far more than just voting every two years or every four years. The strengthen and genius of our democracy depends on the caring and involvement of our people, and we cannot truly secure our freedom without appealing to the character of our citizens.

If we fail, we open the way for abuses of power in the hands of the few, for neglect of poverty and bigotry and for arrogant foreign policies that shatter our alliances and make enemies of our friends.

Our founders made the values of justice, equality and civic responsibility the cornerstones of America's strength and its future.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kennedy, you need to go back and read the words of our founding fathers. Their main concern was individual freedom. That included the rights of the individual to decide things for themselves, to be secure in their home and property, and to limit government's involvement in their day-to-day activities. Nothing you've said in this speech corresponds to what those early citizens of this nation dreamed of when they founded the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------------
If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, we must be serious about reducing unwanted pregnancy. We must accept policies with a proven track record of reducing abortion.

History teaches that abortions do not stop because they are made illegal. Indeed half of all abortions in the world are performed in places where abortions are illegal.

We do know, however, that the number of abortions is reduced when women and parents have education and economic opportunity. Our progressive vision is of an America where parents have the opportunity and the resources, including good prenatal care, to bring healthy children into the world.

We want every child to be welcomed into a loving home and to be part of the American dream. This fundamental vision is at the heart of who we are as Democrats and we must do everything in our power to make it a reality.
--------------------------------------------------------
The number of abortions will remain high as long as abortion is considered just another alternative form of birth control. Abortions will continue to abound as long as women aren't given the truth about the emotional and psychological as well as the physiological effects of abortion. Abortions will remain high as long as we have a culture that derides celibacy, regales limiting sexual intimacy only within marriage as "stupid", and denigrates family life. We know that children are far better off in all measurable categories when they are raised within a two-parent, conventional male/female household, yet this is the demographic that the Democratic Party's past and current policies hurt the most.
--------------------------------------------------------
On the issue of gay rights, I continue strongly to support civil marriage. We cannot and should not require any religion or any church to accept gay marriage.

But it is wrong for our civil laws to deny an American the basic right to be a part of a family, to have loved ones with whom to build a future and share life's joys and tears and to be free from the stain of bigotry and discrimination.
--------------------------------------------------------
Your words and your party's actions don't match, Mr. Kennedy. Members of the Democratic Party have attacked the Boy Scouts because they don't allow homosexual members or homosexual leaders. This is a private organization. Your party has chosen to punish them for their prohibitions by trying to force others to withhold donations to the Boy Scouts, threatening to withdraw their tax-exemt status, and prohibiting them from using federal facilities or organizing and operating on federal territory. Democrats have forced church organizations to open their doors to those who are in disagreement with Church policies, a violation of the government's promise in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Democrats try to get around this by having JUDGES make the laws, rather than Congress - a clear breach of the separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution. There is NO "basic right to be a part of a family" other than the one they're born into. The definition of the family does not include "two fathers" or "two mothers". The majority of the people in this nation regard homosexuality as being unnatural. Religions consider it a sin, one that cannot be tolerated. FORCING the acceptance of this unnatural relationship upon those people is Congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of an individual's religious values. We will not tolerate it. We will allow any two people to live together if they so choose. We do not have to accept it as "ok", and we don't have to agree to give them the same rights and privileges of a heterosexual couple that contributes to the stability and well-being of the nation. A little history will demonstrate that those civilizations that have accepted and legitimized same-sex relationships have very soon collapsed. We will not tolerate that kind of destruction of our society.
--------------------------------------------------------
The true American spirit and the basic generosity of the American people here never been more in evidence than in the spontaneous outpouring of support by millions of our fellow citizens for the victims of the deadly tsunami that caused such tragedy and devastation across South Asia.

We are a compassionate and caring people, and in times like this we are never separated by borders or oceans or politics or faith. The people of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India and Thailand, and other suffering nations are our brothers and sisters.

Sustained action by America and other nations will be essential in the ongoing mission of reconstruction and rehabilitation. The people of South Asia need our help now and they need our long-term support, and so do other peoples struggling desperately to deal with the overwhelming poverty and disease. Their nations can be our friends or be the breeding ground of our enemies.
--------------------------------------------------------
You should look at how the nation's generosity was expressed, and who expressed that generosity most graciously, Mr. Kennedy. The majority of it was done by people of faith, people who believe in an Almighty God, in redemption, and in grace. The outpouring of money, clothing, food, and essentials was most apparent from those that have strong moral values - the people who occupy 'red' counties and voted Republican. Maybe there's a message there for you, Mr. Kennedy. Maybe if you really understood the generous nature of Americans, and their love of their fellow men, you might understand why they hate your ideas of government control of every aspect of their lives. Maybe your party would understand that these people exercise their faith and give generously without being forced by a government mandate. Yes, Mr. Kennedy, you need to understand the nature and beliefs of those generous Americans - the people you know so little about.
--------------------------------------------------------
As President Kennedy said in his inaugural address, If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

America is strongest in the world when we use our superpower status to join with other nations to achieve great goals.
--------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Mr. Kennedy, but have you noticed something else? Our greatest achievements have been when we've established ad-hoc coalitions of those willing to help with the task at hand, rather than being subordinated to some outside authority that has no restraints, no mandate to operate, and no checks or balances against their behavior. Both the United States and Australia were actively working to give aid to the tsunami victims within a matter of hours. It's taken the United Nations two weeks to get the first person into the damaged area, and they have yet to actively provide assistance to those that need it. Europe, too, was slow off the mark, and late in arriving with any truly useful assistance. It's the "coalition of the willing" that has provided the majority of the food, water, blankets, medical attention, shelter, and hope for a return to normal living to the people of Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and Malaysia.
--------------------------------------------------------
Instead of bullying them to salute us, more than ever our strength today depends on pursuing our purposes in cooperation with others, not in ways that anger them or ignore them or condescend to them.
--------------------------------------------------------
It also cannot be done by subordinating our needs to the needs of some imaginary group. We have a government for one purpose, as stated in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed..." The United Nations was not created to "secure the rights of the individual". We cannot surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations, or any other nation, group, or people, without surrendering what it means to be an American. We will not allow it, Mr. Kennedy. We will do what we feel we must to secure our freedoms for ourselves and our children in the generations ahead. We will do this by acting "unilaterally" if necessary, or by creating a coalition of others who also acknowledge the rights of free men, and the necessity of defending freedom wherever it is imperiled.
--------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Roosevelt said of America in 1945, We have learned that we cannot live alone at peace, that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of nations far away. We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

If only President Bush would heed those words.

Our fragile planet is not a Republican or Democrat or American community; it is a world community.
--------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Kennedy, you've missed the very thrust of President Roosevelt's words, and the deeds of President Bush. We cannot maintain our freedom by surrendering it. We can only live in peace in the world where peace is honored. Our well-being is truly dependent upon the well-being of others. But their well-being is dependent upon living in a society that acknowledges the rights of the individual, the sanctity of private property, freedom of action and of association, and acknowledgement of the rights of others, even those that are "different". President Bush DOES recognize these things, and has spoken of them many times. That is why we've helped those that truly wish to live free in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why we stood up to the totalitarian threat of Soviet aggression for 40 years. And as in any community, the world cannot be at peace as long as any small group pursues acts of aggression against its neighbors, refuses to abide by the rules established for the common good, or wishes to impose its will upon others - for any reason. We may not be the "world's policeman", but we are a powerful force that can be used to bring those who refuse to accept the limits of acceptable social behavior into line or under control.
--------------------------------------------------------
And we cannot -- and we forget that truth at our very, very peril.
--------------------------------------------------------
Accepting your interpretation would also place us in grave peril. Unless we remain strong in what we believe is right, we will be defeated and destroyed. The entire world would be much worse off if that were to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------
I welcome the opportunity and the obligation to debate our values and our vision. A new American majority is ready to respond to our call for a revitalized American dream grounded firmly in our Constitution and in the endless adventure of lifting this nation to ever new heights of discovery and prosperity and progress and service to all our people and to all humanity.

We, as Democrats, may be in the minority in Congress, but we speak for the majority of Americans. If we summon the courage and the determination to take our stand and state it clearly, I'm convinced the battles that lie ahead will yield our greatest victories.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Democratic Party has consistently lost ground in each of the last three elections. One of the main reasons why that's happened is because the Democratic Party has failed to listen to the common man about HIS needs. The Democratic Party is the party of special interest groups - abortion rights activists, the teachers' unions, organized labor, trial lawyers, social workers, welfare recipients, and other groups whose only interest in government is for what they can get out of it. The average American wants a limited government that provides protection from enemies, and gets out of the way the rest of the time. They want safe highways and clean water, but not someone looking over their shoulder. They want their children to have the same opportunities they did or more - not to be used for someone's sociology experiment. Most Americans believe that a helping hand should be just that - not an attempt to pick their pockets. Most Americans want to keep as much of their paycheck as they can - up front, not after some government agency has skimmed off part of it and pretend to give the rest back.

Americans understand there are people in the world that wish us harm for no other reason than that we're different from them. They want the government to protect them from such people, not welcome them with open arms. Americans want secure borders, not a free-for-all traffic (and trash) pattern. They want police to arrest people who have broken our laws, judges to determine guilt or innocence, and sentences equal to the crime committed, regardless of who the lawbreaker is. Americans expect their vote to count, and that the procedures for voting to be honest and straighforward. They also expect that fraud, corruption, and other forms of unlawful behavior be addressed and corrected - immediately, not according to some vague future reference. Americans want and expect the laws of this nation to be made by Congress, according to the Constitution, and for judges to uphold them, not change, modify, or ignore them to suit their own personal ideology. We want to return, as much as possible, to the limited view of government envisioned by our founding fathers, and enshrined in our Constitution. Until both political parties recognize that, acknowledge the legitimacy of these wishes, and support them, they will lose ground among voters, and drive more and more people away from the ballot box.