The Hate-America Crowd, Part III
Sunday, Jan. 30, 2005 10:44 a.m. EST
Dean: 'I Hate Republicans'
The front-runner in the race to head up the so-called party of compassion and understanding said unabashedly on Saturday that he "hates" the opposition.
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.
He and six other candidates came to address the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.
Note Howard Dean's words: he doesn't "disagree" with the Republicans, he HATES them. He's moved the political debate from reason to emotion. It's not enough to disagree on how to govern, or what the important issues are. Issues are no longer important. Now, the person seeking the highest position in the Democratic Party "hates" the opposition and all it stands for.
How can this be any different than the opposition of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to democracy? How can someone negotiate a compromise between reason and hate? This declaration by Howard Dean has shown the Democratic Party to be filled with those whose only desire is to gain power, not to govern in a way that is most beneficial to the people and prosperity of the United States. The argument has gone beyond reason to emotional dissonance - the first step toward tyranny. The Democrats are no longer the "honorable opposition", but the enemy of reason and good governance.
If Howard Dean becomes the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it will mean the total destruction of the Democratic Party as a legitimate political entity.
Dean said that despite his hatred for the GOP, he "admires" their discipline and their organization.
But he cautioned his Democratic audience that their party shouldn't become "Republican lite."
"We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said. "We need to be people of conviction."
This last sentence adds even more clarity to the problems inherent in the Democratic Party. The Party's stance is no longer something based upon reason, or the Constitution, or the rules of law, but are now a matter of "faith" and "conviction". We are witnessing the Death of Reason within the Democratic Party
Then there's Barbara Boxer (also from NewsMax):
Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 10:49 a.m. EST
Liberals Tout Boxer for President
Sen. Barbara Boxer has always spoken up, but the California Democrat seems to have gotten a lot louder lately. Her opposition to Condoleezza Rice's secretary of state nomination was so combative that it was parodied on Saturday Night Live.
That came on the heels of her decision to sign on to a House member's complaint about Ohio voting problems, forcing Congress to debate the issue before certifying President Bush's re-election victory.
She's being touted on liberal blogs as the Democrats' best hope for president in 2008. Conservatives are excoriating her as - in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's phrase - the leader of the "'X-Files' wing" of the Democratic Party.
But Boxer says she is just standing up for what she believes.
By itself, this wouldn't be much of a story, but taken in context with Howard Dean's avowed "hate" for the Republican party expressed above, we begin to see a pattern. The Democrats have begun a form of "scorched earth" policy against the Republicans. It doesn't matter what it is, the Democrats will oppose it, draw it out, object, try to disrupt or destroy any sense of order, so that the Republicans are (supposedly) denied any semblence of success. Everything will be decried to be "forced upon society" by an "rapacious, heavy-handed bare majority" over the objections of the "wise, knowing, reasonable" Democrats. Unfortunately, in doing this to the extreme that the Democrats are carrying this policy, it will backfire on them and totally destroy any loyalty to the party for anyone but the extreme far left wing.
This is not an isolated event, but a staged, deliberate party ploy. I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton's avowed "separation" of herself from this extreme behavior is part of the plan, to make her more appealing to the American voter. That's why she's trying to appear as a "moderate", when her past history screams "far left". The majority of the people in this nation need to watch closely to avoid being taken in by these callous, ignoble and downright stupidly childish tricks.
"I've always been this way," she says, "and I'm trying to figure out exactly why people suddenly find this to be interesting, you know. Somehow I have touched something inside people, and I have not ever had this happen before. The only thing I can think, after reading what people said, is a feeling that I'm asking the kind of questions and saying the kind of things that they are feeling."
Maybe she's becoming a spokeswoman, or even a symbol, for voters who oppose the Iraq war or feel shut out by the Bush administration. Maybe, with the Democratic Party at sea after November's election losses, some people sense a leadership void and are looking to her to fill it.
I doubt that Barbara Boxer has "touched something inside people" other than the far left moonbat wing of the Democratic Party. It's all a charade - a false front to cover the Democratic strategy of delay, disrupt, dispute, and debate every single thing that comes up, even recesses and postponements.
Maybe it's not that Boxer's gotten louder but that other Democrats can barely be heard at all. At least, that's what some of her supporters are saying.
Whatever the explanation, Boxer, 64, has never been more in the spotlight. At a time when Republican dominance of Washington politics is nearly complete, a Marin County liberal who drives a hybrid car and opposes almost everything the GOP does has become a newly prominent face of the Democratic Party.
Other Democrats can barely be heard? Ted Kennedy NEVER stops talking, and most of what he's saying is the gospel according to the Democratic Party. Read my fisking of his speech to the National Press Club. Ted Kennedy isn't someone who can "barely be heard".
Nor have Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry stopped talking. Kerry's utterly ignorant rant on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Jan 30, 2005 - the day the Iraqis were voting - is an excellent example of why the Democrats are in the position they are today. Any intelligent human being has to be thankful this man wasn't elected president of the United States last November!
"She seems to be assuming the position of being an outspoken voice for, as someone else said, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," says Los Angeles Democratic strategist Darry Sragow, echoing a phrase adopted by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
"In the wake of the losses in November ... there is a vacuum, there's handwringing, there's self-reflection, and she seems to have pretty sure footing as a determined, committed spokesperson for the liberals in the party," Sragow says. "Part of the handwringing will be over whether that's a good thing or a bad thing."
Dean and Boxer are both members of the very far left wing of the Democratic Party. This wing includes Michael Moore and many of those in Hollywood. I don't think for a minute that any of these people are working independently. Everything they do is for one purpose and one purpose only - to return the Democratic Party to power in the United States. Forget "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - it's all about what's best for the Democratic Party and its members. And it's all about power - the power of the presidency, the power of the House and Senate, and the power of the judiciary. The exercise of power is now the guiding philosophy of the Democratic party, and everything else is a distant second.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, perhaps the most conservative Senate Democrat, is diplomatic in describing Boxer's role in the party: "You don't get a center if you don't get a left or right."
Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, a fellow liberal who stood with Boxer in opposing Rice, criticized her on the Senate floor over her decision to bring the November election certification to a halt. He called it "seriously misguided."
But the combative qualities that turn some people off endear her to others.
"Democrats are so afraid of being criticized, or so afraid that they'll be accused of being too liberal, that they don't really act with the courage of their convictions. And then comes Barbara Boxer," says Madeleine Begun Kane, a writer from Queens, N.Y., who created a "President Boxer" blog. "She's been a shining light during an otherwise very depressing period."
In baseball when you go 0-for-3 you start looking for a new pitcher, or a new power hitter, or a shake-up in the lineup to get back into a winning groove. In politics, you usually look at what the public thought about your candidate, and why, so you can make changes that will be more appealing to the electorate. The Democratic Party seems to be saying "we almost won, so why should we change?" after losing the presidency and seats in both houses. They seem to be trying to see how far they can push the electorate and still retain even a modicum of power. Barbara Boxer appears to be a part of that strategy, as is "Howling" Howard Dean. Ted Kennedy is proposing a blatant socialist agenda. John Kerry is trying to convince the world that his loss was because the Swift-Boat vets "lied" about him. There are those within the Democratic Party that are "opposed" to these leaders, but whether that's an honest assessment or an act, only they know for sure. The thing to keep in mind is that it is impossible for liberals to be anything else, and their actions and behavior are more important than their words. Keep an eye on what they do, not what they say.
Leading the charge for the opposition isn't new for Boxer. As a Brooklyn newlywed, she once organized fellow apartment building tenants to petition for carpeting. As a House member in 1991, she led fellow congresswomen up the steps of the Senate to demand hearings into Anita Hill's sexual harassment claims against Clarence Thomas. She led recent opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (successfully), and against the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion (unsuccessfully).
Some Republicans have suggested that Boxer should have accepted Bush's re-election victory as a sign of acceptance for his secretary of state nominee, and kept her mouth shut on the Rice nomination.
She's in no danger of doing that - on any issue.
"Bush got 60 million votes plus and Kerry got 57 million votes plus, so you can't say it isn't a sizable portion of the country that doesn't deserve to be heard," Boxer said. "They do deserve to be heard; and even if they are far left, they deserve to be heard."
Any Republican that believes that anyone should "keep their mouths shut" on a political appointment are as bad as Barbara Boxer. The Senate's "Advice and consent" role is essential. That consent should be based on facts, however, and there were few of those in Barbara Boxer's grandstanding. At the same time, Barbara Boxer needs to understand that trying to force a compromise because her side "deserves to be heard" misses the whole point of elections - the idea that selection is based upon ideas as well as candidates. Opposition strictly for the sake of opposition is open defiance of government, and deservedly puts one in the "Hate-America" crowd.
And finally, we have another Democrat that believes that if you can't win, insult your opponent.
Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 12:12 p.m. EST
Pelosi in New Bush Insult
Smarting over the prospect that President Bush's policy in Iraq was vindicated by Sunday's historic election, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declined on Monday to offer any congratulations, choosing instead to insult his intelligence.
Speaking of the warm reception Bush is likely to enjoy when he delivers the State of the Union Address later this week, the top House Democrat told the National Press Club:
"You really don't have to have very [good] communication skills if you have a couple of hundred people who will jump to their feet when you recite the ABCs," she said.
In comments on Sunday, Pelosi described the Iraq vote as an "accomplishment," but said it would have gone better but for Bush's blunders.
"It would have been more successful if the political situation had been nurtured better, if Iraqi security could have been better organized and trained," she complained.
It's amazing how the Democrats can always find a way to insult President Bush, without ever having to provide facts to back up what they say. If John Kerry's "Secret Plan" would have been so much better at dealing with Iraq, whay didn't he present it to the President? He would have gotten the praise for it, and perhaps done much better in the polls by having something POSITIVE to refer to, other than constantly trying to chop down and chop up the Republican party and the Republican candidate. We hear the word "mistakes", "blunders", and "errors" all the time, but I've never heard the Democrats - or anyone else - actually describe what those blunders, mistakes, or errors were.
One of the big mistakes President Bush made was trying to placate the Democratic Party by trying to get the United Nations to agree to the invasion of Iraq. That attempt delayed the invasion by several months, and changed nothing. The delay allowed Saddam Hussein time to implement the current terrorism strategy, and has been a key factor in the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. When is the Democratic Party going to accept responsibility for the fruits of their obstruction? When will they admit that THEY made a mistake, and that it cost this nation several hundred deaths? I don't recommend holding one's breath...
The Democratic Party, through its words, through its actions, and through its behavior, prove beyond a doubt they have a legitimate place in the "Hate-America" crowd, and provides a home for millions of others.
End Part III