Radiofree West Hartford -- Is it me or does the Democratic Party really seem to be unraveling? by Tom Evers

THE CROW'S NEST:

Is it me or does the Democratic Party really seem to be unraveling

right before our very eyes?

By Tom Evers

September 30, 2002

Is it me or does the Democratic Party really seem to be unraveling right before our very eyes?

Let's look at the maddening situation.

Earlier this week Great Britain came out with the damning statement that Saddam Hussein and his cronies are constructing biological and chemical weapons for the purpose of using them on Western nations, and they further hinted that Saddam is also trying to get his paws on nuclear technology as well. This seems pretty plain to the rest of us, doesn't it? Hussein has got to go. That's it, good-bye.

But way over here on this side of the Atlantic, we find Al Gore losing his mind -- attacking United States policy and President Bush for taking Iraq to task. Gore has done a 180 since sitting in the Senate not that long ago. But now, in order to distance himself from the President and appear candidate-like, he is building his little peacenik platform to run on.

It usually happens that domestically candidates from different parties run on different platforms - Democrats traditionally love increasing taxes and increasing spending to expand government, and on the other side of the fence -- Republicans generally are for lower taxes and less spending, with the goal of reducing government intervention in the lives of everyday citizens. Clear enough, right?

Also typically, foreign policy strategy out of both parties tends to be nearly identical, although Republicans are known for unilateralist policies and using NATO instead of the UN to achieve military goals. But herein lies the problem with Gore's platform; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be attacking the United States' national security policy and running around attacking the President for standing up to Iraq and its plans for universal mass destruction. It also doesn't make sense for the Democratic Party to have Congressional Democrats outspoken in supporting the President (best they can) whilst their spokesman and possible Presidential Candidate is voicing the opposite viewpoint.

While I personally don't mind seeing the Democrats all over the board when constructing policy positions - because its fairly amusing stuff. But when it comes to national security or military action, both Democrats and Republicans need to be on the same side. They need to speak with one unanimous voice against the enemies of civilization - Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (to name only a few).

Al Gore's hate speech against our current policy and dealing with Hussein amounts to Democratic suicide. It hurts their party and confuses the electorate as to where many Democrats stand on the issues. But then again the Democratic Party is also well known for talking out of both sides of their mouths.

During the Gulf War we saw similar baloney coming out of Congressional Democrats who didn't want to "support the President" and the troops in the war. This is the kind of two-dimensional thinking that we are used to out of Democrats - focused primarily on politics and not reality. It was not as if the concept of "supporting the President" was going to lose them votes and empower George, Senior to away their political power. In fact, the liberals saw a backlash for such partisan nonsense.

What bothers me most about the Gore matter is that 11 years ago Gore seemed to "get it" and gave the statement on the Senate floor that "Hussein has to go." Today Hussein possesses a greater threat to us and his neighbors and yet, Gore doesn't seem to recognize the danger.

Not to be outdone by Gore, Senator Tom Daschle is in a dither about President Bush's so-called politicizing the war for the coming election. And oh, of course, this is not what Gore is doing by making long public speeches about not taking action against Hussein…or perhaps its just our imagination -- and remember if Gore and Democrats talk about policies its ok, when Republicans talk about the same thing its deemed that its "political" and only for the purposes of winning votes, etc. What kultursmog!

But let's get to the main issue here. Daschle is upset because President Bush is running around talking about the situation in Iraq at campaign stops. Yeah, well so what? It the foremost thing that people are expecting the President of the United States to talk about, isn't it? Second, Daschle is upset that Bush has pointed out that Senate Democrats have been slow to respond (if not indignant) in support of action against Iraq. The reality is that Senate Democrats have been running around beating their heads against the wall trying to find ways to not allow President Bush the credit and respect for taking a strong leadership position on the Iraqi matter. In fact, Democrats have gone out of their way to slow the support process down by trying to delay a vote on the Iraqi resolution. So when Bush calls them on it and tells the electorate that he'd prefer to have people in the Senate that comprehend that US policy is the number one priority and - not politics and votes.

The strange thing that seems clear to everyone in their right mind is that if you were a Democrat and your positions were sound, you'd want that vote to come before the election so you could show your constituents that you side with American national defense and want to eliminate the madmen around the globe. Unless the reality is that you as Democratic Senator don't want to vote in support of the war this because you might lose support from the beads and sandals crowd that helps to put you over the top during the election.

Also, if you don't support the war, there would most likely be a backlash because you'd have to go back to your State looking like an ass and explaining why your peaceful and baseless position is better than all Republicans, the President's, the Secretary of Defense's, and Secretary of Homeland Security's position. And throw in Tony Blair's view (a labor lefty) that sucked that last bit of hope that your irrelevant position might have had a smidgen of credibility.

Then again, you could always lean on Al Gore and his mumblings and see where that gets you.

The bottom line is that for the first time in a long time and contrary to the norm, this mid-term election could end up being a big win for President Bush (normally the party not in the White House usually picks up a large number of seats in mid-term elections). Not only would this pave the way for better and faster policy decisions, it would end the hint of mindless dissension that is unnecessary considering the clear evidence on the table.

Years ago when it came to issues like these, Democrats and Republicans used to put their haggling aside and work for the common good.

Today, Democrats don't see it that way. They'd rather risk national security to fill the chambers up with like-minded twits who would inevitably end up taking the current Administration's position or….because they did nothing -- find themselves with a host of terrorist attacks like the one that occurred on September 1th.

That's all for now!