archived: 24 - 30 Sep, 2006         Back                 Next

UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2006                       

                        THERE IS A REASON WE ARE DEMOCRATS 

Pres. Clinton’s “smack down” on Fox is attracting massive coverage in the mainstream media and in the net.  It was indeed a fascinating encounter which many Democrats applaud – a Democratic Party leader finally having the courage to express the truth as to the horrid failures of the radical right.  

From TPJ’s perspective, Clinton gave a far more important speech to Democrats while campaigning for Claire McCaskill, Democratic Party candidate for Senate in Missouri.  In his speech, Clinton begins to forcefully explain the critical differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  His critical thoughts are highlighted: 

So, we've had this rather strange situation in Washington the last six years when for the first time since the rise of the ultra conservatives in the Republican Party, they've been in control of everything. They have had it all. They've had the congress, they've had the white house, [and] they’ve had increasing influence in the courts. And this is supposed to be the show-me state. They have shown us. One thing we can't criticize them about, they have certainly shown us and we ought to be grateful 'cause their rhetoric doesn't match what they do, but at least we have six years of their doing so we know now and we should show them ... the door. (Applause).  . . .

I've developed, actually, a good personal relationship with the President and I try to help America whenever I can. If he asks me to do something, good conscious, I can do it, I'm honored to do it and we have developed a very good personal relationship and I've done a lot of work with former President Bush and I truly love him, we've developed a great bond, but we see the world differently than the people who run Washington. . . .

Now, let me tell you what I know.

I know, first of all, the narrow strip of Republicans that run not only Republican Party, but all of Washington honestly see the world in different ways than we do. . . . They actually believe that their crowd should rule and we'd all be better . . .  if we got in lock step and did what they wanted so their number one goal in politics is to concentrate wealth and power, that's their number one goal and I'll demonstrate it in a minute. That's the most important thing.

The second thing is, they believe that government should be run for the special interests and that there's really no difference between the people who run the government and their interest group allies, therefore, I'll give you one example, there are today twice as many registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. As there [was} the day I left office. Twice as many. And . . . there are more agencies now in the hands of the people who are basically right out of the industries they're supposed to regulate than at any time in history. Anytime in the history of modern American government. But that's what they think. Government for the special interest is good. That's what they believe.

The third thing you need to know is [this],  they are in the grip of an ideology. We have a philosophy. You know what the difference is, if you have an ideology, all the answers are already there, the evidence is irrelevant. You already know the answers, right? (Applause).

So we have a philosophy. Now what that means? We're generally inclined to believe that our policies ought to favor the vast mass of people, help the middle class. Help people work their way from poverty in the middle class and political spouses, like me and your husband, we'll figure out a way to make money if ordinary people are doing all right. They don't think that way. They really do believe in their ideology, therefore, if you give them evidence that is inconsistent with their position, they just attack you.

That's what's going on now, right? So if we give them evidence that's inconvenient for the ideology of their policy in Iraq or if we point out that, you know, in Afghanistan where we never did have enough troops to do what the whole world wanted us to do, they're now growing 90 percent of the world's poppies, that produces heroin that flows into the veins of young people because we never sent enough troops we sent them somewhere else, that's inconvenient for them attack us instead of the problem.

If you've got an ideology you've got the answers and you're always right. And anybody not for you is trying to bring the country to its knees. If we thought that way for the last 200 years, America would not even exist. Let me remind you of something-- (applause).

Let me remind you of something, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut before this election is over there will be an attack on Claire McCaskill if she is not in total lock step whether everything they've done the last six years that somehow the national security will be imperiled to its roots if you elect her to the senate.

Let me remind you of something[.]  . . . Do you know how Harry Truman got to be president in the first place? . . .

Y]es, Roosevelt named him to run as vice-president in 1944. [A] [t]otally unknown senator outside of Washington D.C. and back home in Missouri. Why did he do it? During World War II, when our existence was at stake every day, the whole future of the . . .  entire world was hanging in the balance, Harry Truman, a Democrat was giving the democratic government fits by demanding that corruption and incompetent and waste be ferreted out of the war effort and he pointed out contractors with no bid contracts who weren't doing a good job, weren't taking care of the taxpayer's money, that's how he became our president!

He would be-- (applause).

If he were here today as a United States senator running for reelection, that same Harry Truman would face ads back home questioning his patriotism and claiming that he was going to bring the American experiment and freedom to an end because he dared to question the national security conduct of the administration and you know that's true. (Applause).

Now, look, okay, so we have different philosophies,

They believe in the concentration of wealth and power, we believe in empowering people to live good middle class lives and work their way into the middle class.

They believe in a government that is essentially indistinguishable from the special interest groups and we believe in a government that's open and accountable and uses the power that we all give it to help us all.

They believe in ideology, we believe in philosophy.

They believe in attack, we believe in evidence and argument.

And they need a politics, a division and we long for a politics of unity,

...now, that's the truth. (Applause).

Now, let's look-- so, what does it make to joe six-pack? In people's real lives? That sounds good, but what difference does it make? Well, we know that in a global economy it's hard for any rich country to maintain rising wages. We know that in a global economy we're a trillion dollars around the world every day, that money is worth more than labor sometimes and that working people are having a hard time everywhere. We know that this [is true].  . . .

You got a clear choice.  . . .

Now, the problem is-- and sometimes they talk a good game, but really can't do much because it's against their ideology. It's against their ideology, but it's crazy,

I'm going to tell you something, now, they won't do that because it's against their ideology, but 90 percent of the wealthy people in America would gladly give up a lot of this money thrown [at] us for the last five years in order to see every family able to send their kid to college. And, you know, this is crazy, so on the economy, this is important.  

The radical Republican ideology Clinton outlines defines the Republican Party of the Bush administration, its actions and its inexorable failures.  Three examples demonstrate Clinton’s astute presentation. 

Iraq.   

Bush and the neoconservatives did not invade and occupy Iraq as a part of the war on terrorism.  Americans now know that Saddam was not directly or indirectly involved in the attack on America.  9/11 simply served as the “Pearle Harbor” event by which Bush’s administration fabricated weapons of mass destruction to focus America’s natural aversion and anger to implement the preconceived designs of the Project For A New American Century.   

Even as the fabrications were being exposed, Bush responded by attacking those who brought forward the facts (weak on terrorism) and shifted the justifications for the invasion (fighting world-wide terrorism).  As new facts emerged, exposing the shifting justifications for war, Bush attacked the messengers and shifted justifications (bringing freedom to the Middle East).  

Global Warming 

As President Clinton noted, Bush is concentrating America’s wealth into the hands of a corporate oligarchy.  In order to attack the problem of global warming, American corporations will have to shed some of their profits to end the poisoning of our natural resources. 

Reducing corporate profits is not part of the Republican ideology.  The Bush administration simply scrubbed official reports of his government that exposed the impending environmental disaster the world is facing; intimidated government scientists and attacked independent scientists.  

Christian Values 

Injecting “Christian” values into science, Bush has crippled stem cell research that offers the promise to eradicate or effectively treat some of the most horrific conditions that destroy the quality of human life.  America is losing its position as the world’s leader in scientific research and advancement of medicine.  

HIV is destroying populations in Africa.  AIDS research and education is offers the only hope for stemming the decimation that is occurring.  Bush, following ideological “Christian” dictates, requires funds to be tied to “abstinence” programs that have utterly failed to produce the results required.   

The ideology of the modern Republican Party represents the abandonment of liberal intellectualism.  It is a repudiation of the Enlightenment, from which America was founded and largely prospered and advanced.  One corner stone of Enlightenment principles is that scientific research and the search for truth is the key to the advancement of mankind. 

Early in Bush’s administration, Ron Suskind authored an article in the New York Times (no longer available online) in which he documented the radical Republican repudiation of liberal intellectualism:    

"He [Bush] truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence", Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan advisor and former treasury official told Suskind.  . . .

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' – The Raw Story (emphasis added)  

The undisclosed source for Suskind’s article clearly had Bush’s ideology correct.  Just look at Iraq.  Democrats have discerned the truths of what has happened while Bush has concocted new realities.  

A the new faith based reality for Bush is Iran. 

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: Sept 26, 2006

                        BACKBONE? 

Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership are pushing legislation through Congress that would, for the first time in American history, legalize torture.  Three Republican Senate “moderates,” who appeared to abandon the President’s legislation, compromised away their opposition.  

The Republicans will vote to: 

[Allow] evidence obtained by coercion. Normally, U.S. law bans such evidence because of a quaint notion that assaulting, humiliating or making a suspect think he's drowning is neither appropriate in a democracy nor likely to produce reliable information.

Under the agreement, admitting such evidence would be decided on a case-by-case basis by the trial judges. Perhaps they will hold the principle in higher regard than the White House and these senators.  . . .  

[I]mmunize agents for what they have already done without directly tampering with the Geneva Conventions. . . .

[L]et Bush advise the CIA on what interrogation techniques are permissible, within certain limits. . . .

[Allow] ``extraordinary renditions.'' That's where we say we don't torture while we secretly send suspects to countries notorious for it and let nature take its course. . . .  

[Deny] detainees . . .  the basic right to challenge their confinement. Why clog federal courts with hundreds of so-called habeas corpus petitions seeking release?  . . .

Without that right, hundreds of men at the Guantanamo Bay prison would have no chance to show that they are innocent.

``All we have ever asked for from day one is a fair hearing for these people,'' says Thomas Wilner, a partner at Washington's Shearman & Sterling and lawyer for several Kuwaiti detainees.

Administration officials ``have fought and fought and fought against this basic idea,'' he says.  . . .  

The U.S. could imprison them until they die or the war on terrorism ends, whichever comes first.

For that matter, even those detainees tried in tribunals and found not guilty could be held indefinitely, too. The acquitted could be locked up for as long as the administration says so.  . . .

Do we uphold essential American legal principles, or do we mutilate them to cover for the fact that we already have?  

Republicans have the votes to pass the legislation.  The only question is whether Democrats in the US Senate will filibuster.  Senate Minority Leader Reid is signaling that Democrats will stop the legislation: 

Sen. Reid stated flatly and unequivocally -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that the Specter bill was not going anywhere, that it would not be enacted. I then asked him how he could be so certain about that -- specifically, I asked where the 51 votes against the Specter bill would come from in light of the support it enjoys from both the White House and at least some of the ostensibly "independent" Republicans, exacerbated by the fact that all 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it yesterday (at least they voted in favor of sending it to the Senate floor).

In response, Sen. Reid explained that our system does not allow every bill to be enacted simply because a majority supports it, that Senate rules allow minority rights to be protected, clearly alluding to a filibuster. Indeed, as part of that vow, Sen. Reid specifically referenced the fact that in the Senate, one does not need 50%, but only 40%, to block the enactment of a bill. He explained that rule existed to protect minority rights. When I asked him expressly whether the Democrats are committed to filibustering the Specter bill if doing so is necessary to defeat it, he said he thought that would not be necessary, but repeated that they would make sure the Specter bill did not become law. He was unequivocal about that a second time. 

If Democrats filibuster, Republicans will mount a massive public attack claiming that the Democrats are “soft on terrorists.”  One can imagine the photos of Osama running on TV with Republicans snarling that Democrats would protect his rights.  

Will Democrats finally demonstrate the backbone that we have been waiting for?  Rank and file Democrats can only hope that they have decided to take a stand.

_____________________________________________