Gold9472
03-18-2006, 02:07 PM
In Bush's dark hours, Democrats shine no light
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060317/OPINION/603170380/1002
3/19/2006
Four months ago, the U.S. News cover photo showed the president and vice president frowning darkly, with the headline, "The White House's darkest hour -- and why it could get worse."
The featured problem then was the indictment of Dick Cheney's top deputy, Scooter Libby. That followed the president's failed campaign for Social Security reform, the bungled response to Katrina, and ballooning budget deficits. On the congressional side, there was House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's indictment and an investigation of the financial dealings of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Casualties in Iraq had just passed 2,000 and the president's approval ratings had just passed 40 percent, heading south.
And the Democrats? Well, they were content just to watch, apparently following Napoleon's rule, "Never interfere with your enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself."
Then came the Cheney shotgun incident, the Jack Abramoff lobbying corruption, and the Dubai ports fiasco. The Medicare prescription drug program remains hugely confusing and unpopular, and the administration's budget policies are harnessing our children with debt to accommodate tax cuts for the rich. After the much-vaunted elections, Iraqis remain unable to form a government. Terrorists infiltrate their security forces and low-level ethnic cleansing has set in. The number of organized assassinations now ranges from 40 to 80 daily.
Bush's poll numbers are down to the mid-30s, with his handling of the war rated even lower. An AP-Ipsos poll this week shows 70 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats believe a civil war will break out in Iraq. What do we do then?
This week's Time Magazine predicts: "The Dubai firm's withdrawal may turn out to mark the moment Bush became a lame-duck president."
The bad news for Democrats is that its leaders aren't leading and the party can't find its voice. There is no agreement on a core set of ideas, no coherent message for this election year. The Democratic leadership must soon figure out that this year really does resemble 1994, the year the GOP took back the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Newt Gingrich accomplished that with a core set of ideas developed at the conservative Heritage Foundation and sold to the voters as the "Contract With America." What really helped Newt was Bill Clinton's sagging poll ratings and Hillary's failed health-care campaign.
The "Contract" promised to bring 10 bills to the floor in the first 100 days of the next Congress. They dealt with a balanced budget, crime, illegitimacy, tort reform, term limits and small business incentives, and promised no U.S. troops would serve under United Nations command. It was a list of issues for rookie GOP congressional candidates to carry around in their pockets. It nationalized the election and brought Newt & Co. to power.
The Democratic rookies have no such list of issues today. Is there a Democratic plan for health care? Fixing the Medicare prescription drug bungle? Rolling back the tax cuts? Privacy, wiretapping, domestic surveillance? Immigration? Energy independence? Homeland security, including port security? Abortion policy? Stem cell research? Who knows what the Democrats would do if they win in November?
With Bush's approval ratings in the same range as Clinton's in 1994, the Democrats are stymied. They need their own contract with America, but can't agree on the necessary first principle, namely what to do about Iraq.
Russ Feingold, Jimmy Carter and John Murtha say to set a date to depart.
The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer, says withdrawal would lead to disaster. Former Sen. John Edwards renounces his vote in favor of the war. By contrast, Hillary Clinton says to send 80,000 more troops. Joe Lieberman says President Bush is doing it just right and we can't afford to lose our nerve. On Iraq, the Democratic message is a jangled cacophony.
This week the administration updated its national security strategy. The new document confirms pre-emptive war as its centerpiece of Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Iran, with its nuclear ambitions, is named as the greatest potential threat in the immediate future.
Ponder that over this weekend as America marks the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060317/OPINION/603170380/1002
3/19/2006
Four months ago, the U.S. News cover photo showed the president and vice president frowning darkly, with the headline, "The White House's darkest hour -- and why it could get worse."
The featured problem then was the indictment of Dick Cheney's top deputy, Scooter Libby. That followed the president's failed campaign for Social Security reform, the bungled response to Katrina, and ballooning budget deficits. On the congressional side, there was House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's indictment and an investigation of the financial dealings of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Casualties in Iraq had just passed 2,000 and the president's approval ratings had just passed 40 percent, heading south.
And the Democrats? Well, they were content just to watch, apparently following Napoleon's rule, "Never interfere with your enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself."
Then came the Cheney shotgun incident, the Jack Abramoff lobbying corruption, and the Dubai ports fiasco. The Medicare prescription drug program remains hugely confusing and unpopular, and the administration's budget policies are harnessing our children with debt to accommodate tax cuts for the rich. After the much-vaunted elections, Iraqis remain unable to form a government. Terrorists infiltrate their security forces and low-level ethnic cleansing has set in. The number of organized assassinations now ranges from 40 to 80 daily.
Bush's poll numbers are down to the mid-30s, with his handling of the war rated even lower. An AP-Ipsos poll this week shows 70 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats believe a civil war will break out in Iraq. What do we do then?
This week's Time Magazine predicts: "The Dubai firm's withdrawal may turn out to mark the moment Bush became a lame-duck president."
The bad news for Democrats is that its leaders aren't leading and the party can't find its voice. There is no agreement on a core set of ideas, no coherent message for this election year. The Democratic leadership must soon figure out that this year really does resemble 1994, the year the GOP took back the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Newt Gingrich accomplished that with a core set of ideas developed at the conservative Heritage Foundation and sold to the voters as the "Contract With America." What really helped Newt was Bill Clinton's sagging poll ratings and Hillary's failed health-care campaign.
The "Contract" promised to bring 10 bills to the floor in the first 100 days of the next Congress. They dealt with a balanced budget, crime, illegitimacy, tort reform, term limits and small business incentives, and promised no U.S. troops would serve under United Nations command. It was a list of issues for rookie GOP congressional candidates to carry around in their pockets. It nationalized the election and brought Newt & Co. to power.
The Democratic rookies have no such list of issues today. Is there a Democratic plan for health care? Fixing the Medicare prescription drug bungle? Rolling back the tax cuts? Privacy, wiretapping, domestic surveillance? Immigration? Energy independence? Homeland security, including port security? Abortion policy? Stem cell research? Who knows what the Democrats would do if they win in November?
With Bush's approval ratings in the same range as Clinton's in 1994, the Democrats are stymied. They need their own contract with America, but can't agree on the necessary first principle, namely what to do about Iraq.
Russ Feingold, Jimmy Carter and John Murtha say to set a date to depart.
The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer, says withdrawal would lead to disaster. Former Sen. John Edwards renounces his vote in favor of the war. By contrast, Hillary Clinton says to send 80,000 more troops. Joe Lieberman says President Bush is doing it just right and we can't afford to lose our nerve. On Iraq, the Democratic message is a jangled cacophony.
This week the administration updated its national security strategy. The new document confirms pre-emptive war as its centerpiece of Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Iran, with its nuclear ambitions, is named as the greatest potential threat in the immediate future.
Ponder that over this weekend as America marks the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.