Don't Blame the Message, Says Daschle

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

Saturday, November 9, 2002; Page A04

Rejecting critics' suggestions that Democrats lost the battle for Congress because they had the wrong message -- or no message at all, Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said yesterday it was really just a failure of communication. [The man is in La-la Land. Does he not ralize that the fact that Fox News is taking over the news scene has something to do with their defeat???]

Democrats were effective in pointing out deficiencies in the Bush administration's economic policies but less successful when it came to selling their own strategies, Daschle said at his first press briefing since Democrats lost the Senate and the GOP solidified its hold on the House in Tuesday's elections. "It isn't for lack of a strategy," he said. "It's for a lack of articulating that strategy effectively." [So it's not the party leaders who are at fault, it's the lack of ability to communicate effectively on the part of the candidates. Yeah, right.]

Democrats talked about "the need to extend unemployment benefits and a minimum wage [increase], and tax cuts for small business, and corporate governance, and a recognition that we've got to do something to ensure that pensions are stronger," he said.

"But for whatever reason, I don't think that was as clearly articulated and, more importantly, I don't think it was as understood by the American people as I wish it would have been." [Patronizing bastard! The American people understood very well what the Dems want to do and it didn't stand up against what Bush wants to do.]

Daschle proudly held up his home state, where Sen. Tim Johnson (D) eked out a 528-vote victory over Rep. John Thune (R), as a "clear demonstration of a Democratic success story," even though President Bush campaigned so often there for Thune that if he had come one more time, "he would have been eligible for an in-state hunting license." [And Clinton???]

Unlike House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who is stepping down, Daschle said he will run for another term as Democratic leader, apparently without opposition.

Daschle's upbeat message lost a beat when a reporter asked why he was wearing a black shirt. Because he liked it, Daschle said. What's more, he said, his family was planning a photograph for Christmas cards and his two grandchildren, whom he would be holding, were wearing white. "That really is the story," he said, grinning.

Hart's Contribution, Sans Campaign

Former senator Gary Hart (D-Colo.) earlier this week put his name out as a possible 2004 presidential candidate. A few days later he qualified that, sort of.

"I don't want to run for office, but I want to make a contribution," Hart, 65, said during a lecture Thursday on national security to University of Colorado students.

"I don't have any great need to be in public office, but I don't want to sit on the sidelines either," said Hart, who unsuccessfully challenged Walter F. Mondale for the 1984 Democratic nomination. He sought the 1988 nomination but withdrew after it was reported he was having an affair with a model. ["Affair with a model"? The married man was photographed, obviously drunk as a skunk, with the model lap-dancing him on a boat!]

Hart has been in the news recently because a national security commission he co-chaired had predicted a terrorist threat to the United States and endorsed creation of a department of homeland security.

During his remarks Thursday, according to the Associated Press, Hart criticized his party for its performance during Tuesday's elections. Democrats "didn't offer alternatives, they didn't offer any ideas on how to make the economy grow, about America's role in the world, [or] a defense policy that was not just militarism," Hart said. "We got what we deserved." [Got to agree with him there.]

Alabama Governor Demands a Recount

Just because the governor doesn't like the vote count is no reason to unseal ballots in Alabama, the state's attorney general ruled yesterday.

Gov. Don Siegelman (D) called for a statewide recount, but Attorney General Bill Pryor refused as the state's 67 counties certified their votes. Official results showed Rep. Bob Riley (R) won by 3,117 votes. While some county vote totals changed from what was reported after Tuesday's voting, it was not enough to change the outcome.

Siegelman and Riley had both declared victory.

"You can't break the seal based on not liking the count," Pryor said in an opinion to election officials.

In response, the Associated Press quoted Siegelman campaign spokesman Rip Andrews as saying: "The bottom line is it's a Republican conspiracy at its worst."

Siegelman could go to court or take up the issue with the legislature, but it does not convene until January. Siegelman attorney Joe Espy accused the attorney general of ignoring state regulations that provide for a recount. "On behalf of Bob Riley, the Republican attorney general today changed the law," Espy said.

He told AP the governor won't give up on seeking a recount, but he hasn't decided what his next action will be.

Alabama law does not provide for an automatic recount in tight races, but voters can ask for one, county by county, if they put up a bond to pay for it. Siegelman's supporters began filing recount petitions yesterday with his campaign or the Democratic Party offering to pay for the bonds if necessary.

But Secretary of State Jim Bennett told election officials to wait for Pryor's opinion in part to "avoid the situation that arose in Florida."

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2002

Answers

Let's hope Daschle doesn't read this article. He might start to see the light.

November 9, 2002

GOP: what now?

It would be pundit-malpractice not to take a stab at why the elections turned out so well for Republicans and what lessons they should take from them. So here goes. First, a disclaimer: politics is hardly an exact science, and post-election analysis, despite endless polling data available, is at best a series of educated guesses. I'll leave precise dissection of exit-polling minutiae to those better equipped to operate on that level.

Most seem to be in agreement about one important factor: Republicans turned out in higher numbers throughout the country. That's the "what," but how about the "why"? The "why" is what matters.

In a pre-election roundtable discussion on what would be the most crucial element affecting the outcome of the impending elections, one panelist responded, "turnout, turnout, turnout." The incomparable Michael Barone replied, "intensity." The gentlemen suggesting "turnout" was addressing the "what," while Barone was pointing to the "why."

Now that hindsight has disclosed the election results, we are better positioned to go further in examining the "why." What was driving Republican voter intensity around the nation?

I'd like to say it was a decidedly conservative agenda, brilliantly nationalized by President Bush, sufficient on balance to trump most local issues. From my unhidden conservative perspective that would be most satisfying and comforting. It would portend well for the advancement of conservative principles.

But in complete candor, I cannot attribute these results to a comprehensive validation of conservatism. Partial and significant, but not total. Yet the results are heartening, provided Republicans don't squander their opportunity.

To the extent the elections were about Iraq -- and that's quite a bit -- they were an affirmation of the Bush-Republican, as distinguished from the Daschle-Democrat approach (finger-in-the-wind, on-again, off-again support). Americans are exceedingly comfortable with George Bush as a wartime president. Sure, they like him, but this wasn't about a cult of personality. Voters trust President Bush, a trust he earned with his performance under crisis and his policies.

Americans approve of his leadership, his moral clarity (can you imagine Bill Clinton coherently articulating moral clarity?), his policies and his prudent wielding of American power. As to his exercise of power, it's not born of an arrogance that says to its allies and potential allies, "America will do what it darn well pleases." Rather, it's "America will lead this war against terrorists and their supporters, including Iraq, and we'd sure appreciate your valued support, but if you opt out, we're going ahead anyway -- you can bank on it." Moreover, it's certainly not, "we'll only act if European liberals approve."

And the war, I think, overshadowed economic issues. In the first place, voters understand that the economy isn't that bad. They also know Bush inherited a sluggish economy from Clinton that has been further stressed by the war.

So Bush's handling of the war drove voter intensity directly and helped to negate any counter-intensity on economic issues. But there was something else at play stoking Republican intensity and tilting Independents rightward. It was Republican revulsion to the Democrats' incivility and unmasked liberalism in Minnesota, their defiance of the rule of law in New Jersey, and their negativity and militancy in Florida and throughout the nation.

Democrats are fond of saying how mean-spirited Republicans were at the 1992 convention, which I believe was a bad rap, but Democrats set records for nastiness and tastelessness in 2002 under the direction of a conspicuous Bill Clinton and his marionette, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. (Will you guys ever follow your own insincere advice and just "move on" -- from your perpetual grudge over the Republican's refusal to allow you to steal the 2000 election?)

But the Republican victory wasn't just about the war, the voters' trust in George Bush or a reaction to Democrat overreaching. Behind all of these things -- and this is important -- are conservative values and policies. Don't listen to the naysayers. This election also showed that conservatism works when it's tried and liberalism fails when it's exposed.

I must add a caveat. Republicans, as my brother Rush has often observed, are wonderful out of power (as they have been in the crucially important Senate). But they have to learn how to manage the prosperity of being in power -- discovering how to harness and sell conservatism.

The GOP's challenge is, in a spirit of humility, to capitalize on this historic opportunity, using the public's extraordinary trust in President Bush, to further conservative ideals, from constitutionalist judges to accelerating and making permanent the tax cuts. Let's roll.

David Limbaugh is author of Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2002


Moderation questions? read the FAQ