Democrats increasingly 'liberal, elitist, angry'

[Patrick M]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... index.html

RNC chairman: Democrats increasingly 'liberal, elitist, angry'
By contrast, Gillespie says Bush has a 'positive agenda'

(CNN) --The Democratic Party's embrace of the "politics of protest and pessimism" is pushing them "further and further outside the political mainstream" and will be soundly rejected by voters next fall, the chairman of the Republican National Committee will say in a speech Wednesday evening.

CNN obtained an exclusive advance copy of remarks RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie will deliver to students at St. Anslem College in Manchester, New Hampshire, the state that holds the nation's first presidential primary January 27.

"As the Democrat Party gets smaller, it becomes increasingly more liberal, elitist and angry, and as it becomes increasingly more liberal, elitist and angry, it gets smaller," Gillespie says in the text. "As its presidential contenders continue to pander to the liberal special interest groups that dominate their party, they're moving further and further outside the political mainstream. ...

"On the critical issues of job creation, homeland security and national security, and who shares our values, they have adopted positions that may help them win their party's nomination, but will be rejected by the broader electorate next November."

By contrast, Gillespie says, President Bush has a "positive agenda" to move the country forward.

"Presidential elections are not only about issues, they're about leadership. President Bush is a strong and principled leader who has returned honor and integrity to the White House." [Where have I heard this before? -PM]

Gillespie's remarks come a day after he visited Vermont, the home of Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, and accused Dean of engaging in "political hate speech" for calling the president the "enemy" during wartime.

The RNC leader keeps up the attacks on Dean in the advance copy of his speech, saying the former Vermont governor was wrong when he recently said Bush "doesn't understand what it takes to defend this country" and accused Bush of cutting combat pay for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I was in Vermont yesterday, and the Vermonters I talked to said I should not have been surprised that something their former governor said was at odds with the facts," Gillespie says.

"They told me that Dean's claim to be a fiscal conservative who fought higher taxes is also at odds with the facts. Turns out, while he was in office, taxes increased more than twice as fast as income," he says. "As a result of his big spending, Vermonters work longer to pay for their state government than any other Americans."

Gillespie also says recent positive economic numbers show Bush's tax cuts are turning the nation's economy around, and he assails the nine Democrats in the 2004 presidential race for wanting to repeal some, or all, of those tax cuts -- something Republicans insist would amount to a tax hike.

"Every single Democrat running for president today is for raising taxes on working Americans. They're split on a lot of things, but when it comes to raising taxes, they're unanimous," Gillespie says.

He also hits the Democrats for rejecting what he's says is a long-standing U.S. policy of "pre-emptive self-defense" to prevent terrorist attacks, and he also rejects their criticism of Bush for going ahead with the war in Iraq in the face of substantial international opposition.

"We cannot put the fate of our national security interests in the hands of others, as those who oppose our policies would have us do," he says. "One high-raking al Qaeda official said after the attacks of September 11 that it was 'the beginning of the end of America.' He didn't say September 11 was the beginning of the end of Russia. He didn't say September 11 was the beginning of the end of France.

"He couldn't have been more wrong, but it's our prerogative to make sure he's wrong -- with or without the unanimous international consent demanded by the president's critics."

President Bush carried New Hampshire in the 2000 election -- but only by 7,200 votes. Gillespie notes that was only a margin of 24 votes per precinct, and that if Bush had not carried the state, Democrat Al Gore would have won the election.

Gillespie says that Republicans have a goal of registering 22,000 new voters in the Granite State by November.

[lukpac]

Nice spin. Those evil Democrats raising taxes on "working Americans".

Unfortunately I don't think there's any easy way to get the point across that services and environmental protections for "working Americans" are being cut left and right. Not to mention the fact that it's pretty questionable if most of this "security" is really making us any safer or not.

Democrats are "liberal" and "angry"? You're damn right they are. I find the "elitist" bit amusing, coming from the party of Gee Dubya, who was buddies with Kenny Boy Lay until Enron fell apart.

[Patrick M]

I find the "elitist" bit amusing, coming from the party of Gee Dubya, who was buddies with Kenny Boy Lay until Enron fell apart.

Same here. The party of Richard Mellon Scaife and Jack Welch (among other super wealthy individuals) is calling the other side "elitist." Cute.

[Rspaight]

Since when is "pre-emptive self defense" a "long-standing" policy? I seem to recall a lot of Cold War-era Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, bending over backwards to stress our "no first strike" policy. And certainly no President in recent memory has waged a pre-emptive war.

And (dear God, how tired I am of no one asking this of these clowns) exactly HOW DID ATTACKING IRAQ PROTECT US FROM AL QAEDA?

Near as I can tell, we're a whole lot *less* safe now than on September 12, 2001.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

Since when is "pre-emptive self defense" a "long-standing" policy?

Maybe he's referring to Reagan's giant space condom.

BTW, did Russia and France get attacked on 9/11/01? I don't remember seeing that on the news.

[Patrick M]

Gillespie also says recent positive economic numbers show Bush's tax cuts are turning the nation's economy around, and he assails the nine Democrats in the 2004 presidential race for wanting to repeal some, or all, of those tax cuts -- something Republicans insist would amount to a tax hike.

IIRC, only two of the candidates want to repeal all of the tax cuts. The others just want to repeal the tax cut for those poor, poor souls who only make $200k a year or more.

[Rspaight]

Maybe he's referring to Reagan's giant space condom.

Yeah, but even that's not aggressive, though it could certainly be used as part of an aggressive act (allowing us to launch a nuclear attack without fear of retaliation in kind).

Speaking of which...

Australia agrees to role in U.S. missile defense program

PETER O'CONNOR, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2003

(12-04) 03:54 PST CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Australia will join a U.S. program to build a missile defense system, the government said Thursday, calling the threat of ballistic missiles too grave to ignore.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said several countries are developing ballistic missiles that could carry weapons of mass destruction, and joining the program would help protect Australia.

Joining the program will "allow us to make an important contribution to global and regional security," Downer said in a statement.

Washington hopes that developing a shield against ballistic missiles will protect it against potential threats from countries like North Korea. It wants allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia involved in the project, particularly for the use of satellite tracking stations in their countries.

Australia's decision to join the project was a "long term measure to counter potential threats to Australia's security and its interests from ballistic missile proliferation," Downer said.

Defense Minister Robert Hill said Australia will likely help research the multibillion dollar project and has no plans for a ground-based missile defense system on its own soil. Australia could incorporate missile defense systems into three planned air warfare destroyers for the navy.

"We have given that careful consideration and we think that we can play a part, obviously a small part in terms of the massive overall program," Hill told reporters.

U.S. Ambassador Tom Schieffer welcomed the decision, saying it will make Australia safer.

"We are talking about some terrorist organization or some rogue state launching a missile and trying to wreak havoc in the world," Schieffer said.

Schieffer said the United States was talking to "all our allies about being involved and we hope that they will be, but hopefully there will be some others that will participate."

Canada announced in May this year that it had entered formal talks with Washington about joining the program, but has yet to commit.

Critics says the technology for such shields is complex, unreliable and expensive, and that the plans could spark a new arms race.

Australia has been one of Washington's staunchest allies over the past several years, pledging troops to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and stating clearly that its relationship with the United States is central to nation's long term interest.

Separately Thursday, the new leader of Australia's opposition Labor Party, Mark Latham, met Schieffer to reaffirm the party's commitment to a U.S.-Australian alliance. Early this year, he had described President Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."

Latham said those comments had been made during "passionate" debate on the Iraq war and it was now time to look to the future. He said he looked forward to a strong relationship with the United States.

"However, our alliance with the U.S. has never meant compliance." Latham said. "From time to time our interests will differ, as they did in Iraq."

[Grant]

The Republicans are getting worried! The can actually now see their reign of terror on America coming to an end. They are now on a desperate mission to convince Americans that the Democrats don't have their best interests at heart. They are still hoping that we will rejoice over the recovery of Corporate America while folks continue to lose jobs to other countries and we spend millions in Iraq where we are sitting ducks in a guerilla war. They hope we don't notice that this war on terrorism has been a failure. They are like squirrls looking for a nut.

[Rspaight]

They've already got plenty of nuts. Har har.

Ryan