Along the Tracks

Wednesday, November 06, 2002
 

The Face of the Democrats


Did you see Sen. Tom Daschle, Democrat and majority, er, make that minority, leader on ABC’s “Good Morning America”? Charlie Gibson couldn’t stop saying how bad poor Tom looked - if Daschle had been in the same room (rather than by telelink), I think ol’ Charlie would have poked him with a stick to be sure he was alive.

I’ve seen disappointment before, but that was quite a display. You almost expected to hear the ABC Sports theme sound and Jim McKay start talking about “the thrill of victory ... and the agony of defeat.”

Remember, this was an election you lost, Tom, not a battle with space aliens bent on eating human livers. Things are still close in Congress, so the switch isn’t that momentous, and besides, in another two years, you can go out there and make another go at it. Use Tuesday’s results as a learning experience for your party. The lessen? STAND FOR SOMETHING.


The Times explains the election


The lead editorial in today’s New York Times is chicken soup for the left’s soul: Don’t worry, voters didn’t back Republican policies or plans or even candidates. They just blindly followed a popular president. Your message is still good; don’t worry your pretty little heads a bit.

The piece is loaded down with horse-hockey, but my favorite chunk flung at the wall was this:

“The president’s party denied Senate Democrats the chance to pass popular bills on prescription drugs for the elderly and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security by adding political poison pills the Democrats couldn't swallow.”

Those mean, nasty Republicans pissed directly in our cornflakes!

Never mind that the Senate was controlled by Democrats, who could have passed anything they wanted (if they had been united themselves) and invited conference gridlock or a mean-spirited presidential veto.

P.S. - Another sticky meadow muffin in the editorial came in a close second to the above:

“New Jersey, where the 78-year-old former senator Frank Lautenberg jumped into the race and saved a seat that was in the process of being lost by Senator Robert Torricelli, was a victory for the Senate ethics law, which Mr. Lautenberg had helped write and Mr. Torricelli had flouted.”

The extra-legal maneuver of the year was a “victory” for ethics? Puh-leeeeze!

P.S.S - I just can’t end this without mentioning the last paragraph, talking about voters resenting they were “cut out” of crucial decisions, and that the victors better remember all those people who voted against them. Somehow, I don’t recall seeing any similar sentiments when Jim Jeffords jumped parties a year and a half ago, handing Senate power to the minority Democrats.


Comments: Post a Comment