What Kind Of Democrat Are You?

Maybe Tammy Bruce is a friend of Dr. Chuck; this column appeared in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer, truly one of the strangest I can recall from someone who purports to be a “lefty”:

Do the bums know why they were booted?
By Tammy Bruce

It has now been more than a month since the November election that threw a lot of bums out of office. On that day, voters ushered in the Death of Republicanism and demanded a return to Ronald Reagan's Authentic Conservatism - small government, low taxes, an empowered free market, unashamed patriotism, individual responsibility and freedom, and a commitment to liberty at home and abroad.

I can see that I’ll have a lot to do here.

She’s right about the small government part (and does that mean we can now and forever rid ourselves of the phrase “big government liberal” brought to us by the party that has plunged us into this abyss?), but I would say that the people of this country voted for new leadership on November 7th because they were tired of getting hopelessly screwed over every way possible. In addition to the Iraq war, what drove the Democratic victory was the fact that the party was entrusted to do a better job on the issues of health care, the economy, making us safe at home, and acting fiscally and environmentally responsible. The Democrats had better candidates this time around, and the party as a whole did a better job of moving to the center than the Republicans (and I think Dr. Dean deserves no small amount of credit for that).

We have yet to learn whether politicians understand that the election was a statement that Americans want an ethical, efficient, and small, pro-America government. That we want fresh ideas and fresh faces. That, despite the insistence of the left, we will not return to their good ol' days of defeat in Vietnam. We are now better than that.

The “insistence of the left” that we will return to “their good ol’ days of defeat in Vietnam”? Does she think now that, as if by magic, we’ll return to “the good ol’ days of victory in Iraq”? And will she hold the Democrats personally responsible if somehow that doesn’t happen”?

We want to actually win the war, in Iraq and elsewhere, and not be idle or retreat. We want the enemy put on the business end of our troops. We reject waging war via politically correct multiculturalism. How can you confront an enemy you haven't even named? Try this: Radical Islamists. Al-Qaeda. Iran and all of its proxies. There.

She just showed her true freeper colors. It doesn’t matter what you call the enemy if the people fighting the war were never given a strategy to win. And “we want the enemy put on the business end of our troops”? Unfortunately, it’s been the other way around too many times in this mess.

And “politically correct multiculturalism”? Where the hell did the Inquirer find this person?

The election was a rejection of a Republican Party Elite that mocked our concern about border security.

And how exactly did they do that?

Actually (as usual, with this and other issues pertaining to immigration) the people of this country are, for the most part, way ahead of the curve versus the politicians and media types, as Atrios notes here.

It was disgust at Congress and the president spending like drunken sailors (at least sailors spend their own money). We Just Said No to a party that claimed to represent the Reagan Revolution, but trashed it with earmarks, pork, e-mails to interns, and dinners with Jack Abramoff.

She’s right about a good bit of this stuff, but if there’s one thing I can’t bloody stand, it’s people who claim to support the Democrats singing hosannas to Ronnie Baby.

We grew tired of the repeated insult by the president, John McCain and so many others who insisted, for the sake of a Guest Peasant Program, that there are "jobs Americans aren't willing to do." To that we sent three words, "How dare you." The president called it a "thumpin.' "

Again, she’s right about that, even though I don’t care for her “peasant” remark; it would be even better if she’d voiced some outrage against companies that bring the illegals into this country without doing the due diligence for these people so they don’t end up getting used as pawns by jingoistic politicians.

I'm a Democrat who feels this nation is worth defending. That's why I have supported the president and voted for him twice.

If you’re a “Democrat” who voted for Bush twice, then you should change your party registration at your earliest opportunity.

At the same time, I'm happy to see so many Usual Suspects get the boot. I'm thrilled Rick Santorum is out. Pennsylvanians rejected the oxymoronic Big Government Conservative - and Theocrats. The election of Bob Casey, and other Blue Dog Democrats, reflects our national mood - a clamoring for Authentic Conservatism, regardless of the letter after your name.

Give me a break – as I said, the people of this country voted for moderation and common sense. I honestly think “isms” had very little to do with it (if you think the voters of this country suddenly were overcome by a massive conservative outbreak on November 7th, then you should contact George Will so you can tell fairy tales to each other).

It's obvious that neither party understands the voters' rejection of the status quo. That's why Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi tried to foist John Murtha (D., Pa.) and Alcee Hastings (D., Fla.) on us as congressional leaders.

I’m sick of trying to clear up the endless lies and misinformation about John Murtha, who has more guts and integrity in one of his toenails than any single one of his accusers have in their entire bodies. But I will say that this woman is flat wrong when it comes to Alcee Hastings, as the Washington Post notes here.

It's why she rejected Jane Harman, a moderate Democrat and supporter of Israel, to chair the House Intelligence Committee.

I’ll tell you what, Tammy: here’s a link to a Washington Post profile on Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the man Pelosi ended up choosing instead of Harman. Why don’t you read about him to decide if he’s “pro Israel”-enough for your liking? Then I would ask that you shut your yap and give the man a chance to do the job, OK?

As for the president, I, too, believe it was time for Donald Rumsfeld to go. In fact, it should have happened with honor a year ago, not on the day after the election. That act by the president was rude and disloyal. It was, in short, a disgusting display worthy of Salome.

I’m sure Dubya really cares about anything you or I have to say on that (and Rumsfeld doesn’t deserve anything “with honor” – I tried to read some of Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial” recently, and I had to give it up after reading the parts where Rumsfeld did his very best to intimidate everyone under his command, in particular one, two, and three-star generals…I was becoming absolutely enraged).

You could argue also that Dubya’s decision to keep Rumsfeld on as long as he did was, among other things, stupid politics; who can say if the Democrats would have taken Congress without him? I’d like to think they would have anyway, but you never know.

On the other hand, the resignation of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador is tragic.

Lady, YOU’RE NUTS!!

Some Republicans are trying to blame that loss on the Democrats. Not so fast. It is a failure of the Republican-controlled Senate, which refused for 18 months to give that man a vote on the floor. Giving up on Bolton shows that Republicans don't understand why they were so unceremoniously booted.

Giving up on Bolton was, for a rare, fleeting moment, an acknowledgement of reality by the Repugs, since even they could see Bolton as the true whack job that he is.

Some Democrats seem to understand that the American people didn't vote for them for their cut-and-run, hate-America-first agenda.

At this point, it is to laugh.

They've even announced they'll avoid the "controversial issues," such as abortion, gun rights and gay rights. They have essentially decided to lie by omission about their ultimate goals, believing the end (socialism) justifies the means (faking moderation). I've dubbed this the "Madame Mao pretending to be Nancy Reagan" plan, a.k.a. the Hillary Clinton White House Strategy.

Maybe the reason the Democrats have decided to move forward on the issues that the majority of the people in this country think are important is because those issues are important to the Democrats also. Oh, but I guess I’m giving the party too much credit for Tammy, who no doubt sees MoveOn-sponsored “conspiracies” everywhere; she knows the party so well also…sure she does.

Politicians who understand the message of Nov. 7 will survive. Those too disconnected to comprehend will continue to underestimate us, and we will fire them, too.

In the meantime, to celebrate the new Independent American voter, I'll be busy printing my "Lieberman/Bolton '08" bumper stickers.

Don’t print too many, Tammy. Somehow I wouldn’t expect a rebate from the manufacturer for excess surplus.

Tammy Bruce's (tammyblog@yahoo.com) is an author, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host, and blogger (www.tammybruce.com). Her most recent book, "The New American Revolution," has just been released in paperback.

And by the way, I went to her web site (sorry to give her a link, but I have to call this out) and happened to come across this interesting tidbit:

Here is the Newt Gingrich/1994 Republican Revolution video I played on the show today. It truly is a reminder of what the differences are between the Republican reaction to winning, and today's Democrat reaction of accusation, revenge and punishment. This is about what's possible, and what we must strive for again, regardless of the letter after your name.

If Tammy Bruce is a “Democrat,” then I’m a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche.

And thanks again, Inquirer, for more cutting-edge, “reality based" commentary!

Update 12/18:This letter appeared in the Inquirer today...

This is surprising news: Those of us who have been working hard to bring the Democratic message to voters in Chester County have actually been advancing the conservative agenda? And those voters want to return to Ronald Reagan? I don't think so!

Let's check off Tammy Bruce's agenda (Dec. 11, "Do the bums know why they were booted?") and see what today's Dems (and we hope, the new Congress) can agree with:

Small government: Yes, as long as it meets the needs of the people. That's what government is for, not building up bureaucracies and budgets (as Reagan did, and as Bush II has done).

Low taxes: Low for those who have less resources, fine; higher, though, for the more wealthy - and no more giveaways to corporations!

Empowered free market: Not really. Voters last month were impacted by corporate scandals, outsourcing of jobs, the declining buying power of the minimum wage.

Unashamed patriotism: Of course, in the sense that we want to be proud of a country that treats its citizens and the rest of the world honorably.

Win the war in Iraq: That's not what voters said. That was and is Bush's agenda. That the whole adventure in Iraq was a mistake is the chief meaning of the November election.

Bruce's Web site (www.tammybruce.com) tells us she lives in Los Angeles. Maybe Democrats (she claims to be one) are different on that far shore, but her Reagan-forever column must come as a big surprise to voters I'm familiar with around here.

Nathaniel Smith
West Chester

Thank you, Mr. Smith!