Wednesday, December 4, 2002

"Almost single-handedly handed"? "Lost so big"? "Finally their real message is finally getting through"? If Mr. De Marino is a free-lance writer, I take it the emphasis is on free, because no one I know is likely to buy his putrid pandering pantomime. If poor writing skills were his only fault, Mr. De Marino could certainly be forgiven, but his descent to libelous fantasy is really quite beyond the pale. He has obviously swallowed a little too much Rush, taken too many Boortz drops, and topped it all with a G. Gordon enema.

According to Mr. De Marino the Democratic party consists of organized big media Bolsheviks leading otherwise mindless sheep in an attempt to topple America from its mighty perch. Fortunately for all right-thinking Americans, we now have those reasonable chaps at Fox news, and "Talk" radio to free us from our mental shackles and vote Republican.

I liked the addition of the ubiquitous "liberal" thrown about for texture so like-thinking, talk-radio types, who can read, will have their traditional sour taste by the time Mr. De Marino gets to his facts.

On the facts: I will cede that three jerks going to Baghdad as representatives of this country and swallowing Iraqi propaganda in the middle of hostilities is so outrageous they should be tossed from Congress. Additionally, turning a memorial into a pep rally and booing an attendee who has come to show respect demonstrates horribly bad taste. I have no explanation nor defense for outlandish behavior.

Now, when the President goes to Congress to ask for something he should ask for under the Constitution, is it unpatriotic to vote "No"? Is Mr. De Marino equating patriotism to rubber-stamping the actions of one man? In times of crisis, the Roman Senate would appoint a dictator, usually for a term of six months. It seemed to work pretty well for them until they ran into Caesar who foisted himself on the Senate and then showed no inclination to ever leave. Et tu, De Marini?

Does the same go for Mr. Bush's court appointments? I find it just a little ironic that Republicans should be up in arms over disagreements on judicial philosophy after Jesse Helms held up Clinton appointments the entire time the man was in office. This idea of "strict construction" is a chimera held forth by many who would like to reverse "Brown v. Board of Education", much less "Roe v. Wade." You want strict construction, we better give the country west of the Mississippi back to France, because T. Jefferson never had the Constitutional authority to spend our money to buy it.

The Homeland Security Department now here is an outright lie. President Bush didn't propose the Homeland Security Department, and the Democrats didn't oppose it. It was proposed before the shrub ever took office by a bipartisan panel and was revived in Congress by Democrats. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D) of California was instrumental in bringing the bill to the House. In the Senate, a similar plan was proposed by Phil Gramm (R) and Zell Miller (D), the difference being the stripping of certain Civil Service protections from the future employees.

As Joe Lieberman (D) pointed out on the Senate floor, the President already had the power in times of crisis to bypass all Civil Service rules (remember the Roman dictator) as necessary. What the bill did in stripping the normal protections is to open the department up to political pandering, a problem we tried to avoid by instituting the Civil Service in the first place.

So why did the Democrats lose so badly? It could be that there was little message for people to identify with at all, especially against a popular president. It wasn't enough to just say, "Well, we're not Republicans." I received at least three phone calls from Republicans on voting day, but not one from the Democrats. The Republican base was obviously energized, and I give a lot of credit to President Bush who pulled out all the stops to make it happen.

A political party encompasses a broad base, and in the end, the real agenda is defined somewhere in the middle in American politics. For Democrats to win, we will have to define to people what we are, and what we are not.

I believe we need to speak for the people in the middle and the otherwise powerless, because the powerful always make sure they are heard. We need to stand for the preservation of the environment over the temporary economic advantage accrued by abusing it. We need to stand for capitalism as the only real way for the United States to maintain its economic supremacy and high standard of living.

At the same time we must recognize that this same intense competition drives people to extremes contrary to the good of our country and its citizens, and these extremes must be modified, and if necessary, regulated.

We must stand for a fair tax system that leaves most of people's capital in their own control. At the same time, we should recognize that it takes a certain amount of income just to live, and that to obtain the necessary funds to make the government work, the wealthiest are going to pay higher marginal rates. We shouldn't give marginal breaks to the capital gains investor while penalizing the working man on the margin for his extra hard work.

We must stand for a strong defense, but heed the words of a great Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, and not turn over the keys of the treasury to Lockheed.

We must stand for equal rights and equal protections for all Americans under the law, even, and especially in the midst of a war on Islamic terrorism (yes, I said Islamic).

Hitler justified his Nacht und Nebel decree against "persons endangering German security," and it was carried out by a willing paramilitary eager to believe it was for the good of their country. Mostly we must take the fight to these right-wing morons who attempt to define us on their own terms. Josef Goebbels rightly believed in the use of the big lie over the little one, and we can't let those of talk radio (or letters to the editor) go unanswered.

In short, Mr. De Marino got it all wrong both in who Democrats are, and why the party lost nationally. It was no surprise that the first action of the newly empowered Republican administration was to loosen the "new source" standards rules on power generating plants, creating a new shell game of "find the polluter." The Republicans are up to their eyeballs in debt to the world of big business, and it's payback time. It's our job as Democrats to publicize and oppose the forthcoming ruinous quid pro quo.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City