Dick Morris echoes Gamecock's 2006 crowing of the Myth of Moderate Democrats
The man who saved Bill Clinton from the far left of the Democratic Party but who was unable to get him to carpet bomb Osama bin Laden's lair, wrote this week of the myth of the moderate Democrat. Naturally, this author of the 2006, Drawl and that's all: The Myth of the Moderate Southern Democrat in D.C., was intrigued by the echo.
Dick Morris wrote mostly of a more specialized version of the rot of the party Andrew Jackson made famous, with his description of the Pelosi cloakroom bargaining for the right of her "blue dawg" subjects to vote against socialized medicine, so long as the bill could be passed to the Senate.
My three year old column was compelled by my experiences of:
- The disconnect between the election years' rhetoric of MSM and self-described "moderates" like House member John Spratt and Senator Ernest Hollings of my Palmetto State home;
- The voting records of nearly all (the very few exceptions, see Alabama's Parker Griffith, prove the rule) Democrats as compared to nearly all Republicans, including their most liberal;
- The Democratic Party's unpatriotic launch of the "Bush-lied Era" after 911; and
- The musings of the most famous moderate Democrat of the all.
The Picture of Dorian Gray
I do not deny that in many, if not most ways, Bill Clinton's presidency was a success. I give much credit to Bubba's Southern-learned pragmatism, but most of the credit must go to the Reagan slayings of inflation and the USSR, as well as his wealth-producing tax and regulation cuts.
This elephant's ears haven't forgotten the DNC, supposed moderate, Donkey-in-Chief's broken middle class tax cut promise; Justices Breyer and Ginsburg; missile technology to China; and the pardoning of FALN terrorists during his last days.
Our Oscar Wilde side is also still repelled by the disconnect between the picture of what WJC did after Newt weilded the Speaker's gavel, and what he has said walking the earth like a 21st century Dorian Gray, from his:
- 2003 praise of Iran as the foreign nation's government most akin to his values;
- Conversion to the pagan religion of man-made global warming scare merchant-in-chief;
- Recent admission from the signer of the Defense of Marriage Act under the Gingrich guillotine that he was "always for gay marriage";
- The womanizer-in-chief's recent public utterance characterizing small-government tea party advocates as gay orgy "tea baggers"; and
- The public airing of his cynical permanent campaign ideology (shared by President Obama and the late communist Saul Alinsky) admonishing congressional democrats to "pass anything" so they can claim political victory since, after all, they can amend it later.
And that is the best "moderate" the Democrats have?
Yes, it is.
My former party is vile and wrong. It is a vampire that needs a stake driven through its heart in the sunlight. The closest it gets to being killed is usually by the Carter and Obama-like suicides induced by the re-education of mostly non-political independents and duped useful idiot Democrats in the failings of liberal economic and domestic policies as well as the aggression-inviting weakness all Democrats exude to enemies abroad.
I refer to conservatives that vote for Democrats by Lenin's "useful idiot" term because, given that the left has made Democratic Party its home base for 60+ years, and given their takeover since 1963 (and especially since 2001), any vote for a "D', empowers the left from the time of their first vote for a Jack Ass speaker to their procedural votes to ram through non-stimuli.
Modern conservatives must disabuse themselves of the notion that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties.
My last calculation found a $1.4 trillion difference between ObamaDems' first budget deficit and George W. Bush's worst. It is ObamaDems that want to hike energy taxes on the poor and middle class; usurp your right to choose health insurance; and retreat from defending our Liberty abroad.
The policies of the ObamaDems are extreme by any objective, substantive measure, against nearly any American government from George Washington through George W. Bush.
And if our only hope to keep the City Shining on the Hill are so-called Blue Dawgs, then just go ahead and turn off the lights. I have every confidence that Bayh, Nelsons and Lincolns will let me down again. In fact, the only time I have ever had any expectations met by a Democrat of any kind since 1963 or by a Blue Dog, ever, it has been by this one:
Yet, it is Republicans that always get called "extremists"
Extremists have never held sway in the GOP. Ever. Oh DeVine, you may say, but what about Nixon's "southern strategy" and those religious right "nuts."
The Republican Party was born to oppose slavery; was prevented from granting civil rights to Blacks by the Democratic Party for decades after the Civil War; and voted in greater numbers than LBJ's democrats for the 1964-5 civil and voting rights acts.
Nixon sought votes in the South? Who knew? Yes, former segregationist, mostly southern democrats bolted the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s, but they never got the first quid pro quo in terms of legislation, judges or policies from the Party of Lincoln.
Most Americans disapprove of abortion as birth control and a majority self-describe as pro-life.
Modern conservatives will only enjoy a governing majority that can turn back ObamaDem socialism by allying themselves with social conservatives. We win with the Reagan-Rush message. We lose with the McCains and Rockefeller country clubbers whose wives and daughters forget to take the pill.
But then, are moderate Republicans of any use?
Yes, but only if they are followers and/or joiners on conservatives' terms. If moderates lead the GOP, the nation is pulled to the left. The liberals already have a party. Its called the Democratic Party, and as we have seen, it is controlled by the real extremists of any substantial numbers, i.e. leftists.
Moderates, by definition, don't stand for much of anything, and so are drawn into parochial and institutional concerns, rather than the national interests on substance.
Hence, the supposed "need" to pass something. The use of the anti-conservative mantra that to do "nothing" is unacceptable. The bringing home of the pork. The "need" to reach across the aisle and find a compromise solution. You know, the kind that solve no problem; actually makes the problem worse; but does allow for "maverick" re-election campaigns.
But, given that the northeastern United States continue to enjoy statehood status despite my "reverse-Secession" call for returning them to territorial status and requiring that they pass some Constitution Amendments to rejoin the Union, we must abide the presence of a certain number of moderates after they defeat conservatives in primaries.
We must win a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate if we are to actually reverse the century-long trend to the left that has us slouching towards Gomorrah.
And then there are the "appropriators" that Redstate's pilgrim describes as under the "moderate" label. I invite that persistent cuss to expound on that sub-category for our enlightenment.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson