As the reality of the events of 9/11 became clear, my feelings towards Bush started to change. Here was a man who understood just how badly we were hit, and he vowed to do something about it. I came away from his famous "megaphone" speech moved. Perhaps it was because he was pandering to me, but I felt this man had his heart in the right place and understood that we needed to fight for our way of life and our very lives.
I supported Bush fully when he wanted to go into Afghanistan; after all, the Taliban was there, and they helped the terrorists who attacked us. When Bush pressed to go into Iraq, I supported that too, just as I supported Clinton's decisionto go into Iraq in 1998, just as I supported Bush Sr's decision to go to into Iraq in 1991. To be honest, all the anti-war rhetoric being spewed at the time just seemed like partisan nonsense; I definitely didn't recall any anti-war movement in 1998 or 1991, not to mention the endless UN resolutions pointing to Hussein's nefarious endeavors. I recalled the Seinfeld episode in the '90s, in which Kramer almost shits himself when he thinks he sees Saddam Hussein on a city street; everyone seemed to understand that this was one evil son of a bitch. Post 9/11, and with the broken-window theory in mind, such a despot clearly couldn't exist anymore. Yet for whatever reason, the Democrats whom I had previously voted with seemed all of a sudden to have a real problem with our aggression in Iraq. I may not be the smartest guy in the world, but this seemed blatantly and needlessly partisan; disingenuous, especially given the new problem of Islamic terror that we were now dealing with.
Events continued to unfold. The Enron and other financial scandals, the tax cuts. The opposition Bush faced, the blame he received, just seemed completely out of line. Democrats, especially during the Clinton era, seemed to celebrate the private sector. They seemed to understand that increased regulations hurt the economy, that people, and not government, were the solution to the problems we face. But in the 2000s, Democrats seemed to change.
This was no longer the Democratic party of JFK, who believed in strong national security and lower taxes. This wasn't the moderate Democrats of the Clinton era, who after losing the house in 1994, moved to the center, and worked with the other side to help the 90s in one of the great decades of our nation's history. This was a Democratic party that couldn't seem to stand by its own vote to go to war. In fact it seemed to disavow its vote, claiming it was coerced, or that the intel that everyone had was somehow manipulated, laughably, by a smirking George Bush in some back room somewhere. Despite any evidence, Democrats chanted the familiar refrain, that Bush lied and people died. Some went so far as to blame American foreign policy of advancing freedom as the cause of 9/11, and an even smaller minority actually blamed Bush for directly causing 9/11. All the while, our country was fighitng two conflicts against Islamic terrorists and the governments that spawned them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - The Obnoxious American
Note to Editors: I disagree with the edit made to the title - it's Democrat party, not Democratic, which is a system of government.
2 - Costello
Note to writer: you are incorrect. The editor did you a favor
3 - The Obnoxious American
Who says I'm incorrect, the media, who is largely run by Democrats? Or the Democrats themselves?
No one did me a favor, they did the Democrats a favor. I don't blame the editors, it's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
4 - zingzing
oa, you are incorrect. or maybe you're just feigning it. no one calls the democratic party the "democrat party" except republicans and people unfamiliar with american politics, like republicans.
5 - zingzing
and this whole essay is pretty much just frothy opinion and little else. moving on.
6 - zingzing
beyond that, of course it's not "your father's" democratic party. you really expect the so-called "progressive" party to stay the same? what kind of a dumb idea is that? and for fuck's sake... look at the republic party. their own personal jizz monument, ronald reagan's corpse, would be run out of the party today for any number of reasons, and they'd probably shoot him in the face if he ran as a dem. he'd be a tax-hungry socialist who concedes to foreign sovereignty and has sympathy for the poor wetback (as clavos likes to call himself). it's ridiculous.
what was the point of this essay other than to make yourself look like an ignorant hypocrite (or at least half of one)?
7 - The Obnoxious American
Zing,
This is an opinion piece, dismiss if you like, but your probably already beyond any reasoning with in any case.
Per my prior point, it's time we start taking back some of the word games played by the left.
Why are Democrats "blue staters" when if anything the color of their flag should be red? Prior to 2000, no party was the red or blue party, this is a new development.
Why do Democrats call themselves liberals, when if anything they are the exact opposite of the meaning of the word?
Why do Democrats call their party the "Democratic" party, when all parties in the US are founded in Democracy. If anything, judging by the antics at this years DNC, the use of the term Democratic is a misnomer.
All the democrats have are word games, all they can do is cloak themselves in the flag, but the truth is they don't stand for America, they don't stand for freedom. Their entire platform is the antithesis of the freedoms inherent in our constitution. Heck, they don't even believe in the constitution. Except in that it can be continuously misconstrued.
My apologies if the judgement of the extreme left is that I am off my rocker for saying this. But I'm calling it like it is. Like it actually is.
8 - The Obnoxious American
Responding to #6, obviously you didn't read the article. Reagan is and continues to be the hero of our party, and would hardly be run out.
Now if we're talking facts, Joe Lieberman, a moderate Democrat, WAS actually run out of the party, a mere few years after being held in such high regard as to be picked as VP in 2000. Hows that square with the falsehoods you're selling? That's right, it doesn't.
As I say in the article, JFK would be a Republican today.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Note to Editors: I disagree with the edit made to the title - it's Democrat party, not Democratic, which is a system of government.
Never mind that you yourself called it by its proper name "Democratic party" on pages two and three of your article.
OA, by your own admission you supported a guy who talked about invading Iraq even before he became president, who began planning on said invasion TEN DAYS after he was inaugurated, lied to Congress (AND to Colin Powell) about what he thought he knew about the WMD's, squelched all opposition by those who opposed his march to war with Iraq, AND allowed Dick Cheney to get away with TREASON for exposing a CIA agent in time of war (which also exposed all those informants who had contact with her).
Y'know, it sounds to me like you were a 'blue dog' Democrat who wasn't liberal to begin with...and now you're supporting a guy for president who thinks he should be able to roll down the windows on a jetliner in flight - and NO, he wasn't joking. That much is obvious.
Sir, it is the GOP that has gone off the edge of the map. You've got a third of your party who thinks Obama's Muslim (even though he eats pork BBQ and brews beer in the White House), and nearly half who think he wasn't born in the U.S. or aren't sure (even after all this time). You've got a GOP that denies anthropogenic global warming in the face of nearly the ENTIRE scientific community (including one hundred percent of the world's national science academies).
You've got a GOP where many of the politicians actually believe that rape isn't rape unless it's "forcible", and some that even believe that pregnancy is rare in cases of rape. In your official GOP platform, you want rape to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest.
You accuse us of thinking the GOP's racist. Gee Whiz, OA, do you not have the wherewithal to Google "Limbaugh racist statements" to see the racist statements by the most influential conservative in America? And then there's the 46% of Republicans in MS last year who said that interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. No, OA, most Republicans are NOT racist...but your party DOES tolerate racists within its ranks.
Your party is engaging in an almost nationwide effort to suppress VOTING, of all things, allegedly to stop in-person voting fraud...regardless of the WELL-documented fact that in-person voting fraud is EXTREMELY RARE. But if you had half the honesty you claim, you'd know down deep in your gut that it has squat to do with voter fraud and everything to do with keeping the Democrats from voting...
...as was PROVEN by the actions of Ohio's Secretary of State (a Republican like its governor) wherein he disallowed three days of early voting in Democratic-leaning counties but allowed it in Republican-leaning counties! And THEN when the Democratic members of the election boards of those counties voted to allow the three days of voting (like ALL the Republican-leaning counties already had), the Republican Secretary of State FIRED them!
How in hell can you call that "protection" of small-d democracy when the state government is deliberately trying to hinder the voting in some counties while allowing it in other counties, all based on which which political party those counties tend to support???? If you really think of yourself as a patriotic American, OA, you should be freaking OUTRAGED by the actions of the GOP to suppress our most basic right - the right to vote!!!!
Your party's gone off the edge of the map, OA. It's been long noted that Reagan and Bush 41 would be rejected by today's GOP as 'too liberal'. Hell, they'd be tarred and feathered, branded as RINO's, and physically tossed out of the RNC for what they did!
You claim the Democratic party is not the party of JFK, and I AGREE with you! Why? Because the Dems of that day were supported by the southern segregationists - the South was a solid Democratic bloc. But when the rest of the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the Dixiecrats switched allegiance to the GOP and have remained there ever since.
Likewise, today's GOP is not your father's GOP, and certainly not the GOP of Reagan, for at that time 'moderate' and 'bipartisan' were compliments, unlike the insults that today's GOP holds them to be!
10 - Tommy Mack
". . . cynical, depressed, childish, and immature" is this critique of the Democratic Party. Frothy is also good. That is what makes the argument like a glass that is full and three quarters empty.
That the assertion, "The founding documents are slavery-abetting evil and our founding fathers weren't courageous for their time, they were cowards for not dealing with the issues of slavery and women's rights. . ." hasn't drawn any comment is curious, if not just over the top. What it has to do with the modern Democratic Party is lost in the ether.
But blaming media is a Republican crutch and weakens an already weak argument. Perhaps a rewrite with a few examples would further the essay's purpose.
Tommy
11 - Christopher Rose
Not only does OA not know the name of the Democratic Party, he doesn't even know that the USA isn't a democracy, it is a representative republic.
12 - The Obnoxious American
Tommy,
So the Democrats don't claim that the three fifths clause condones slavery, when it was added precisely to reduce the sway slave owners held?
Blaming the media is a Republican crutch? No, it's just true. The endless discussion of Romney gaffes when in fact, from my view, he's been right all along.
Please, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. You don't like this article because it lays bare the realities of the modern day democrat. And you don't like that one bit.
13 - The Obnoxious American
Chris,
I certainly know that this is a Republic. Where did I claim otherwise?
14 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
If the article says Democratic Party, it's because it was edited that way. My original draft says Democrat Party, across the board.
Planned to invade Iraq before he was elected? Prove that. Contingency plans are not the same as intent, especially when he didn't actually invade Iraq till 2003, and only after going to the UN umpteenth times.
But you're right. I was never a liberal. So what - should I have to be in order to be a Democrat? I think you've just agreed with the gist of my article, the Democrat party has become more extreme.
Most Americans are not liberals. But the Democrat party, that used to host blue dogs and liberals alike, has now become the bastion of the more extreme left, leaving those of us who are moderates, with only one place to go.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Planned to invade Iraq before he was elected? Prove that. Contingency plans are not the same as intent, especially when he didn't actually invade Iraq till 2003, and only after going to the UN umpteenth times.
Okay, here from Mickey Herskowitz, who was ghostwriting Dubya's autobiography in 1999:
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
And let's not forget what Bush's Treasury Secretary said about his (Bush's) first National Security Council meeting:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
AND let's not forget the Downing Street Memo where the British intelligence service noted that Bush had already decided to remove Saddam Hussein by military force no matter what...and the key phrase was this: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
In other words, the intel and facts did not determine the policy, but the policy were determining what the intel and facts were! THAT, OA, is why Cheney's minions outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, because Bush had already decided that Saddam had WMD's and nobody - including Plame's husband - was going to tell him any differently!
And Dubya got his way, at the cost of 5000 U.S. servicemen and -women, $1T in loans that the taxpayers still must pay, and 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children...
...and not only allowed Dick Cheney to commit treason but also lied to Congress and to Colin Powell to make it happen...but YOU think he did the right thing!
100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children dead from an invasion launched on false pretenses...and YOU think he did the right thing! Shame on you, OA - shame!
16 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
A more thorough take down of your points:
"Sir, it is the GOP that has gone off the edge of the map. You've got a third of your party who thinks Obama's Muslim (even though he eats pork BBQ and brews beer in the White House), and nearly half who think"
Actually, Americans of both political persuasions believe this, as Madonna recently proved. And do you know why they think he's a Muslim? Perhaps it's because he doesn't attend Church, or even seem to get the idea of a judeo christian value set. Perhaps it's because he actually went to school in a Madrassah, or that in his book he said "If things turned ugly, he'd stand with the Muslims" or the fact that things have turned ugly, so he HAS stood with them, over the interests of his very nation.
Personally, I'll take his word for it that he was born here, but his actions are foreign, and they are hardly in America's best interest.
"You've got a GOP that denies anthropogenic global warming in the face of nearly the ENTIRE scientific community"
Let me ask, just how many discoveries were uncovered by consensus? I am willing to bet that before germs were discovered, the ENTIRE scientific community believed in something other than germs. The fact about AGW is that it has not been scientifically proven. Another fact is that the scientific community that focuses on AGW has damaged their own cause by virtue of their malfeasance.
"You've got a GOP where many of the politicians actually believe that rape isn't rape unless it's "forcible", and some that even believe that pregnancy is rare in cases of rape. In your official GOP platform, you want rape to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest."
First off, Todd Akin is one pol, and the response he's gotten for his idiotic comments prove the above wrong. Virtually everyone in the GOP agrees that there should be exceptions. I personally believe in abortion for rape victims as a form of justice, to give you an idea of the wide range of views on this topic.
That said, amid 8% unemployment, a disaster of an economy, and a foreign policy in shambles, it's no wonder why the Dems continue to talk Abortion and condoms. Gotta whip up the fear, right?
"You accuse us of thinking the GOP's racist. Gee Whiz, OA, do you not have the wherewithal to Google "Limbaugh racist statements" "
Limbaugh is a radio entertainer. Mitt Romney is the most influential conservative, which is why he's the candidate. I could care less what out of context limbaugh statements you could trot out, he's not a racist either.
BTW, the race card called, it said to please stop using it, because it's very very tired.
"And then there's the 46% of Republicans in MS last year who said that interracial marriage should be ILLEGAL. "
Citation please. When did they vote on that exactly?
"Your party is engaging in an almost nationwide effort to suppress VOTING, "
Now you're just being absurdly silly, especially when polls show most Americans agree with the need to ensure our votes are not sullied with votes from Micky Mouse and the rest of your acorn buddies.
"...in-person voting fraud is EXTREMELY RARE."
So is murder and rape. So are a lot of illegal things. Should we stop enforcing those laws too?
"you'd know down deep in your gut "
Puleeeeeeeeeeze. If you were being honest, you'd know that asking for ID to vote, is hardly wrong, and in fact protects the votes of others. Moreover, it's racist to suggest that minorities don't have the where-withal to get their own ID.
"wherein he disallowed three days of early voting in Democratic-leaning counties but allowed it in Republican-leaning counties! "
I could point to similar things on the Dem side. It's not part of the GOP platform plain and simple. And not only is there nothing wrong with voter id - the Supreme Court already found nothing unconstitutional with it.
"It's been long noted that Reagan and Bush 41 would be rejected by today's GOP as 'too liberal'. "
By who? Liberals? Everyone on the GOP has one complaint about Romney, that he isn't MORE like Reagan. This is yet another, totally non-factual point.
"rest of the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the Dixiecrats switched allegiance to the GOP and have remained there ever since."
Who exactly? Strom Thurmond? Name another one - you can't because it was only Strom Thurmond. Nice try though.
"Likewise, today's GOP is not your father's GOP, and certainly not the GOP of Reagan, "
Already debunked.
17 - The Obnoxious American
And Glenn, Regarding #15, (again you failed to read my article), so Bush wanted to remove Saddam as early as 1999? I'm pretty sure in 1998, Clinton felt the same way, and actually went to war there. How did you feel about what Clinton did?
Read the article, get a sense for what I'm saying here, especially if you're going to post comments to it.
18 - GRoss
HEY, YOU GUYS!
You're nit-picking and missing the whole point! I am the Republican product of a very long family line of Democrats. If the Demo party held my hopes and dreams for a better America, I would be first in their line-up. Investigating, examining, determining - those are important and time-consuming tasks and I've done my due diligence. I've found mistakes on all sides.
However, it's the divison of the country that is being encouraged and even exploited by this administration that many see as bringing great harm to us all.
We are large enough to accept most setbacks, though we quarrel and fuss, we eventually settle down. That's the brilliant way we do things in America. We have the best guide tool - The Constitution.
Those of you ridiculing this article mentioning past beloved Democratic presidents....are you satisfied with the direction Obama has set for us?
19 - The Obnoxious American
GRoss,
Well stated!
20 - Clav
OA,
The party calls itself the Democratic party, which of course, is their prerogative. Neither you no anyone else can gainsay them on the point. If you choose to call them the "Democrat" party in your next essay, it will be edited again; by me, or whichever other editor reviews your article, because that is the party's name.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Clav,
Please don't take my comments personally. I don't fault you for making this error - lots of people get this one wrong. :>
22 - Republican Sooner
Glenn,I started out as a Democrat. I was shown my error while I was in the Air Force. Carter proved to me that Democrats are not good for OUR country. The Democrats of today are nasty little creatures that when yo disagree with them start calling you names and come up with facts that are half truths or outright lies.
As for Bush going into Iraq, it needed to be done. He was a want to be Hitler. Do you remember what he did? Saddam wanted to take over that region and extend his power world wide. His problem was his troops were not half the men that Hitler had. He invaded two countries and got his ass kicked back to Iraq. You sir just don't get it.
Islam wants to take over the world and Obama is helping them. Mark my words if Obama is re-elected you will change your tune in three years if not sooner. Instead of a Bible in motel rooms there will be a Koran.
And everything you hold dear will be gone. I almost feel sorry for guys like you. But unless you open your eyes you are lost.
23 - Republican Sooner
OA has already shown you wrong on every count so I did not address your post directly.
Obama is a fraud and will drive us right into the ground if he remains in office. 6 trillion in 3 and a half years. It took Bush 8 years to put us 4 more trillion in debt. And 140 executive orders all meant to by-pass congress. A health plan that will put us all in the poor house. Going to war with Libya without Congressional approval. He has taken our Constitution and rolled it into toilet paper. I could go on but I grow tired of talking to a brick wall.
24 - Igor
OA brags in the 2nd paragraph:
"...we all knew that good times don't last forever, at least those of us with a passing knowledge of the economic cycle."
Please relate what you know of the economic cycle.
25 - zingzing
"Why are Democrats "blue staters" when if anything the color of their flag should be red?"
they don't, really. no more than republicans call themselves "red staters."
"Prior to 2000, no party was the red or blue party, this is a new development."
exactly. what's your question?
"Why do Democrats call themselves liberals, when if anything they are the exact opposite of the meaning of the word?"
"liberal" actually does have a meaning outside of politics. it's as opposed to "conservative," although i guess we also have the term "progressive" to be more directly in opposition to "conservative" politics. i certainly don't think that the republic party embodies the term "liberal."
"Why do Democrats call their party the "Democratic" party, when all parties in the US are founded in Democracy."
it's a name. why do the republics call their party the "republican" party, when all parties in the US are found in republicanism?
"If anything, judging by the antics at this years DNC, the use of the term Democratic is a misnomer."
i'm sure the RNC was much better at being democratic. wait, didn't they chase out a black camera man with monkey chants? oh well.
"All the democrats have are word games,"
all you have is word games. and they don't even make sense, much less stand up to charges of hypocrisy.
"all they can do is cloak themselves in the flag,"
ah, so you're the real american american.
"but the truth is they don't stand for America,"
america's a big place with lots of ideas and ideals. if the dems "stood" for america, we wouldn't have or need another party. no party "stands" for america, and thank god for that. that's when you have single-party rule and things go to shit real fast with that. give and take, obnoxious, so no one's ecstatically happy, but no one is silenced through oppression either.
"they don't stand for freedom. Their entire platform is the antithesis of the freedoms inherent in our constitution."
so that's why you guys like to shove amendments into state constitutions (and try now and again to do so in the national constitution) that limit freedoms and rights, eh? come on. you need to turn your critical eye on your own side for a moment. your criticisms ring very loud if you step out of the echo chamber.
"Heck, they don't even believe in the constitution. Except in that it can be continuously misconstrued."
you would believe that. i'd say your side likes to interpret the constitution to fit their own beliefs as well. that's the whole thing about the constitution. i'm surprised you don't see it this way. why is it right for you to be able to interpret it to fit your values, but it's not right for anyone who disagrees to see it another way? ah, freedom. ah, liberty.
"But I'm calling it like it is. Like it actually is."
you're calling it how you see it. nothing more. you've got no more a strangle-hold on reality than anyone else does. you're just dumb/arrogant enough to believe that you do, and that everyone else's opinion is worthless and abhorrent.