House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reaffirms the
Democratic Party’s promise to remain marginalized

The Onion reports:

WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

“We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. “It will take some doing, but we’re in this for the long and pointless haul.”

“We can lose this,” Reid added. “All it takes is a little lack of backbone.”

Despite plummeting poll numbers for the G.O.P nationwide and an upcoming election in which all House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for contention, Democrats pledged to maintain their party’s sheepish resignation.

“In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. “If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis.”

Gagbad Bob offers a must-read reflection on the feminization (and decadence) of contemporary American society:

As it evolved, the Republican party came to represent masculine virtues such as competition, maintaining strict rules (“law and order”), standards over compassion (i.e., not changing the rules for members of liberal victim groups), delayed gratification, and respect for the ways of the father–that is, conserving what had been handed down by previous generations of fathers, and not just assuming in our adolescent hubris that we know better than they…

The Democratic party, on the other hand, came to represent the realm of maternal nurturance–compassion over standards (i.e., racial quotas), idealization of the impulses (just as a mother is delighted in the instinctual play of her child), mercy over judgment (reduced prison sentences, criminal rights, etc.), cradle-to-grave welfare, a belief that we can seduce our enemies and do not have to defeat them with manly violence, and the notion that meaning, truth and values are all arbitrary and subject to change (which is true of the fluid world of emotions in general)…

…we are seeing a collapse of the covenant between mother and father as represented in the previous maternal/paternal two-party system. It is as if we are children living in a home where mother and father no longer get along and are bickering constantly. In fact, that is probably putting it too mildly, because the current situation has gone beyond mere arguing, to the point that the masculine and feminine spheres are no longer communicating at all and are going through a very messy and acrimonious divorce. Both sides are “lawyered up” and ready to go for the throat…

..our two-party political system has now come down to is a battle between the “blenders” and the “separators.” Nothing bothers the blenders more than adult males such as Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or John Roberts–remember Diane Feinstein, who could not vote for Roberts for supreme court justice because she wanted to know how he felt as a man. In short, she wanted him to be more of a male-female hybrid, like herself and her constituents. Simply applying the rule of law is too masculine. We need some female “wiggle room” in the constitution.

The modern conservative movement is not just trying to preserve the traditional male element, but the traditional separation of the various spheres in general–civilized vs. barbaric, animal vs, human, adult vs. child–while the Democratic party is the party of mannish women (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Gloria Allred), feminized men (e.g., Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore), adult children (Howard Dean, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, et al), and even animal humans (PETA members who believe that killing six million chickens is morally indistinguishable from murdering six million Jews, radical environmentalists, etc.). And it is almost impossible to engage in rational debate with the adult child, who has the cynicism of a world-weary grown up but the wisdom of a child, or with the male-female hybrid, who possesses an emotionalized reason that is easily hijacked by the passions. This is not so much a disagreement between the content of thought as its very form.

This divorce and blending of the male and female produces a new kind of child, one that is neither male nor female, adult nor child. A recent case in point was brought to our attention in the pathetic figure of Joel Stein, an L.A. Times columnist who penned a now infamous piece about his moral contempt for our troops fighting in Iraq. As he put it, it is wrong to blame President Bush for their moral turpitude. Rather, “The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they’re following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.” In his magnanimity, Stein is “not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn’t be celebrating people for doing something we don’t think was a good idea.”

Vanderleun over at American Digest wrote an outstanding, insightful piece yesterday that absolutely eviscerates the hapless Stein. Entitled The Voice of the Neuter is Heard Throughout the Land, it goes way beyond the vapid and vile (if it’s possible to be both) content of Stein’s essay in order to describe a much wider and more troubling cultural phenomenon. He refers the reader to a radio interview of Stein conducted by Hugh Hewitt. I actually heard the interview in real time, and Vanderleun is exactly right that Stein’s hollow and lilting voice is the voice of the neuter.

Vanderleun describes perfectly the flat, affectless tone of so many of Stein’s generational cohort that “tends to always trend towards a slight rising question at the end of even simple declarative sentences.” Neither identifiably male or female, “there is no foundation or soul within the speaker on which the voice can rest and rise.” But “above all, it is a sexless voice. Not, I hasten to add, a ‘gay’ voice…. No, this is a new old voice of a generation of ostensible men and women who have been educated and acculturated out of, or say rather, to the far side of any gender at all. It is, as I have indicated above, the voice of the neutered…. ”

Here, Vanderleun seems to be describing one of the inevitable consequences of the sexual and generational blending I referred to above. This “new voice that we hear throughout the land from so many of the young betokens a weaker and less certain brand of citizen than we have been used to in our history. Neither male nor female, neither gay nor straight, neither…. well, not anything substantive really. A generation finely tuned to irony and nothingness and tone deaf to duty and soul.”

Hat tip to AJStrata.

Even the Washington Post can see the Democrat Party’s leftwing activist base functions as an albatross around its neck, assuring that it will never get back into power. Fighting the Alito nomination is futile, but the looney-tune left is spoiling for a fight anyway, and the war-drums of the leftwing blogosphere are beating loudly as the vote approaches:

Democrats are getting an early glimpse of an intraparty rift that could complicate efforts to win back the White House: fiery liberals raising their voices on Web sites and in interest groups vs. elected officials trying to appeal to a much broader audience.

These activists — spearheaded by battle-ready bloggers and making their influence felt through relentless e-mail campaigns — have denounced what they regard as a flaccid Democratic response to the Supreme Court fight, President Bush’s upcoming State of the Union address and the Iraq war. In every case, they have portrayed party leaders as gutless sellouts…

“The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections,” said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. “The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left.”

For a fine example of moonbat reasoning, written by an author who would never dream of imagining that her political opponents have a point of view representing anything beyond insensate malice, incapable of understanding or respecting any form of process, try Angelica’s If not now, then when? rant.

We Killed the Patriot Act! declares Harry Reid.

From letters to the Post:

Sen. Ted Kennedy is attacking Alito on the grounds that his views on women are out of the mainstream.

When Kennedy drove off the bridge at Chappaquiddick and killed Mary Jo Kopeckne, did he land in the mainstream?

Bob Tufts
Forest Hills

J. Peter Mulhern, at American Thinker, debunks the premises underlying the fabricated NSA Flap:

The NSA flap has very little potential to hurt President Bush and every serious player among his enemies must know that…

You can’t sustain a scandal by revealing the shocking truth that the President of the United States is doing his job. He isn’t ashamed of gathering intelligence on our deadly enemies and nobody who doesn’t already loathe President Bush will blame him for it. It takes some scandalous material to make a scandal. There may, for example, be a scandal when the President sodomizes an intern in the Oval Office. Whatever the President and the First Lady may do in the family quarters after hours, it isn’t going to cause a scandal.

But, but, I hear them sputter, the President violated the law. He bypassed the checks and balances Congress wisely provided when it established the secret FISA court. Isn’t that enough to get him in serious hot water?

No. All the arguments about whether FISA applies to wartime intelligence gathering are so much pettifogging pedantry. FISA is a model of opaque draftsmanship. Don’t take my word for it, try to read it yourself.

Good luck.

It is certainly possible to read FISA as attempting to limit President Bush’s power to intercept al Qaeda communications. It is also possible to read it more modestly. In the last analysis, however, FISA is beside the point.

If FISA tries to restrict the President’s power to spy on our enemies during a state of war that Congress itself proclaimed then FISA is blatantly unconstitutional. Only a fool or a traitor would suggest that Congress can constitutionally require that the President play “Mother-may- I” with a motley collection of judges before intercepting enemy communications in wartime.

Congress can no more empower judges to make decisions about how we gather intelligence than it could empower them to decide what targets our Air Force should bomb or what streets our troops should patrol.

There is nothing complicated about this. The President is Commander in Chief. He makes the military decisions. He decides, with the advice of his subordinate commanders, when and where the United States government should gather intelligence because that is a military decision…

FISA may instruct the President to consult a panel of judges before listening to enemy communications. If it does it is unconstitutional, null, void and asinine.

When Congress violates the Constitution by trying to hamper the legitimate exercise of executive authority the President has both the right and the duty to ignore it. Which brings us to the second reason that the NSA nonscandal will sink without a trace.

There won’t be any riveting hearings, trials or judicial decisions to keep the NSA pot boiling because the President’s determination about the scope of his own constitutional authority to gather military intelligence is not subject to any meaningful review. With the advice of the Attorney General and his other lawyers the President has decided that he is constitutionally empowered to authorize the NSA program which is currently under attack. For all practical purposes that decision is final.

Ralph Peters, in the New York Post, tells democrats and their MSM allies promoting the ersatz NSA scandal:

Stop lying. Show us the victims.

Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed. Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one.

Can’t do it? OK. Let’s dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach for the facts:

Has a single reader of this column suffered personally from our government’s efforts to defend us against terrorists? Have any of your relatives or even your remotest acquaintances felt our intel system intrude into their lives?

That’s what I always ask the group-think lefties. Not one has ever been able to answer “Yes.”

The same big-lie politicians attacking the president’s efforts to uncover plots against America by monitoring terrorist communications will be the first to shriek that the War on Terror has failed when we’re attacked again.

They want it both ways: Drop our defenses, then blame Bush when terrorists strike

Primary Colors author, Joe Klein, writing in Time, predicts that democrats will inevitably pay the price for their partisan games-playing on issues of National Security:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with “specific presidential authorization.”

The release of Pelosi’s letter last week and the subsequent Times story (“Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show”) left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn’t exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, “Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it’s all fruit.”

A dodgy response at best, but one invested with a larger truth. For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are “fruit,” and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent…

It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.

There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.

…liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo’s family in the right-to-die case last year.

But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country.

The Republican National Committee on its web-site note that 40 of the 45 democrats in the Senate accepted money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribal clients.

—————————————

Earlier posting

A Free Republic correspondent, knowing the MSM isn’t going to be reporting this, posts a list of Abramoff Lobbying & Political Contributions to Democrats (source: FEC Records):

* Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least — $22,500
* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least — $6,500
* Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least — $1,250
* Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least — $2,000
* Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least — $20,250
* Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least — $21,765
* Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least — $7,500
* Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least — $12,950
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least — $8,000
* Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least — $7,500
* Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least — $14,792
* Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least — $79,300
* Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least — $14,000
* Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least — $2,000
* Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least — $1,250
* Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least — $45,750
* Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least — $9,000
* Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least — $2,000
* Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least — $14,250
* Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least — $3,300
* Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least — $98,550
* Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least — $28,000
* Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least — $4,000
* Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least — $6,000
* Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least — $29,830
* Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least — $14,891
* Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least — $10,550
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least — $78,991
* Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least — $20,168
* Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least — $5,200
* Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least — $7,500
* Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least — $2,300
* Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least — $3,500
* Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least — $68,941
* Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least — $4,000
* Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least — $4,500
* Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least — $4,300
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least — $29,550
* Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least — $6,250
* Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least — $6,250

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $423,480
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $354,700
Democratic National Cmte $65,720

Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) $42,500
Patty Murray (D-Wash) $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) $36,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) $26,500
Democratic Party of Michigan $23,000
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) $20,600
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) $19,000
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) $17,500
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $15,500
Democratic Party of Oklahoma $15,000
Chris John (D-La) $15,000
John Breaux (D-La) $13,750
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) $13,600
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) $12,000
Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) $11,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) $11,100
Max Baucus (D-Mont) $11,000
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $10,000
Democratic Party of North Dakota $10,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) $10,000
Democratic Party of South Dakota $9,500
Democratic Party of Minnesota $9,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) $8,500
Joe Baca (D-Calif) $8,000
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) $8,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $7,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) $7,250
Democratic Party of New Mexico $6,250
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) $6,000
David E. Bonior (D-Mich) $5,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) $5,000
Democratic Party of Montana $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) $5,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) $5,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) $5,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) $4,500
Tom Carper (D-Del) $4,000
Kent Conrad (D-ND) $4,000
Jerry Kleczka (D-Wis) $4,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) $4,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) $4,000
George Miller (D-Calif) $4,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) $3,500
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) $3,500
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) $3,100
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $3,000
Cal Dooley (D-Calif) $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) $3,000
David R. Obey (D-Wis) $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) $3,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) $3,000
Max Cleland (D-Ga) $2,500
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) $2,500
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $2,500
Bill Luther (D-Minn) $2,250
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) $2,250
Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) $2,000
Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) $2,000
Dan Boren (D-Okla) $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) $2,000
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) $2,000
Sam Farr (D-Calif) $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $2,000
Adam Schiff (D-Calif) $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) $2,000
Adam Smith (D-Wash) $2,000
Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $2,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) $2,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) $1,500
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) $1,500
John Kerry (D-Mass) $1,400
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) $1,000
Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif) $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $1,000
Jim Costa (D-Calif) $1,000
Susan A. Davis (D-Calif) $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) $1,000
Jim Maloney (D-Conn) $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) $1,000
Rick Weiland (D-SD) $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) $1,000
Bob Borski (D-Pa) $720
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) $500
Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $500
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) $500
Democratic Party of Washington $500
Barbara Lee (D-Calif) $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) $500

Grand Total $1,541,673

The tactic of taking an ultra-liberal, soft on defense, and inclined toward anti-US positions overseas, but equipped with some sort of military record, draping him in the flag, and trying to run him for office did not work out so well for the democrats in 2004. But nagging insecurities on the Patriotism front (for some reason) seem inevitably to lead our democrat friends to rush to use the alleged war hero as their front man for appeasement and surrender.

Look at John Murtha, whose Marine Corps background was exploited by the democrats to provide patriotic cover for last month’s trial balloon call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The MSM obligingly portrayed the faithful hack Murtha as “conservative,” “a hawk,” and a previously strong supporter of the War in Iraq, suddenly converted. But in reality, Murtha’s record on intervention in Iraq was strongly negative until a week before Congress voted overwhelmingly in its favor. Some sources believe Murtha’s willingness to take a leading anti-war position may have been motivated by considerations other than conviction.

And they are going back to the military hero well for the coming 2006 Congressional election. They probably had to turn over a lot of rocks, but they did it. They have found thirty odd veterans, able to walk and talk, and not currently in jail or under indictment, who are actually willing to be described as democrats.

More than 30 Iraq and Persian Gulf War veterans have entered congressional races across the country as Democrats, hoping to capitalize on their military experience to topple the incumbent Republican majority.

In Colorado, two former military men, Jay Fawcett and Bill Winter, are vying for the House seats of two strong, entrenched Republicans: Rep. Joel Hefley of the 5th Congressional District and Rep. Tom Tancredo of the 6th Congressional District, respectively.

“Do we understand military and foreign affairs? You bet,” Fawcett said. “Most of us have been to the point where you get a direct dose of military and foreign affairs, mostly in the category of small-caliber weapons. But we understand that that is just one aspect of national policy.”

On Dec. 20, Fawcett and Winter joined 35 Democratic veterans running for Congress at a strategy session in Washington, D.C.

The veterans voted on a name for their emerging caucuslike campaign coalition: Veterans for a Secure America. They also agreed that their military backgrounds should be promoted as credentials for leadership across the full spectrum of public policy…

Fawcett said the group is not anti-war but is concerned about what appears to be a lack of a solid plan for the war in Iraq. He said the group’s military experience could be crucial in providing better leadership.

The first to succumb to visions of inevitable victory, based upon this brilliant strategy, is none other than Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Kos himself, hailing it as the Fighting Dems phenomenon:

This country craves leadership, and these guys are providing it unbidden. They are self-organizing, taking the initiative, and taking the fight to the enemy. These guys are rock stars.

Unbidden, eh, Kos? I can just imagine how “unbidden” these guys are.

DaveNYC identifies “the Fighting Dems” web-site, titled Band of Brothers. Like John Cole’s leftie pal Tim F, DaveNYC believes there is strength in numbers, which is to say, you get a whole bunch of ultra-lefties with discharge papers out there, and it’s impossible for fellow veterans to debunk (what the left calls: swiftboat) their military and political records. Time will tell.

The Boston Globe is reporting that democrats, especially those seeking office in rural & Western states, are trying to disconnect from support of Gun Control, an issue which has functioned like the bug-zapper at the local Dairy Queen on many democrat hopes:

WASHINGTON — The Democratic Party, long identified with gun control, is rethinking its approach to the gun debate, seeking to improve the chances of its candidates in Western states where hunters have been wary of casting votes for a party with a national reputation of being against guns.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who had been a critic of some forms of gun control during his tenure as governor of Vermont, has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues, allowing those in rural states to reflect the values of hunters and others hostile to gun control, while supporting restrictions in urban areas with serious crime problems.

”On gun rights, we’ve allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn’t represent our values,” said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman, noting that Republicans have repeatedly portrayed Democrats as hostile to the Western way of life.