Locke Jaw

|

The off-lede in the SOTU story is that the Democratic Party made a specific decision to go into hiding. With foreign policy the president's main topic—and the material everybody was anticipating—the Dems responded through a small-state governor. Whatever else he has going for him, Gary Locke has nothing to say about the Mideast or about war (that anybody wants to hear), and that seems to have been the point of using him. It allowed the Democrats to duck the issue. Of course, it was really the evening's only issue. Are Dems still debating why they blew the last election?

Advertisement

NEXT: The Ears Have It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Today, the Dems say they aren’t convinced of the need to start shooting in Iraq (I don’t know that I’m currently convinced, either). What WOULD convince the left of the need to start shooting? Anything?

  2. No doubt if Ashcroft were the president of Iraq, the dems would have already started bombing.

  3. Wouldn’t it have been better if the Dems had just not responded? I was embarrassed for him.

  4. Locke was good for a laugh.

    I was stunned to find out that the Dems big argument for the next year was that the Federal government (no model of solvency itself) ought to be bailing out fiscally irresponsible state and city governments.

    Aside from being a further abuse of federalist principles, this would incentivize fiscal misbehavior. Who cares about what we spend? Uncle Sam will bail us out.

    I was expecting something new from the Dems to try and steal Bush’s thunder. I can’t believe that they think they will win by making citizens in 25 states (who elected fiscally responsible legislatures and governors) make up for Gray Davis, George Pataki and Jim Hunt’s spending like drunken sailors.

    And this is the hot button issue that will win the Dems some votes in 2004?

    The country is ill-served when this is the best that the opposition party can do.

  5. Once again, I point out that Dems have no message. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, squat. They have, since about 1980, always been the “anti” party. they’re against pretty much anything and for pretty much nothing. For example, if tax cuts are a bad way out of the current economic problems (I refuse to call it a crisis-and I sprent most of the last year out of a job), then shouldn’t Dems be preaching tax increases? But they don’t, because they know it isn’t true, but they can’t fall in line behind tax cuts because of all the “for the rich” rhetoric.

    Dey got nuttin’. But they have lots of it.

  6. I like to think of them as the “me, too–but…” party. They agree with Bush that Saddam is a “threat”–even though he can’t project force more than a few hundred miles outside his own borders–but let’s go through the UN like good Truman-style Cold War Liberals. If Ass-crap and Ridge proposed rounding up a thousand “subversives” and holding them without trial in concentration camps, Tom Daschle would say, “Me too–but those camp guards better be organized in AFGE locals!”

    During the “debate” on the (gag) USA Patriot Act, Daschle made support of the bill a party loyalty issue for Democrats. And sure enough, a few months later, they started popping up, one by one, with statements that “I had misgivings, but I felt obligated to vote yes….” WHY? This was probably the one time in the last sixty years when we needed a real opposition party, and these god-damned spineless, gutless, ball-less wonders were too chickenshit of being called “unpatriotic” to stand up for our liberty the one time they had a chance to earn their pay.

    If I saw Daschle or any of his worthless-as-titties-on-a-fish colleagues in person, I’d spit on them.

  7. Maybe I’ll try some of that acid-mix you’re taking, Kevin. You’re making pretty good sense. But remember, Dems never met an expansion of government they didn’t like.

  8. Kevin / Steve – I completely agree that the Dems dropped the ball BIG TIME in not presenting a very strong and united opposition to the stupid Patriot Act (I second the GAG). I agree with Steve’s conclusion – while opposing it might be worth some political capital, at the end of the day the Patriot Act represents a massive expansion in government power, which the Democrats LOVE.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.