By George Neumayr on 9.27.02 @ 12:02AM
Just as Gore once displayed snippiness by calling Bush ''snippy,'' so Daschle demonstrates partisanship by accusing Bush of it.
Contrary to Tom Daschle's third-rate oratory on Wednesday,
George Bush is not questioning the Democrats' hearts. He is
questioning their minds. As Bush sees it, they lack not patriotism,
but good judgment.
George Bush owes the Democrats an apology for maligning their
motives? Motive-maligning is the Democrats' specialty. Al Gore had
done exactly that two days before Daschle's speech.
It is not Bush, but the Democrats who frequently question
people's hearts. If conservatives oppose them on affirmative
action, they are "anti-minority." If they oppose them on minimum
wage, they are "anti-worker." If they oppose them on abortion, they
are "anti-woman." If they oppose them on Head Start, they are
"anti-child."
Democrats will push a proposal on behalf of some group of people
and then instinctively equate conservative opposition to their
proposal with lack of concern for that group. If conservatives say,
"Well, your proposal won't help that group," Democrats aren't
impressed. They continue to argue as if they "cared" more deeply
about the group in question. You don't support our funding of
public schools? Well, that means you don't care about the public
schools, they will argue.
Democrats know that they can win debates with this reductive
tactic and rarely apologize for it. If Daschle couldn't use this
tactic to push his Big Government agenda, he would have almost
nothing to say. Cheap emotionalism is one of the few cards left in
his deck. Has he ever, for example, said, "I know the Republicans
care as much about the poor as we Democrats do. They just propose
different means of helping them"?
Has Daschle demanded that Al Gore apologize to Bush for
suggesting that the President is just a political warmonger and for
suggesting that he doesn't sufficiently care about our allies? Will
Daschle demand that Gray Davis cease his attacks on Bill Simon as
"anti-choice"(just because the Republican candidate is opposed to
abortion)?
Of course not. Democrats demand their opponents disarm, then
proceed to attack them with the same weapons. Gray Davis sees
nothing wrong with defaming Simon as a "right-wing extremist," even
though he knows perfectly well that Simon is a mild-mannered
mainstream Republican. But he is making this claim anyway, because
he needs to frighten liberals into going to the polls.
The Los Angeles Times reports that Davis, sated with
personal attacks against Simon, is moving on to ideological ones.
He is sending out mailers saying that "There's only one way to stop
Simon and his radical anti-choice agenda. Vote to protect your
rights."
It is doubtful that Daschle would disapprove. It is just
politics, he would say.
Daschle made it sound as if the President's comments about the
Senate's unwillingness to support his plans for the Department of
Homeland Security were nakedly political. In fact, the comments, by
Democratic rhetorical standards, were innocuous. He simply said
that the Senate "should not respond to special interests in
Washington, D.C. They ought to respond to this interest --
protecting the American people from future attack." He said "some
senators, not all senators, but some senators" were guilty of
playing politics with his bill.
What the Democrats accuse Bush of is on frequent display in
their own presentation. Just as Gore once displayed snippiness by
calling Bush "snippy," so Daschle demonstrates partisanship by
accusing Bush of it -- and by closing his eyes to all the invidious
attacks on conservatives from his colleagues.
It is easy to see why Democrats would be upset with someone
questioning their hearts. They almost always wear their heart on
their sleeve, and assume that it is a larger than their Republican
counterparts'. But Bush isn't scrutinizing their hearts. He is just
appropriately worried about the ideas floating in their heads.
topics:
Abortion, NATO