Gay Patriot Header Image

12/12 Democrats

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:12 am - December 12, 2005.
Filed under: Bush-hatred

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the birth of the wing of the Democratic Party which now controls the party apparatus. And while the leaders of that wing do not speak for all Democrats, they have become the face (and voice) of the Democratic Party in President George W. Bush’s second term.

There is, however, a small group of Democrats who have bucked their party leadership. Las fall, some remained silent, while others openly supported the president’s reelection. One such Democrat is Tammy Bruce who, when addressing a gathering of the Wednesday Morning Club last month, called herself a 9/11 Democrat. Other such Democrats include former New York Mayor Ed Koch, former Georgia Senator Zell Miller, actor Ron Silver and blogger Roger Simon, who, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, could no longer trust the Democratic Party with our national security.

The seminal event for the great majority of Democrats, at least those who favor the party’s chair Howard Dean, did not occur on September 11, 2001, but nearly nine months earlier, five years ago today, on December 12, 2000, when the US Supreme Court handed down Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the endless cycle of Democratic-generated recounts in the Sunshine State and deciding the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Even after a ballot review “conducted by a consortium of news organizations” found that Bush would have won had the Supreme Court not reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s order to recount certain ballots, many Democrats and their allies believe Republicans stole the election of 2000. As Donald Luskin put it on National Review Online, “that George W. Bush stole the 2000 election is the creation-myth of the Angry Left — it is an article of religious faith not to be questioned.

And with their belief that the then-Texas Governor stole the election, they have made opposition to him a focus of their every effort. By contrast, 9/11 Democrats started turning toward the GOP because the terrorist attacks that day made them increasingly concerned about national security. 12/12 Democrats turned irrationally against the GOP and its standard bearer, George W. Bush, because they felt the Supreme Court’s decision that day amounted to stealing the election.

Since that date, with a brief interlude after the attacks of 9/11 (there was no interlude for such angry extremists as Michael Moore), these Democrats have stood primarily for opposition to President Bush. When their party controlled the Senate from June 2001 through December 2002, they held up consideration of many of the president’s nominees to federal appellate courts. And when Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2002, Democrats filibustered the nominees they most objected to, an unprecedented move in over two centuries of federal judicial nominations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has united House Democrats to oppose many of the president’s initiatives, even those that some once supported. To her, it’s not about making policy, it’s about opposing Bush.

They have compared the president to Hitler, accused him of lying in making his case for war (even though three studies have shown that he did not so deceive Congress and the American people) and leveled numerous accusations (nearly all of them unfounded) against this Republican, his closest advisors and even his defenders. During the 2004 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, the various candidates tried to outdo each other in their Bush-bashing, in order to catch up with the then-surging (and later faltering) Howard Dean. While candidates in such contested primaries normally use televisions ads to attack each other, those Democrats broadcast more ads attacking Bush than those taking on their then-adversaries.

Even after Dean failed to win a single state (save his own) in the primaries, after the elections, Democrats picked him as their new party chair, largely due to the zeal of his followers who adored their man for his relentless attacks on President Bush. He earned their devotion with such statements as “I hate Republicans and all they stand for.” Once elected party chairman, his rhetoric has been no different. He has since called Republicans “evil . . . corrupt . . . brain-dead.”

Instead of debate those whom he has defined as hateful automatons, he has repeatedly declined invitations to appear together with his Republican counterpart Ken Mehlman on Meet the Press. And when he does appear on such programs, while he offers the standard pablum about how he supports a strong national security, a good health care system, strong public education and other noble goals, he fails to offer specific policy proposals to further these ends.

Last month when NBC’s Tim Russert asked Dean, “What do the Democrats stand for?” Dean noted that the Democrats were out of power and that the American people would have to wait to learn their agenda. When Russert, himself a former Democratic Hill staffer, pressed the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean replied:

Right now it’s not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate. It’s our job is to stop this administration, this corrupt and incompetent administration, from doing more damage to America.

In shot, instead of offering specifics, he offered attacks.

To be sure, Howard Dean does not represent all Democrats, but he is the party’s de jure leader, elected chairman by its national committee. More than anyone, he embodies a 12/12 Democrat for whom venting one’s spleen against the current president of the United States appears to be the primary purpose of political discourse — and to which all other concerns are subordinate.

Today, we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the genesis of this wing of the party. While the Democrats may celebrate the rise of this wing or gnash their teeth that their nemesis is still president, I’m grateful that the American people decided last fall to reelect George W. Bush to a second term as president of the United States and to reject the angry opposition of John Kerry, Howard Dean and the 12/12 Democrats.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: LibertyCorner thinks I made A 32-Year Error. Holding that “The Democrat Party began its veer to the hard left in 1968,” he makes a good point, but since I see Bush-hatred at the focus of today’s Democrats, I find 12/12/2000 to be the significant date. Now that you’ve read my post, check his out and come to your own conclusion.

Share

19 Comments

  1. 9/11 Versus 12/12

    Dan of Gay Patriot compares and contrasts 9/11 Democrats and 12/12 Democrats. What is a 12/12 Democrat? Read the whole thing, as many 9/11 Democrats are wont to say….

    Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — December 12, 2005 @ 3:33 am - December 12, 2005

  2. And, ironically, one of the biggest organizations for Democrats who never got over 12-12-2000 calls itself “MoveOn.”

    Comment by V the K — December 12, 2005 @ 7:00 am - December 12, 2005

  3. Here is a slightly scary confession, with a good ending.

    I was a 12/12 Democrat. (1) I thought Bush was wrong to oppose recounts in a close election. And (2) I thought the selection of Florida’s electors should be up to Florida law and (if it came to this) Florida courts, meaning SCOTUS was wrong to jump in.

    On point (1), I now know I was wrong. Gore never asked for fair recounts; he purely tried to manipulate the process, just to produce a win for himself – NOT standing for the principle I wanted (counting every real vote). And Gore didn’t hesitate to throw out the absentee ballots of serving troops. And, as Dan points out, the major newspaper consortium found Bush still would have won even if Gore’s requested recounts had gone forward.

    I still haven’t made up my mind about point (2). Each state should choose its own electors, under its rules (however dumb), officials and court reviews – that’s the whole point of the Electoral College system. And again, as we now know, Bush would have won anyway, had the requested Florida recounts gone forward. So I still think you can make a strong case that SCOTUS was wrong to jump in.

    Having been a 12/12 Democrat, I later became a 9/11 Democrat and ultimately (where I am today) a 9/11 Independent. So that’s the good ending. I realized the true value of Freedom and of the people defending it and (our best long-term defense) seeking to spread it to others.

    Comment by Calarato — December 12, 2005 @ 11:06 am - December 12, 2005

  4. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the best things that could happen to the Republican party right now. The more they babble, the more voters we get.

    Comment by rightwingprof — December 12, 2005 @ 11:08 am - December 12, 2005

  5. […] Gay Patriot notes that today is the 5 year anniversary of the END of the 2000 election and compares 12/12 liberals to 9/11 conservatives. An interesting piece. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » Your lunchtime reading list… — December 12, 2005 @ 1:04 pm - December 12, 2005

  6. #4 — Indeed. The Democrat party only remains united as long as it remains just an echo chamber for Bush-hatred. If they articulate alternative policies, they begin to crack up. (cf. The “Retreat and Defeat” coalition is splintering over whether to surrender to al Qaeda immediately, next week, next month, or next year.) And look at the way the true-blue-believers are turning on Hillary and Lieberman. Ouch!

    Now, imagine the Democrat party trying to put together an economic plan… tax increases will scare off the centrists, while the true-blues will demand tax increases and spending increases… which will turn off the unmedicated proportion of the electorate. They’ll also have to articulate an immigration policy, but if they call for more border enforcement, their far-left will call them racists. If they call for more open borders, they’ll alienate 70-80% of the electorate that favors border control.

    The Democrats can’t articulate policy proposals because what their leadership and far-left base wants is unacceptable to far more numerous mainstream voters, and vice-versa. Bush hatred really is the only thing Democrats can agree on.

    Comment by V the K — December 12, 2005 @ 1:13 pm - December 12, 2005

  7. You hit it exactly, V the K. Liberals are championing the “victories” of Kaine in Virginia and Corzine in NJ, but what they are forgetting is that both of those individuals ran on platforms that are completely antithetical to what the Moveon.org/Howie Dean groups want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2005 @ 1:29 pm - December 12, 2005

  8. I was a 12/12 Democrat. (1) I thought Bush was wrong to oppose recounts in a close election. And (2) I thought the selection of Florida’s electors should be up to Florida law and (if it came to this) Florida courts, meaning SCOTUS was wrong to jump in.

    I actually still agree with your points above. Gore was certainly trying to manipulate the results, but the GOP was doing the same thing. And I find it amusing that an Administration put into place by judicial activism now campaigns so strongly against it.

    The fact is that during the 2000 election our Democracy got caught with our pants down and our great big butt up in the air. We have always known their were problems at the state level in terms of accuracy and accountability. We just ignored it because it never caused a statistically large enough wrong count of votes to make a difference. So we ended up with a big mess in FL. But thats “the people’s” mess, it was wrong for the SCOTUS to come in and “fix” it. Our Democracy, full of checks and balances is deliberately messy and inefficient. Quick solutions are not its forte. But the SCOTUS interfered and gave us one. Truly, they are the ones who “stole” the election, not the candidates. It also demonstrated that several “conservatives” on the court today believe in judical restraint only when it suits them.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 12, 2005 @ 2:03 pm - December 12, 2005

  9. As a non-Bush fan from the very day he announced his intention to run for President, I do not find much comfort in Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and the like…not because I think they are wrong to oppose many things the Bush Administration has done over the last five years, but because they are so ineffective at making what, to me, seems a logical and simple argument to make regarding why Bush is an ineffective leader and his administration is full of neocon, warmongering trash. I thought John Kerry was a terrible choice when it should have been fairly easy to find someone who could have countered Bush through the 2004 election year. It makes you wonder how these people have jobs at all!?

    In general, I’m tired of the entire bunch and wish they’d all go away, on both sides of the aisle. It’s time for a new generation of leadership in this country. One who has the balls to know what to do to keep us secure (without putting us trillions into unnecessary debt or solving personal vendettas against tyrants under the guise of fighting terrorism) as well as balancing security needs with the economic stability that this country no longer has. I’m not sure either party has a very good plan to get us there.

    Time for a new party? 9/11 Independents sounds nice to me. In any case, please let us stop settling for half wit C average students with a resume that wouldn’t land them a job as a bank teller and stop electing legacies and start electing people (Republican or Democrat) who are actually qualified to lead this country. And that means more than a cowboy hat and big balls or a fat pocketbook.

    Comment by Britton — December 12, 2005 @ 2:20 pm - December 12, 2005

  10. We just ignored it because it never caused a statistically large enough wrong count of votes to make a difference. So we ended up with a big mess in FL. But thats “the people’s” mess, it was wrong for the SCOTUS to come in and “fix” it. Our Democracy, full of checks and balances is deliberately messy and inefficient. Quick solutions are not its forte. But the SCOTUS interfered and gave us one. Truly, they are the ones who “stole” the election, not the candidates. It also demonstrated that several “conservatives” on the court today believe in judical restraint only when it suits them.

    I would disagree, Gryph, and here’s why:

    — Election activities, although managed by the state, are under Federal rule and Federal law

    — What the Florida Supreme Court did, and what the Florida Legislature would have had to do, was to change election law after an election but prior to the results being certified under the existing law. What the SCOTUS did in that case was simply reassert the fact that you cannot change laws in an attempt to influence the results of an ongoing election, which is and should be a cornerstone of our democracy.

    In short, the “people” can argue that the system is flawed, but it is the Court’s purvey to say, as we Southerners do, that you have to run with what you brung. You can change it before you run, or after you run, but not during your run.

    To summarize, the SCOTUS decision was not judicial activism in the least. It was the Court saying that the Constitution does not give the states the right to change election law by any means DURING the course of an election.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 12, 2005 @ 2:55 pm - December 12, 2005

  11. #8 – Gryph – The problem with that analysis is, Bush was always opposed to judicial activism. In acting as he did, he was legitimately opposing Gore’s judicial activism – which, as you have agreed with me, was highly manipulative and subversive of the election’s true result, that Bush did get more votes in Florida.

    The mistake was made by SCOTUS acting as precipitously as they did.

    What I wanted in that election (and I still think this was the right thing), was a statewide recount in Florida under uniform vote-counting standards (as to how to count overvotes, undervotes, hanging chads, etc.). Gore was as opposed to that as Bush was. (Again, because Gore wanted a highly selective recount, or a manipulated result.)

    SCOTUS could have said “The Constitution guarantees every state a republican form of government including one man, one vote. The Florida SC ruling in favor of Gore’s manipulated recount clearly violates that. We hereby order the Florida SC to choose between either a statewide recount under a uniform standard, or no recount.”

    Instead, SCOTUS said “We order no recount period, as of now” which I don’t think was the right (or best) decision.

    It’s almost moot because, as the newspaper consortium found, Bush still would have won under the majority of vote counting standards (uniform or otherwise).

    Except, it isn’t quite moot, because as a result of NOT having had a truly legitimate recount (under a uniform, statewide standard, again) giving Bush the election, we have had to put up with 5 years of Angry Left freaks and their paranoid conspiracy theories.

    Comment by Calarato — December 12, 2005 @ 3:16 pm - December 12, 2005

  12. Also Gryph – a philosophical point –

    NDT’s response to you reminds me of the difference between “judicial activism” and “judicial action”. There is a difference. One is mandated by the Constitution, the other is not.

    We would do well to define the difference, before throwing around accusations of hypocrisy about “judicial activism”.

    Surely it is a difference you admit. So please give me your working definition of “judicial action” as opposed to “judicial activism” (or vice versa).

    Then we can decide which one the SCOTUS action in the 2000 election falls under.

    Let me refine and re-state my view as follows: For SCOTUS to review (and possibly reverse) the Florida SC decision was judicial action, not judicial activism.

    SCOTUS simply made mistakes in their decision – they simply gave us a poorly reasoned decision that had unfortunate consequences – the negative consequence being, NOT that Bush was installed (which would and should have happened anyway, on the votes), but that SCOTUS went too far and itself cast a whiff of “illegitimacy” onto Bush, that Bush didn’t deserve.

    Comment by Calarato — December 12, 2005 @ 3:33 pm - December 12, 2005

  13. “Well I would say that in the year 2000, the country failed abysmally in the presidential election process. There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.” — Jimmy Carter

    Thanks, Jimbo, for reminding us why you were not only America’s worst president, you are also America’s worst ex-president.

    Comment by V the K — December 12, 2005 @ 4:07 pm - December 12, 2005

  14. I honestly didn’t care who won at the time (though I was praising God it wasn’t Gore on 9-11) and it was just weird to watch. It seemed entirely obvious that with votes so close the margin of error was going to be greater than the margin of victory. Coming down on the wrong side of that just seemed like bad luck. Could have been either one of them. That Gore didn’t respond to the things falling out the way they did seemed poor form at the least. So we counted… and that wasn’t good enough, so we counted again, and again, and… people started talking about how people made mistakes using the voting machines, and anything else they could think of (as if accidentally pulling the wrong lever is something that can be undone later) and by the time it was all over all the crying about how Bush *stole* the election sounded like nothing more than sour grapes because Gore had tried everything he could think of and *failed to steal it*.

    Without a horse in the race (and I’d have been perfectly happy with Gore at the time) the “steal the election” accusations seemed beyond moronic and all the way to delusional. And Gore seemed a petulant baby.

    Comment by Synova — December 12, 2005 @ 8:37 pm - December 12, 2005

  15. “Liberals are championing the “victories” of Kaine in Virginia and Corzine in NJ, but what they are forgetting is that both of those individuals ran on platforms that are completely antithetical to what the Moveon.org/Howie Dean groups want.”

    Or maybe they are remembering just that and seeing it as a defeat for their clueless leadership. It takes a good, healthy Ex-Lax defeat to clear some situations up sometimes.

    “Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the best things that could happen to the Republican party right now.’

    Which is why a defeat for them is good for the liberal cause.

    “Bush hatred really is the only thing Democrats can agree on. ”

    Bingo, V the K, and until that gets flushed out of their system, they (we)are going nowhere.

    Comment by Jim — December 13, 2005 @ 6:27 pm - December 13, 2005

  16. The mistake was made by SCOTUS acting as precipitously as they did.

    Four days is “precipitously”? Should they have taken 3-6 months to review it first?

    I really am amazed at some of the Bush won, but… comments.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 14, 2005 @ 12:50 am - December 14, 2005

  17. Dec. 12 left close to 4 weeks before Electoral College met on Jan. 6…..If I remember correctly, Florida could have done a STATEWIDE recount under a UNIFORM standard (the right thing to do) in about one to two weeks. SCOTUS should have ordered or requested that, and yes, acted precipitously in not doing so. With Bush the victim, if you think about it.

    Comment by Calarato — December 14, 2005 @ 4:18 am - December 14, 2005

  18. […] Related: 12/12 Democrats. […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Pillars of the Modern Democratic Party — June 5, 2008 @ 4:45 pm - June 5, 2008

  19. […] immediately seek to increase spending in response to every social problem.  It seems the 12/12 Democrats have a different kind of reaction every time, they or the nation hits a speed bump (or something […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Cost of “Stimulus” Increases; Democrats Blame Canada Bush — January 26, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - January 26, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.