Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
David Limbaugh :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bankrupt
by David Limbaugh
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


Dear Readers: I have a new book coming out, and I think it's probably the most important book I've written so far. It's titled "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party." And here's why I think it's so important -- and why it must be read before the upcoming elections.

The sad fact is: The oldest continuous political party in the world is bankrupt. While the Republican Party is far from perfect and could do much better on immigration, domestic spending, and other issues, it does stand for principles beyond winning. It is the only party that can be safely entrusted with the most important issue of our day: the War on Terror. What weaknesses it has could be vastly reduced with a renewed commitment to conservative ideals across the board.

Democrats, on the other hand, have few policies beyond attacking President Bush and have long lost any legitimate right to claim they are a responsible opposition party. The "Scoop Jackson" Democrats of the 1970s who understood the need for a strong national defense are long gone, with few exceptions, like Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose responsible statements on the war have led to his ostracism by the party elites. The 1970s Catholic, Southern, and blue-collar Democrats who stuck by their traditional moral values are now mostly "Reagan Republicans."

In their desperation to regain the power they held for decades, Democrats have seized on a few isolated scandals and manufactured others, trying to paint Republicans as fostering a culture of corruption. But the real systemic corruption is in the Democratic Party, from its highest positions of leadership to the bowels of its Bush-hating, antiwar base.

The party's decline took firm root in the late 1960s and 1970s, but has accelerated dramatically over the last decade. Today's Democratic Party -- the party of Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Joseph Biden, Edward Kennedy, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is the party that sacrificed all moral principle to defend Bill Clinton in the 1990s no matter what the scandal. It is the party that adopted the Clinton mode of conducting politics as an art of personal assassination -- while accusing the other side of doing it.

It is the party that tried to steal the presidential election in 2000, then convinced itself that Republicans did steal it -- and has been paralyzed with bitterness and conducting revenge politics ever since. It is the party that demands bipartisanship and reconciliation, but whips President Bush with the olive branch he extended at their behest.

It is the party whose ex-presidents routinely violate the long-standing tradition against criticizing their successors -- and even do so on foreign soil.

It is the party that falsely claims President Bush is trampling on the Constitution -- while making no secret of its own willingness to subordinate the Constitution to its own political ends, most notably through using the judicial branch to "legislate" policy it cannot achieve through democratic means.

It is the party that isn't honest about its core convictions, knowing that honesty will render it even less electable in a center-right America. It denies its liberalism in favor of the euphemistic "progressivism." But while "progressive" implies "forward-looking," Democrats are mired in the past, reactionary on issues from Social Security (don't change a bankrupt system) to Iraq (don't defeat a hostile dictatorship and try to make it a democracy).

It is the party of elites who look down their noses at red-state America. It is the party that snubs Christians and "values" voters yet claims to be their authentic representatives. It is the party that can't decide whether its electoral difficulties stem from its failure to effectively articulate its message or from the wholesale stupidity of an electorate that's too Christian, too much in favor of traditional family values, and too patriotic.

It is the party that often doesn't even bother to offer alternative policies, but chooses instead to slander President Bush and obstruct his policies. In the last few decades the party has increasingly engaged in the destructive partisan politics of class and race warfare, further alienating and dividing Americans. But it has sunk to new lows more recently with the egregious practice of playing partisan politics with our national security.

My book, whose introduction I've adapted for this column, is an indictment of today's Democrats -- in their own words, and meticulously documented -- revealing them to be a party of moral and intellectual bankruptcy with little promise of redemption in sight. Our country needs a responsible opposition party -- a party willing to participate in an honest policy debate -- but sadly, the Democrats fall way short of the mark.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read David Limbaugh's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Kali - I read it
Kali -
I hope you are always treated with respect in this forum. As long as one conducts themselves sensibly that should be the case. Unfortunately, it seems others on your side of the political spectrum seem to deem disagreement as anaolgous to hatred, etc. Glad you don't.
I read and re-read the information you pasted. I suspect it is lifted from Atlantic Monthly or the Economist judged upon the clarity and sincerity of the author. I did not see evidence of a violaion of the Constitution as you suggested - just the mechanations used to arrive at the decisions of the 'Court'. Good writers can still be wrong so I will again pose the question -

"What Constitutional article or amendment did the Supreme Court violate?" Specifically, which one or ones?

The vaunted New York Times spent $3 million dollars in their own recount of the votes and came up with 'Bush won'. Conservatives would likely expect the greatest of effort for the Gray Lady to come up with a contrary outcome but to it's disappointment was not able to do so.

That some have not been able to 'move-on' beyond the 2000 and 2004 elections is puzzling in light of the 'Move-on.org' movement (and a fatigued president Clinton) who both chastened conservatives to do just that when the chips were down for them.

Or course the next tangent beyond Bush 'cheated' is that Bush 'lied'. Sorry, these claims sound a bit to schoolyardish to me. Both now, disproven remnents of Bush detractors who are just plain unable to move on. Folks on this side see this as pesky insistence that folks on your side 'can do it better'.
Frankly, Kali, I'd like to see the plan before I join the revolution.
Best,
Coach

Coach....
....don't worry, you're not the only one to pick on me in here. But that's ok, I can take it. But thanks for the consideration.

I am going to cut and paste writings that are relevent rather than try and put this in my own words.

Recount ordered by the Florida supreme court. On December 8th, 2000, the Florida supreme court ordered a recount of all undervote ballots throughout the entire state. This means counties that favored Bush as well as counties that favored Gore would have recounts. Thus, the ordered recount would not, on its face, favor Gore nor "harm" Bush

Recount stayed by the US Supreme Court. On December 9th, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the Florida court's ruling in which Justice Scalia declared that a continuation of the recount of all undervotes in all Florida counties would threaten irreparable harm to Bush by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. In other words, although the election had not yet been decided, Justice Scalia was presupposing that Bush had won the election, had a right to win it, and any recount that showed Gore got more votes in Florida than Bush could "cloud" Bush's presidency

Legal standing to sue and "harm" to Bush. In most every equal protection case, the case is brought by the party being harmed. In the case of the Florida election, the party harmed according to the equal protection clause would be the voter who was treated differently from other voters. No such voter brought suit. Instead George W. Bush sued under the equal protection clause. He claimed the recount would harm him. But Bush could only be "harmed" if the recount favored Gore or if he somehow had a legitimate claim to the presidency and a recount would change that. Since the recount was for all counties, there was just as much chance for the vote to go Bush's way as for Gore's. What legitimate claim to the presidency did Bush have? An incomplete tally of only the machine-counted votes? "But the votes were counted twice; they didn't have to be counted again," was heard. However, the absentee votes were still being counted. "All legal votes had been counted." Just because a machine did not count a vote doesn't mean the vote was not a legal, valid vote. As a further and defining note, the Court has ruled in numerous prior cases that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies where the discrimination is intentional. No intentional discrimination was ever suggested in the case in Florida.

The Court's "deadline" of midnight on December 12th to have the Florida vote count finalized was not a true deadline but an excuse to end the recount. If a state certifies its electors by December 12th, Congress can't question them. If a state does not make that deadline, nothing happens. The counting could continue. In 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose one on January 4th. The appropriate US Code merely provides rules for Congress to follow when there is a conflict. Nothing in the rules prohibit a state from counting legal votes until a bonafide winner is determined. And just because votes were not counted by a punch card reader or optical scanner does not mean they were not legal votes. A legal vote based on Florida state laws and legal precedent is a vote which clearly shows the intent of the voter.

In other words, there was plenty of time to allow the Florida Supreme Court to set standards and complete a recount. The recount called for by the Florida court on December 8th was on a pace to be completed on the 10th or 11th of December, at the latest. But then the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the counting. Even if the recount had to be started over with specific standards, there were six days remaining before the Electoral Collage was to meet. Even that date, December 18th, was not a final deadline for determining electors based on the 1960 precedent.

The Supreme Court should not have heard, much less ruled, on Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court's minority in their dissents and numerous "liberal" and "conservative" legal scholars agree that the Court should never have agreed to consider Bush v. Gore and should not have granted Bush's request to stay the manual recount

The 12th ammendment to the constitution, ratified in 1804 states: "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President." So the Supreme Court should have either not have interferred with the Florida Supreme Court, or they should have let the House of Representatives elect Mr. Bush, which they probably would have done anyway. (It is interesting to note that Bush was not elected by the people in 2004, that the House voted for Bush, not the people.)

I hope this makes some sense Coach.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State: