The Democratic Party and History

Who said the following, and about what?

(I'm removing any name or date that might indicate who said what and when)

1. "[The] President (name removed) is a fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism” and a “worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero… The man who votes for (name removed) now is a traitor and murderer..."

2. "Nero has indeed returned, but not as Nero the Roman emperor. He's returned in spirit as (name removed), the (removed) (P)resident of the United States.."

Amusing? #1 was a Democrat, speaking for his party, in 1864, talking of Abraham Lincoln.
#2 was a Democrat, speaking for his party, in 2006, of George Bush.

Now consider some more rhetoric:

3. "Edward G. Roddy, owner of the Uniontown, Pennsylvania, Genius of Liberty was an intensely partisan Democrat who saw blacks as an inferior race and Abraham Lincoln as a despot and dunce." -- spoken by a Democratic Party activist about Lincoln and about black people...

4. "That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war..." So spoke George McClellan, Democratic Party candidate for President in 1864, in the Party's platform. He continued, to "demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end..."

5. "The Union's recent military victories took some of the wind out of the sails of the peace issue, although Democrats continued to insist that the destruction of slavery was neither desirable nor necessary to win the war. In attacking Lincoln's policy on emancipation, the state's Democratic leaders aggressively played the race card and appealed to anti-black feeling in the state. Anti-black racism had always been part of the Democratic party's stock-in-trade."

6. "If (name removed) were victorious, the American people would bid "farewell to civil liberty, to a republican form of government, and to the unity of these states...." Spoken by: the State Journal (IL), echoing sentiments of the Democratic Party and its Peace factions. The year? Sounds like the Present... but it's, again, 1864

7. "This president purposely led us into an unnecessary war. Using proper diplomacy and compromise, this useless war could have been avoided all together." Sound like the Democratic Party that's running Congress today? Nope. This was the Democrats talking about Lincoln and the Civil War... where they argued that the war was hopeless and couldn't be won (even though it was won less than a year after the 1864 election) and that peace should come immediately (which in turn would have left the Confederate States of America intact).

I was wondering if the almost rabid inclination toward labelling almost any war as "unnecessary", "a waste", and if demonizing their opponents ("like Nero"; "murderer"; "Hitler"; "the biggest terrorist", etc) were new to the Democratic Party, or if it was ingrained in that party.

Given the literal mirroring of the rhetoric of the Democratic Party of 1864 and the one currently running Congress (2007), I have to say... nope, not new. The Democratic Party has always been rabidly anti-military, always demonized their opponents, and regarded even the Civil War as a "useless, unnecessary war".

And that is really frightening. They haven't learned anything in a century and a half. They haven't even changed their rhetoric. Or their tactics.

Politicians, Promises... and How Not To Behave

Well, I find the current goings-on in Washington, D.C., to be as dismal as ever... or perhaps moreso. During the campaign we heard from Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker of the House, that a Democratic House would be "more non-partisan and more open", that it would "involve the minority better than the Republicans involved" the Dems.

That was the campaign, a time when promises are made and, apparently, are never intended in the first place to be fulfilled.

The current Nancy Pelosi, now that the necessities of campaigning are in the past (for the moment), has said she is going to force the rules for the "first 100 hours" to completely prevent the Republicans from having any say, going to change the rules so no Republican can offer any amendments, and basically turn the House of Representatives into a Democrats-only club.

This should upset even the most stalwart liberals (those who actually put substance and integrity and the integrity of the system ahead of Political advantage), as it achieves one very damning and damaging thing:

It says to the people whom the 201 Republicans (out of 435) that they have no right to have any say or to participate in the democratic process, because Ms. Pelosi and the Dems have decided to rewrite the rules in order to lock them out. Think about that: roughly 47% of the population of the U.S. is effectively being told: your participation is not allowed, thanks for voting, now shut up and sit down. If a Republican dared to even dream up a scenario like that, the press and the Dems would be blasting him/her from all sides, calling such a move "undemocratic" and that it would "undermine the system".

Where are those quotes from? Democrats in the House and Senate, who, for the past few years, have accused Republicans of "running roughshod" over them and calling what the Republicans did "undemocratic" and "undermining the very fabric of our political system." The rub: the Dems had full representation on the committees (Ms. Pelosi has said that no bill will enter a committee, in order to get around actually having to listen to anyone else's opinion about the bills she's pushing) and they NEVER had their right to add amendments to bills removed. And still the Mainstream Media and the Dems complained about how "unfair" the Republicans were.

Using their standard, what they themselves are now doing should be "undemocratic" and therefore, given that they are doing something that the Republicans in the 1994 tidal wave never dared to do and are shutting out the representatives of 201 districts (and thereby shutting out the people of those districts from having their fair say in the governing of this country, as per the Constitution), it should very definitely be seen as "undermining the very fabric of our political system."

Repugnant is what I call it. And the mainstream media? Total silence. Except for the ocassional clap... for the Dems very undemocratic move of locking out 201 districts worth of Americans from having any representation.

Repugnant doesn't actually cover it. It's beneath contempt... and exactly what I expected from Ms. Pelosi. After all, she made political headlines by promising to "bring in a new era of bipartisanship" and to "involve the Republicans in the governing of the country."

Not that she ever intended on actually having to keep her words. That would be honest. That would be ethical.

What she's doing now... is neither.