Classic Democrat?

Not to be found on the news anywhere (of course) is this story: former Congressman Robert Livingston (Louisiana) was asked by his Democratic colleagues to join them in criticizing President Bush for exercising too much power in the war on terror — and he refused:

Via (the excellent and essential) PowerLine:

... I have always considered you as a good friend, and I continue to do so. But since you raised it, I must tell you … I am emphatically on the other side of this issue.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. He is Constitutionally obligated to do everything possible in time of war to safeguard the American People. This tempest in a teapot about treatment of cowardly un-uniformed mass murderers and terror mongers, as well as restriction of his ability to monitor conversations of potential terrorists is in my view asinine, and I will have nothing to do with any effort that might be used to undermine his ability to keep us free from terrorism.

Indeed, we are at war with a most formidable and intractable enemy. He is insidious, cowardly, and bent on the destruction of all civilized society. Innocent men, women and children are cannon fodder in his eyes, and efforts such as the one you are sponsoring will be unappreciated by practitioners of his cause. This effort would have looked insane in Lincoln’s day, and he was far more intrusive in his practice than anything that has been envisioned today. Frankly, some Members of Congress and self-appointed leakers in the Executive Branch have put this country in grave danger with this very discussion. I have seen no evidence at all that American citizens have had their Constitutional 4th Amendment rights infringed upon (as they were in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon eras). Until such evidence is shown, I shall do nothing to keep this President from protecting American citizens from harm’s way.

PowerLine doesn’t say where they got the copy of the Mr. Livingston’s response, but given its complete absence on the news, I assume one of their readers sent it along.

Isn’t that response just magnificent?

But isn’t it sad that only Livingston, Miller, and Lieberman — out of the entire federal Democratic establishment — understand that the nation’s security is more important than partisan politics?

This leads me to an idea, though… I’d love to see the three of them spearhead a new national political party: the “Classic Democratic Party", as opposed to the “New Democratic Party” of Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer, Daschle, Reid, Clinton, and Carville. It would be so nice to have a real political debate with serious Classic Democrats such as these three men — and I would worry a lot less about the consequences of a Classic Democratic electoral victory than I do about the consequences of a New Democratic electoral victory…