Title

This morning’s Wall Street Journal features essays by both the Republican (Melman) and the Democratic (Dean) chairmen of their respective parties. Here’s Howard Dean’s conclusion:

Democrats offer America a new direction in fiscal policy, for the middle class, and in the war in Iraq. We believe that America should work for everyone:

We will restore honesty in government, starting with the pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress that served Mr. Clinton so well. Balancing the Federal budget will be a high priority with concurrent limitation of spending. We will ease the burdens on middle class Americans and reverse Republican cuts in college tuition aid and health care. We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, including pension reform, and preventing the privatization of social security.

We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We will have a jobs agenda that includes good jobs that stay in America, a higher minimum wage and trade policies that benefit the global labor force, not just multinational corporations.

We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror. We also will close the gaps in our security here at home by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

We are ready to lead with a thoughtful, fiscally responsible long-term vision. We will reach out to all Americans who value hope over fear and begin moving the country forward again.

Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?

We will restore honesty in government. Uh, right. The party of Clinton ("I never had sex with that woman!"), Nagin ("Chocolate City"), Daley ("I never met a man who couldn’t be bribed"), La Guardia ("The machine is greased with green"), McGreevey ("I confess!"), and Jefferson ("Doesn’t everybody keep $100K in their freezer?") is going to restore honesty. Sure. I’ll buy that one, right about the same time the sun stops rising in the morning…

We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nice sentiment, hard to disagree with. But … this is from the party that consistently opposes expanding the exploitation of American sources of energy. Drilling in ANWAR, wind generation off Cape Cod, more oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico or off the Florida coast or off the California coast, oil extraction from shale and tar sands, coal mining, advanced nuclear power generation — you name the domestic energy program, and the Democratic party has long stood against it. And they still stand against it. So far as I can tell, the only domestic energy programs supported by the Democrats are those that don’t actually exist, or those that generate campaign financing from rich constituents (think Tom Daschle and his support for alcohol from corn). So now the Democrats are taking a completely opposing position? Nope, they still oppose all those programs I listed, and more. All they’re for is the warm sentiment, which I guess they hope will fool a bunch of voters into thinking they actually support a program that might, er, work. But no such luck, folks.

We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror. “Phased redeployment” is Democratic doublespeak for cut-and-run from Iraq — Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, and Reid have made this very clear by declaring, over and over, that our “redeployment” should be unconditional. Unconditional on winning the war, that is. They want us to leave, tails tucked firmly between our legs, and let Al Qaeda and Iran have Iraq. I wonder how they believe that’s “tough and smart", or even “tough or smart”. Sounds more like “wimpy and idiotic” to me, like we’d be joining the likes of their heroes, the Chiracian cheese-eating surrender-monkeys. And what, you may ask, do they mean by shoring up the efforts to attack Al Qaeda? Well, the only concrete proposals I’ve seen from the Democrats are to stop any productive intelligence efforts, to treat terrorists as common criminals rather than as an enemy in wartime, and to run (quickly) from anything that resembles armed confrontation. Closer to the truth would be to say that the Democrats have been for shoring up Al Qaeda’s capability to attack us!

About half of adult Americans believe the Democratic party best represents their political positions. Presumably those folks would be nodding their heads in agreement as they read Dean’s piece. That simple fact sums up my concerns about the future of America pretty well…