Why I Am a Democrat - Mark Warner

I am not sure how many have ever read or heard the speech by Mark Warner on "Why He is a Democrat". Here it is.


Why I am a Democrat, by Gov Mark Warner

"...In Washington the last couple of years, we've seen lots of talk, but few results. And we're heading in the wrong direction.

The last time we had a Democratic President, America saw the first budget surpluses in a generation.

Just three years later, the Republicans' own numbers show a future filled with deficits as far as the eye can see.

The last time we had a Democratic President, unemployment fell to record lows. But today it climbs a little higher every month.

The last time we had a Democratic President, the stock market soared. Today, it just sputters.

In 2000, America was promised something called "compassionate conservatism." And you know - that sounded familiar to a lot of us in the South. We had been saying for a long time - balance the budget, but not on the backs of working people.

But they meant something else - and all we got was more of the same....

Virginia hasn't voted for a Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. When I ran for Governor, the Republicans controlled both houses in the legislature and every statewide office - and the White House picked our Governor to run the Republican National Committee.
And despite those odds, we won because we built a new coalition of Virginians.

We did that by laying out a message that focused on meeting the needs of an information age economy - a message that stressed economic opportunity, educational opportunities, and fiscal responsibility.

We started with the most loyal Democrats. We said to African Americans and to working people - We know that you have been taken for granted in the past. Those days are over. You will help lead this team.

We said, we're going to bring people together - just like Governor Winter showed us how to do here in Mississippi.

And then we reached out to Virginians in rural communities - to people who hadn't voted for a Democrat in a long, long time. And we asked them to give us a chance.

In a 21st century economy, you can be successful anywhere - if you have a good education and job skills.

We talked about giving young people the chance to get a good job in the place they grew up. Because you shouldn't have to leave your family or your hometown to get ahead.

We said, Virginia will never prosper if all the good jobs are in one area, and other places get left behind.

And then we said something that a lot of people had never thought of - you can like NASCAR - you can like hunting - you can like bluegrass music - and you can still vote for a Democrat.
We did all this because we recognized that if you're going to offer people economic hope, you can't spend all your time talking about the same old social issues that have divided us for too long.

You can't move forward if every discussion is about abortion and guns.

Those are all important issues, and we can't ignore them. But they create passion that often distracts us from more fundamental issues.

And let me say it again - if we can do it in Virginia, we can do it for America.

We have to do it for America. Because America deserves better than failed fiscal policy. America deserves better than an economy that leaves millions of people and whole communities behind.
And Democrats offer better. We offer optimism, and we offer hope for the future.

Now as you might guess, a lot of Republicans and Independents supported us. And since then, a lot of them have asked me, Mark - Why exactly are you a Democrat?

And I just smile. Because if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

I am a Democrat because since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence - and since Jackson spoke for the common man - our party has never been the party of the status quo.
Instead, we have been the ones to see a challenge - and do something about it. Let's be honest - it hasn't always worked perfectly. Sometimes it has gotten us in trouble. Sometimes it has split us apart. But sometimes, those are the wages of progress.

And yet, I am a Democrat because the greatest and most noble political experiments of our time had their birth in our party.

I am a Democrat because the New Deal literally saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.

I am a Democrat because fighting for working men and women is always the right fight.

I am a Democrat because our party led the struggle for civil rights and because we recognize that discrimination and bigotry are not dead - and that we must continue to seek equal opportunity for all.

I am a Democrat because despite our failures, our missteps, and our excesses - we know that waging a war on poverty does not mean fighting the individuals who are poor.

I am a Democrat because we know that today's battle is about the future versus the past - and it's time to put aside yesterday's battles of us versus them.

I am a Democrat because we know that criticizing success won't create a single job.

And most of all, I am a Democrat because when my three daughters go out into the world to make their lives, I want them to find a world where there's less hopelessness - less selfishness - and less violence.

I want them to find a world where there is more opportunity - more understanding - and more hope.

That is the mission of this party.
That is what we work for.
That is why we get up every morning.
That is why we're here tonight.
And our work is not done."

Bad News Day for Bush

Am I biased against Resident bush? No, it is not that I am biased against bush. It is the facts that are biased against bush.

Check out, in just one day, articles in major newspapers today. Now, if we could only get people to read newspapers again!!! From the WAPO and NY Times.

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418.html

Libby Testified He Was Told To Leak Data About Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902117.html

White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm

http://nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html?hp&ex=1139634000&en=914abcf6c2b5fc5a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. Trade Deficit Hits All-Time High

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021000531.html

Just another day for the most dishonest, corrupt and incompetent administration in my lifetime!

FDR vs. bush

America was attacked on December 7th, 1941. President Roosevelt calmed a nation as it prepared for war. "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". In less than 4 years, the war machine of Nazi Germany was defeated and the Empire of Japan surrendered.

Fast forward to a speech given today by bush. In the speech, the words "terror", "terrorist" or "terrorism" was said 94 times!!!! We have gone for the lofty and comforting words of FDR to a president who must use and spread fear to keep his approval rating from falling into the 20's or low 30's.

By the way, we are now 4 1/2 years removed from the attacks of September 11th. The head of a small, but deadly, terrorist organization is still at large. I read a provocative opinion piece recently that opined the bushtanistas allowed Bin Laden and Al Qaida leadership to escape from Tora Bora, because if killed or in prison, bush could not pull him/them out of the hat, politically speaking, when required.

Interesting. Whether you believe such a hypothesis or not, "The only thing we have is fear itself". Sad indeed.

Uh Oh... Watergate Replay in BushWorld?

Whodathunkit.

Guess what little bombshell was dropped in a letter from Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's lawyer. In answering a request to turn over some evidence, Fitzgerald writes...

"In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Read the entire account in this LA Times link

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak2feb02,0,2525161.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

Bush Speaks... Just Don't Believe Him

Just another day in the bizarro world that is the Unites States under bush.

Yesterday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman admitted that when President Bush said that he had a plan to cut America’s dependence on Middle East oil by 75 percent, he didn’t really mean it:

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America’s dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn’t mean it literally.

Here are some other statements by Bush that are not to be taken literally –
Bush, 4/20/04:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
Bush, 6/10/04:

Q Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to —
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Bush, 9/15/05:
And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.

President Bush, 1/11/06:
[W]hen an American President says something, he better mean it….in order to be able to have credibility in this world, when we speak, we better mean what we say.
You’re on notice: don’t take Bush at his word. He may just be using words as a metaphor to represent something completely different.

What Real Reporting Looks Like

You will never see this type of reporting by the multi-millon dollar talking heads on television. These people are so joined at the hip, they will allow lies and misrepresentation take root because they won't challange those in power. Oprah Winfrey tears into an author of a book she promoted because he changed some facts in it. When will the talking heads on television grow the balls of Oprah Winfrey and call these people on their lies.

Some newspaper people still have the good sense. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people read the papers. Take a look at this wonderful report in the LA Times exposing the bunk the bushtanistas threw out about the NSA domestic spying program and other bunk last night

NEWS ANALYSIS

Bush Stretches to Defend Surveillance

The president's justification for his spy program has disputable roots, as do some of the facts and figures he put forth in his speech.

By Peter Wallsten and Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — President Bush received a roaring ovation Tuesday for his prime-time defense of wiretapping phone calls without warrants. But Bush's explanation relied on assumptions that have been widely questioned by experts who say the president offers a debatable interpretation of history.Defending the surveillance program as crucial in a time of war, Bush said that "previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority" that he did. "And," he added, "federal courts have approved the use of that authority."

Bush did not name names, but was apparently reiterating the argument offered earlier this month by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, who invoked Presidents Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt for their use of executive authority.

However, warrantless surveillance within the United States for national security purposes was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 — long after Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt stopped issuing orders. That led to the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Bush essentially bypassed in authorizing the program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since the surveillance law was enacted, establishing secret courts to approve surveillance, "the Supreme Court has not touched this issue in the area of national security," said William Banks, a national security expert at Syracuse Law School.

"He might be speaking in the broadest possible sense about the president exercising his authority as commander-in-chief to conduct a war, which of course federal courts have upheld since the beginning of the nation," Banks said. "If he was talking more particularly about the use of warrantless surveillance, then he is wrong."

Bush's historical reference on domestic spying marked one of several points in his speech in which he backed up assertions with selective uses of fact, or seemed to place a positive spin on his own interpretation.

The president echoed earlier administration assertions that the domestic surveillance program would have been useful before the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush said two Sept. 11 hijackers living in San Diego made telephone calls to Al Qaeda associates overseas, but that "we did not know about their plans until it was too late." However, The Times has previously reported that some U.S. counterterrorism officials knowledgeable about the case blame an interagency communications breakdown, not a surveillance failure or shortcomings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

On his headline-grabbing pledge to decrease U.S. reliance on Middle East oil by 75% over the next 20 years, Bush's words seemed to suggest a dramatic new program to reduce dependence on foreign oil.But experts point out that the U.S. gets only a fraction — about 10% — of its oil imports from the Middle East. In fact, the majority now comes from Canada and Mexico — and Bush said nothing on Tuesday about them.

Speaking about Iraq, Bush argued that "our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration." But he may have left the wrong impression about how far U.S.-led forces have gotten in closing off the huge border areas, especially the 375-mile-long one between Syria and Iraq.

Administration officials have often complained that the Syrian government does little to police the border and have said it may not be possible to close it, given its size.

Two weeks ago, Rep. H. James Saxton (R-N.J.), chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee, complained in a column in the Washington Times that the border is "extremely porous" and called for new steps to cut off the flow of enemy fighters.

Bush made a number of claims for his economic stewardship that were technically accurate but told only a part of the story."In the last 2 1/2 years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs," Bush said. Although the claim is essentially true, he did not say that the United States lost 2.6 million jobs in the first 2 1/2 years of his presidency.

"In the last five years," Bush continued, "the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses and families, and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth." But to many economists, the cause-and-effect relationship is not so stark; they credit tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 with helping to turn around a stagnant economy, but now they worry that the resulting deficits may retard it."

Every year of my presidency, we have reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending," Bush said. True again, but this represents less than 20% of all spending. Including defense and the giant benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare, spending has risen by about 30% in the five Bush years.

The president also seemed to ignore Supreme Court precedent when he called for Congress to give him the "line item veto." But Congress did that once, in 1996, and it was used once, by former President Clinton. But in 1998, a federal judge ruled that it was unconstitutional. That was affirmed by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court.

Bush praised his administration's efforts to help the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Katrina. "A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency, and stays at it until they are back on their feet," he said. But Bush omitted any mention of tensions between Gulf State officials and the administration over responsibility for the botched response to the storm. "There was nothing in terms of new money," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

*Times staff writers Richard B. Schmitt, Josh Meyer, Janet Hook, Nicole Gaouette, Joel Havemann, Paul Richter and researcher Robin Cochran in Washington contributed to this report.