The Democrat 'Scandal Du Jour' Strategy

Behind closed doors, prominent Democrats were no doubt livid that Saddam Hussein would tread so clumsily upon their sacred turf, claiming 'abuse' at the hands of his American captors. Who does he think he is? It is their prerogative, and theirs alone, to make such accusations in an ongoing effort to discredit President Bush and the Republicans.

By such gratuitous imitation, Hussein essentially removed the facade from the Democrats' 2006 mid—term election strategy. Henceforth, Democrat chances of gaining further political ground by continually focusing on ostensible misbehavior among prison guards will ring a bit hollow. It is no wonder that this episode of 'prisoner abuse' received far less coverage than those grossly exaggerated, and often fabricated stories from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Furthermore, the transparency of Hussein's antics, and the obvious purpose they are intended to serve, spotlight the equally empty antics of this country's liberal political establishment. Ultimately, Hussein has become a very unwelcome caricature of the entire Democrat agenda.

Immediately upon House Majority Leader Tom Delay's indictment in Texas by Travis County prosecutor and political hack Ronnie Earle, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.—CA) accused Republicans of fomenting a 'culture of corruption.'

Ever since, any suggestion of 'scandal' involving the Republicans, no matter how contrived or insignificant, instantly generates a cacophony of prominent parroting Democrats in front of microphones attempting to convince the public that the greatest breach of American law and justice has just been discovered.

But the ruse is beginning to crumble. In a recent interview with Tim Russert, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid tipped the Democrats' hand by his excess. Attempting to portray the 'spying on Americans' controversy in the worst possible context, Reid invoked it as a means to characterize Congressional Republicans as 'the most corrupt in history.' Hoping to sound apocalyptic, Reid overstepped his bounds, and his remarks instead sounded familiar and shrill.

Reid's phony cries of alarm were disturbingly reminiscent of last year's presidential race, during which Democrats relentlessly sought to portray America's robust economic circumstances as 'the worst economy in the last fifty years.' It should be no wonder that their calamitous predictions increasingly seem manipulative and empty.

Worse yet for the left, some key players appear unable to differentiate between shameless political grandstanding and reality. Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry seems to believe that he is not merely carrying the water for Pelosi and Reid, but that he has profound wisdom to shed upon the nation. Like Cindy Sheehan, he does not grasp the nature of this ploy as merely for show.

Kerry attempted to go one step beyond his party's leadership by concocting stories of American troops who supposedly broke into Iraqi houses during the dark of night and 'terrorized' women in children. If Pelosi and Reid could sway the voters with their monotonous rhetoric, surely Kerry's wild allegations ought to reap an electoral landslide.

Likewise, Chairman Howard Dean embarrassed the Democrats by attempting to ride on the coattails of Congressman John Murtha, who made a name for himself by declaring defeat in Iraq and demanding an immediate withdrawal of American troops. But unlike Murtha or Kerry, Dean possesses no laudable Vietnam War record to lend a veneer of patriotism to his hysterics.

Yet despite the necessity for most Democrats to backtrack from Murtha, Kerry, and Dean, the original war plan advances, as the 'unlawful surveillance' controversy proves. Washington Democrats undeniably knew of surveillance operations from the beginning of the war, and the New York Times has had accounts of such activity that it withheld from publication for over a year. Nonetheless, liberal mouthpieces universally treated the information as new and alarming.

In time, such events will prove to be as insignificant and inconsequential as all of the other 'evidence' of Republican malfeasance. But while Democrats clearly know this, it is of little consequence to them. They have more 'controversies' to regularly create or exaggerate into purported significance.

They fully intend to continue feigning horror at each ensuing controversy. It is their hope that as the specifics of individual situations fade into the past, by continual repetition, they might create an afterimage of ongoing corruption among Republicans that will linger in the minds of the American people.

Collateral damage to America notwithstanding, Democrats intend, with no vision or plan of their own, to thus dominate the 2006 elections and once again seize control of the country. While escalating hysteria may play well among the left wing true believers, its appeal to mainstream voters is highly questionable.

Christopher G. Adamo is a frequent contributor.

Behind closed doors, prominent Democrats were no doubt livid that Saddam Hussein would tread so clumsily upon their sacred turf, claiming 'abuse' at the hands of his American captors. Who does he think he is? It is their prerogative, and theirs alone, to make such accusations in an ongoing effort to discredit President Bush and the Republicans.

By such gratuitous imitation, Hussein essentially removed the facade from the Democrats' 2006 mid—term election strategy. Henceforth, Democrat chances of gaining further political ground by continually focusing on ostensible misbehavior among prison guards will ring a bit hollow. It is no wonder that this episode of 'prisoner abuse' received far less coverage than those grossly exaggerated, and often fabricated stories from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Furthermore, the transparency of Hussein's antics, and the obvious purpose they are intended to serve, spotlight the equally empty antics of this country's liberal political establishment. Ultimately, Hussein has become a very unwelcome caricature of the entire Democrat agenda.

Immediately upon House Majority Leader Tom Delay's indictment in Texas by Travis County prosecutor and political hack Ronnie Earle, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.—CA) accused Republicans of fomenting a 'culture of corruption.'

Ever since, any suggestion of 'scandal' involving the Republicans, no matter how contrived or insignificant, instantly generates a cacophony of prominent parroting Democrats in front of microphones attempting to convince the public that the greatest breach of American law and justice has just been discovered.

But the ruse is beginning to crumble. In a recent interview with Tim Russert, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid tipped the Democrats' hand by his excess. Attempting to portray the 'spying on Americans' controversy in the worst possible context, Reid invoked it as a means to characterize Congressional Republicans as 'the most corrupt in history.' Hoping to sound apocalyptic, Reid overstepped his bounds, and his remarks instead sounded familiar and shrill.

Reid's phony cries of alarm were disturbingly reminiscent of last year's presidential race, during which Democrats relentlessly sought to portray America's robust economic circumstances as 'the worst economy in the last fifty years.' It should be no wonder that their calamitous predictions increasingly seem manipulative and empty.

Worse yet for the left, some key players appear unable to differentiate between shameless political grandstanding and reality. Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry seems to believe that he is not merely carrying the water for Pelosi and Reid, but that he has profound wisdom to shed upon the nation. Like Cindy Sheehan, he does not grasp the nature of this ploy as merely for show.

Kerry attempted to go one step beyond his party's leadership by concocting stories of American troops who supposedly broke into Iraqi houses during the dark of night and 'terrorized' women in children. If Pelosi and Reid could sway the voters with their monotonous rhetoric, surely Kerry's wild allegations ought to reap an electoral landslide.

Likewise, Chairman Howard Dean embarrassed the Democrats by attempting to ride on the coattails of Congressman John Murtha, who made a name for himself by declaring defeat in Iraq and demanding an immediate withdrawal of American troops. But unlike Murtha or Kerry, Dean possesses no laudable Vietnam War record to lend a veneer of patriotism to his hysterics.

Yet despite the necessity for most Democrats to backtrack from Murtha, Kerry, and Dean, the original war plan advances, as the 'unlawful surveillance' controversy proves. Washington Democrats undeniably knew of surveillance operations from the beginning of the war, and the New York Times has had accounts of such activity that it withheld from publication for over a year. Nonetheless, liberal mouthpieces universally treated the information as new and alarming.

In time, such events will prove to be as insignificant and inconsequential as all of the other 'evidence' of Republican malfeasance. But while Democrats clearly know this, it is of little consequence to them. They have more 'controversies' to regularly create or exaggerate into purported significance.

They fully intend to continue feigning horror at each ensuing controversy. It is their hope that as the specifics of individual situations fade into the past, by continual repetition, they might create an afterimage of ongoing corruption among Republicans that will linger in the minds of the American people.

Collateral damage to America notwithstanding, Democrats intend, with no vision or plan of their own, to thus dominate the 2006 elections and once again seize control of the country. While escalating hysteria may play well among the left wing true believers, its appeal to mainstream voters is highly questionable.

Christopher G. Adamo is a frequent contributor.