Frist’s post-Iowa comments don’t present Democrats accurately

On CNN Jan. 19, when he wasn’t whining about how much coverage of the Iowa caucuses he’d had… On CNN Jan. 19, when he wasn’t whining about how much coverage of the Iowa caucuses he’d had to watch, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said that he wasn’t worried about which Democratic candidate was nominated to run against President George W. Bush in 10 months.

The reason, he said, was because of the “consistency” of the arguments of the candidates, which Frist shrewdly described as “anti-war” and “anti-Bush.”

Now, it’s hard for anyone to say that we have a particularly edgy and exciting group of candidates on the Democratic side. I watched the thrill-packed joyride that was the Democratic debate, and the efforts of the party in which I have so disgruntledly registered are more likely to be soporific than inspirational.

But Frist’s comments are just the kind that keep me registered – and voting – Democrat. And they’re the kind that keep me voting for people who lose.

You don’t need to like or agree with Howard Dean, John Edwards, Wesley Clark or any of the other thoroughly unenergizing personalities bombarding primary polling stations, but to say that there’s no difference between them skips right over stupid and goes straight to insulting. And one of them will likely lose in November, because they’re just not that good at eliminating small differences in favor of oversimplified “anti-something” rhetoric.

How on Earth does seeing problems with this whole business in Iraq constitute being “anti-war?” We didn’t even declare war, and now the White House says the war we didn’t declare, if it had ever actually begun, is over. Clark is a four-star general; is he against all war? If someone says they think the Vietnam War wasn’t run so well, does that make him anti-war? For the record, every major Democratic candidate’s view on Iraq involves staying there with an increased troop presence.

Oh, wait. Dennis Kucinich thinks we should leave now. And he clocked in at 1 percent in Iowa.

Then there’s this matter of being “anti-Bush.” The Republican Party has quite successfully characterized Democrats as rabid, fist-shaking sore losers with a personal vendetta against Bush, who’s really a nice man and doesn’t deserve this irrational anger.

The only problem is that very few people personally dislike the man. How could you? He’s so simple and harmless. His policies may not be your cup of tea, and constant fear that John Ashcroft is under your bed might freak you out, but that doesn’t equate to personal feelings about a man you don’t know.

Not that politicians haven’t been hated on a personal level. Richard Nixon made everyone uncomfortable, and Bill Clinton was hated with all of the passion the Republican Party could muster, on levels far more personal than professional. Remember how there were no Newsweek “Love him/Hate him” covers for Clinton? And he actually would have deserved them. The Democrats aren’t digging around trying to find people Bush slept with and then impeaching him for it; they just don’t like his policies.

That’s called disagreeing. Welcome to America; that’s allowed here.

But even more importantly, the Dems are running against Bush. They want his job, which means they pretty much have to not be on the same side. A pro-Bush platform probably wouldn’t do so well, now would it? “I really like the President, and I think he’s done a great job. In fact, I’m going to vote for him. Wait, what am I doing at this podium?” No.

In fact, the Dems are probably going to lose because they aren’t going to be “anti-Bush” enough. Democrats – the good ones, at least – like to talk about the intricacies of a topic, and to find all of the angles and nuance. Think of the debate over the Alaskan drilling. If the Dems were smart, Bush would have been anti-environment, anti-Earth, anti-cute-little-caribou. But no; instead, they talked about repercussions and possible ecological effects, and we all fell asleep until gas rose a nickel per gallon, when we promptly admitted we’d probably never see a caribou anyway.

I have some Republican friends who get upset when I use “anti-choice” in regards to abortion, instead of “pro-life.” My reasoning is this: I’m in favor of choice – i.e. “pro-choice” – but I also like life. I’m not anti-life. I don’t want people to have abortions, and I find many forms of life quite adorable. I’ve always been partial to lizards myself. But people who want the government to prohibit abortion are not in favor of a woman having the choice of what to do with her body.

Frist also said that all the Dems just want to raise taxes. On this score, at least, he’s right. But someone’s going to have to pay for flying to Mars and rebuilding a country we knocked down and all of the other things we’ve decided to spend money on, and my guess is that it won’t be the CEOs of Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin.

If the Dems were any good at this game, they’d accuse Frist of being anti-money. Instead, I have a feeling they’ll wind up being the first party to be accused of anti-outer space tendencies.

Send Greg Heller-LaBelle lizards at editor@pittnews.com.