Town of Braintree

History takes time. To understand the historic decline of the Democratic Party I have found it useful to reach back to a book I wrote in 1984, The Liberal Crack-Up. It is a diagnosis of what was then the core philosophy of the Democratic Party, liberalism, and a prognosis of its future. But history takes time.It is about to be outpaced throughout the federal judiciary.

The liberal crack-up began with the defeat of that liberal fantastico, Jimmy Carter. It picked up steam during the 1990s, when the Democrats lost the House and the Senate and many state offices -- and the media's legend endures that President Bill Clinton is a political genius. His genius is in self-promotion.

He is a cunning huckster. But the liberal crack-up did not reach the point of no return until November 2, 2004. Then on that glad and glorious morn, that reductio ad absurdum of a liberal presidential candidate, Jean-Fran?§ois Kerry, the Democratic elites, and all the liberals in the media beheld Victory. It was to be a return to their vicarious lives as Kennedys!, Roosevelts!, Progressives!

Alas, by November 3 their delusions became very difficult to maintain. Sure there are many who still think they won. Doubtless Jean-Fran?§ois, his balmy wife, and many in his entourage still feel as morally and intellectually superior as they did in the expectant hours of November 2. Yet clear-headed students of politics today recognize that the Democratic Party has suffered a catastrophic defeat. Some, such as Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, are politely suggesting that their party is in need of a philosophy transplant, something less narcissistic, less out-of-this world, than the troubled philosophy that since the 1960s has been at its core, namely, liberalism.

The liberalism that became rampant in the Democratic Party beginning in the late 1960s drove out all other intellectual impulses. Yes, a poseur such as Jimmy Carter might make a feint towards fiscal conservatism, but he could not resist his education lobby, his environmentalists, or his ''minority rights'' careerists. And he was most in his element lecturing Americans on their ''inordinate fear of Communism'' and their ''malaise.'' Today he is just another ''blame-America-first'' megalomaniac.

Boy Clinton was not a lot different. His vaunted balanced budget was achieved at least in part by his niggardliness toward the military. His whole egotistic lifestyle was late-twentieth century liberalism replete with zoo sex in the office and hand-holding with visiting preachers and therapists.

Then came Al Gore and after that the football-throwing, snow boarding, wind-surfing, bungee-jumping fantasist whose self-important huffiness over being called ''French-looking'' made teasing him such a delight.

At the heart of the liberal crack-up, which I first diagnosed in 1984, is the impulse to politicize everything from food to sex to happenstance -- and to moralize. The liberal of the liberal crack-up is a free-floating moralizer. Such liberals are also dramatists of the most adolescent variety. No human experience is beyond their melodrama. There is no misfortune that they will not exploit for votes. Their politics is built on a world of extremes. The conservatism of President George W. Bush, a conservatism that has been governing America for most of the past 24 years, remains to these liberals shocking, dangerous, or ''extremist,'' as they say.


By TO TRUE DEMOCRACY

Bill Clinton insisted yesterday

Bill Clinton insisted yesterday that he never ''disgraced this country'' or ''lied to the American people about my job.''
The remarkable outburst from Clinton came as officials in Little Rock denied that his presidential library glosses over the Monica Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment.

''Oh, God,'' said Lucianne Goldberg, the blogger who helped Linda Tripp secretly tape-record Lewinsky discussing her affair with Clinton. ''He's living in a dream world. That's utter nonsense. You can parse that for paragraphs.''

The gala opening for the $165 million library will be held today with President Bush along with former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in attendance.

In an interview with ABC's ''PrimeTime Live,'' which airs tonight, Clinton repeated his claim that the Lewinsky scandal was more the product of vengeful Republicans and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr than his own recklessness.

''[There's] not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly. I made a terrible public-personal mistake, but I paid for it, many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down,'' he said.

Clinton famously insisted, ''I never had sexual relations with that woman,'' but he later admitted he did have sex with Lewinsky. And he was impeached for lying under oath when grilled by a grand jury about Paula Jones' charges that he sexually harassed her.

Officials at the Clinton Library held a news conference yesterday to explain the facility's design, but they ended up denying that its 42 exhibits gave the sex scandal short shrift.

''It's good for us to remember ... he was acquitted by the Senate,'' said architect Ralph Appelbaum.

The exhibit that deals with the scandal that racked the country is titled ''The Fight for Power'' and puts the onus for the impeachment on the GOP and Starr.

It includes sections called ''Politics of Persecution'' and ''A New Culture of Confrontation.'' There are no photographs of Lewinsky.

''The impeachment issue is covered fairly. It is front and center in that exhibit,'' said Clinton Foundation President James (Skip) Rutherford, who pointed out that Lewinsky is mentioned in the display.



By he never disgraced this country

LIMEY LIBERALS IN DENIAL

LIMEY LIBERALS IN DENIAL
---------WHO SIVES A GIT
On election night James Zetlen, 20, ran the gamut of distress as it became clear that George Bush would be returned to the White House.
''It has become like a mass confessional and you can feel that everybody can see it regardless of whether the people you're apologizing to actually see it or not.''
''I passed through the stages of grief - denial, anger, pity, resignation and acceptance - in that order and pretty quickly,'' he said.

Then he set up a website to apologise to the world for failing to prevent Mr Bush's victory.
''A lot of people felt maybe they could have done more for the election and were feeling responsible to the rest of the world for the result,'' he said.
He posted a picture of himself holding a small piece of paper saying: ''Sorry world, we tried - (signed) half of America,'' and inviting other Americans to do the same.
More than two-thirds of the images submitted, some from Republicans, were rejected because they were too offensive.

''Some of them absolutely believe that the website is treasonous,'' he said. ''Occasionally they threaten violence.''

Others were from Democrats denouncing Bush voters as ignorant. ''There's a lot of anger and vilification but we won't accept submissions that are offensive,'' he said.

Like just about everything else in American politics, one political initiative inevitably produces opposites, surrogates and spin-offs. Six Republican-supporting websites have been created in response: notsorryeverybody.com, sorryeverybodymyass.com, kissmyamericanass.com and werenotsorry.com.
''Anything like this is ripe material for parody,'' Mr Zetlen said. ''I can't blame anybody.''
Meanwhile, a handful of supportive websites including apologiesaccepted.com, and notsorrynoteverybody.com have sprung up in its defence.
''The whole thing surprised me,'' Mr Zetlen said.
He created a website, the-apologist.co.uk, to promote his book about a man who apologises for everything he did wrong and is appointed chief apologist of the United Nations. It has attracted more than 8,000 apologies for almost everything. ''There is clearly something unique about the web as a vehicle for apologies,'' said Rayner, who was expecting just a few dozen submissions.

One has a fake ''official seal'' of the Democratic party with the face of a wailing baby. Another has Canadians offering to marry Americans wanting to flee north during the second Bush term.
On a typical page on sorryeverybody.com the contributions ran from belligerent to contrite to funny.
One man is seen holding up a sign saying: ''Sorry everybody. Central Mississippi is not all red. I'm one of the 40% who voted for Kerry. Please forgive us.'' ---------FOR WHAT?


By WHO SIVES A GIT

Those Post Election Pitiful

Those Post Election Pitiful Yankees Big Apple Blues

New Yorkers are feeling a severe case of withdrawal. They were used to being the red-hot center of American news and opinion. Suddenly they're flyover country, relics from a dying tribe, seedy and unloved. They are as forlorn as those fiery partisan books that once pulsed with an angry beat on the bestseller list and now linger on the remainder tables in Barnes & Noble.

The psychiatrist say that John Kerry's defeat, coming on the heels of the Yankees' collapse in the playoffs against the Red Sox, plunged many patients into near-catatonic distress. ''In the whole 40 years of practice here I have never heard patients as bereft by a result as this,''. ''There was a feeling in session after session of the insult to one's tribe, a loss of purpose and direction. For men, their sports team being beaten at the same time made them feel New York is no longer the command center, no longer the winning city they identify with or that so many people move here to find.''

Two weeks after the election, the erstwhile power center of the universe has heaved itself up from the shrink's couch and trudged on, but it's still wearing dark glasses. What makes it worse is all the political news booming away out there. The Bush Cabinet reshuffle is like a percussion band playing in the room next door when you're trying to sleep. All that crashing and banging of big careers and exiting reputations -- will somebody please turn it off? Don't they know politics is over? Can't they take a damn breather from running the world?

At a panel Thursday about who should be Time magazine's Person of the Year, the debate was whether the annual milestone cover should feature Karl Rove or God, which seems a false choice since everyone knows they are the same thing. (For Karl Rove's sake let's hope they choose God. As anyone who worked for Henry VIII could tell you, eclipsing your boss is the first step to the tower.)



By Yankees Big Apple Blues