February 21, 2003

In the 2002 elections, the American people told both parties they wanted solutions, not finger pointing.  They rejected criticism without solutions.  When Democratic leaders said no to presenting a budget, to a Department of Homeland Security, to terrorism insurance and to judicial appointments, the American people said no to Democratic candidates.

Election day polls showed Republicans with double-digit leads over Democrats on who the American people trusted on homeland security, keeping America safer, and having clear ideas.

On the most dominant issue for voters, the economy, Republicans held a seven-point advantage on election day.  But, success is rooted in more than just positive policies.  It was clear on election day that the President provided the necessary leadership.  Americans continue to see the President as a strong leader today with 64% saying the President works well with both parties, 86% believe he is willing to make hard decisions, 76% believe he is a strong and decisive leader, 70% believe he is honest and trustworthy.

After every election political parties have the opportunity to listen to the American people and adjust accordingly. Without compromising our core values, both parties must outline our policies in a way that reflects the American people’s voice.  It is a process of adjustment and renewal that gives life and endurance to our democracy.

Some Democrats argue that in 2002 the problem wasn’t their message, but that they couldn’t or didn’t get that message out.  From complaining about a conservative media to decrying turnout tactics, these Democrats would rather blame someone else.  Yet election day polls consistently showed that the public did hear, and in nearly every case reject, the Democrats’ message.  The problem was the message was almost completely negative - from dealing with the economy and Social Security to a variety of other issues.  The Democrats thought the best message was to just attack without offering a real alternative.

Despite the American peoples’ clear verdict, recent hyperbole by Democrat party leaders and Presidential candidates suggests that too many Democrats still don’t get it.  Democrats assail the President on everything, including the war on terrorism going so far as to allege that the one person who is most responsible for the safety and security of all Americans, the Commander-in-Chief, has underfunded the war on terrorism.

That’s not only wrong, which is bad enough, it should be counterintuitive given the Democrats' unsuccessful efforts to politicize homeland security in 2002.

Healthy political debate should be unabridged and vigorous, but must also be honest and responsible. Its purpose must be to advance and improve the political life of the nation. Suggestions that Republicans have turned a blind eye to the war on terrorism are not only spurious, they fail to advance the debate or allay the anxieties we face as Americans. Ultimately, scathing rhetoric as pure political theater becomes transparent and those who rely on it are identified only by their naked ambition or opportunism.

Honest political debate is designed to distinguish the differences in governing philosophies represented by political parties. Then the people of this nation can either identify with or legitimately disagree with those philosophies.  It is a process that makes America stronger.

The performance and leadership of the President of the United States is always subject to review and comment, but the Democratic presidential candidates should not confuse inaccurate and opportunistic attacks on America's leader with real policy disagreements.

It’s hard to unify around a positive agenda when you lack the White House or majorities in either house in Congress or a majority of state houses.  It is even tougher when a large number of senior party officials are competing for their party’s presidential nomination.

Democrats should use the opportunity at their National Committee meeting this week to do a little soul-searching to determine if they are capable of articulating a positive agenda that will advance the debate between our parties -- not just to say no.  Jockeying Democratic presidential candidates and other Democratic Party leaders would be well-served to remember the words of an old Democratic governor who once told me that "good policy makes good politics."