Richard Greene

Bipartisan strategy would be a good move for Democrats

Hillary Clinton discussed her presidential election loss April 6 at the Women in the World Summit in New York.
Hillary Clinton discussed her presidential election loss April 6 at the Women in the World Summit in New York. AP

In the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen what could be a small crack in the solidarity of congressional Democrats to oppose anything and everything President Donald Trump wants to accomplish.

Bipartisan support came quickly after Trump destroyed some of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s ability to use weapons of mass destruction to kill his country’s people.

Apparently, there was realization on the left that a strong commander-in-chief in the White House was a welcome change from the half-measures of his predecessor.

Then came the support of three Senate Democrats for the newest member of the Supreme Court. While Neil Gorsuch deserved unanimous confirmation, there were at least these few, all from states Trump carried in November, who did the right thing.

Trump is on schedule to produce a list of achievements in his first 100 days that he can point to as doing what he said he would do that got him elected.

Resistance will continue, but perhaps with less fervor to just blindly oppose everything and pursue dead-end initiatives to somehow remove him from the job he won with those promises.

There’s also a seemingly growing realization among leaders of the party out of power that they can’t keep doing what they’ve been doing if they expect to regain relevancy in governing the nation.

Others, however, seem to be in denial.

Hillary Clinton has returned to the national stage with her explanation of why she lost the election. It was the fault, she says, of Russia, misogyny, FBI Director James Comey and WikiLeaks.

Note that she accepts no responsibility for being who she is. What about being not trustworthy or likable — essential values that must be embodied in someone among the Democrats, but who?

Then along comes former Vice President Joe Biden, who says Hillary lost because she never knew why she was running and failed to connect with middle-class voters.

He obviously believes he could have done that and would have beaten Trump.

So, are these two people thinking of 2020? If not either of them, then where will they find a viable alternative?

Reports out of the Midwest Political Science Association convention concluded that Democrats have no bench.

Among these events, Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice resurfaced and reminded the country that her party simply will not hold her responsible for compulsive falsehoods whenever she moves into the media spotlight.

The Washington Times editor-at-large David Keene stated the reality succinctly, “The woman who has been blamed with some accuracy for more fiascos than most can count is still with us.”

The continued pursuit of non-existent evidence that the Russians hacked the last election has become more of an albatross around the necks of the dogged conspiracy theorists and no help whatsoever to Democrats anywhere.

Meanwhile, a foreign policy focused on our national security is emerging, the Supreme Court is back at full strength, tax cuts are on the agenda, border security is taking shape and Trump is undaunted by the national media’s negative portrayal of his leadership.

A change of direction to work with Trump and his party’s control in Congress would seem to be a good strategic move for Democrats. The question remains as to whether they are prepared to cooperate, even a little.

The message is clear: Get on board or get accustomed to liberal resistance disappearing in the rearview mirror of history’s journey to a safer world and to relief from the federal government’s dominating role in the lives of free Americans.

Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.

  Comments