On the contrary, I see political parties as a means to en end. I looked at the issues, reached positions that I believed were correct, and then I looked at the parties to see which one seemed to take the positions that were closest to mine. If the day arrives when the Republican Party rejects those positions and the Democratic Party adopts them, then I will willingly change parties.

Even as a Republican I have voted for Democrats when I felt that their candidate was the better choice, and I have contacted candidates and elected officials of my own party with strongly critical words when I felt their actions warranted it.

The reason I make this explanation is that, in today's commentary, I am doing something I have avoided doing in "One Man Watching": I am criticizing a party and its leadership, in this instance, the Democratic Party.

Because I am a Republican, there is a chance that this could be perceived as partisan. Consequently, I thought I should take this sidebar to stress that it is principle, not party, that motivates this criticism. Sadly, I have every confidence that there will come a time when I am equally critical of my own party. Such is the nature of political parties.

I hope, though, that those who read this will not look at it through the lens of party membership but rather through the lens of truth. As has always been the case, I hope that you will not ask whether I am Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Instead, I hope you will ask if I am right or wrong.

It makes no sense to embrace a wrong idea because it comes from the "right " party, and neither does it make sense to reject a right idea because it comes from the "wrong" party. That is the philosophy I have tried to follow, and I hope you will let me know how I have done.

Brad Pardee
Editor

In the last election, I voted for Democrat Ben Nelson over Republican Don Stenberg because I didn't care for Mr. Stenberg's performance as attorney general or as a candidate. However, it was a difficult decision for me, because I knew that sending Ben Nelson to the Senate would increase the power of the Democratic leaders in Congress. As much as I respect Ben Nelson, I seriously considered voting for the man I saw as the lesser candidate and sacrificing my own representation in order to keep these men, whom I have come to distrust, at bay.

The comments of the new Democratic Party chair, Terry McAuliffe, seem to have confirmed those fears. He may have spoken on the Sunday morning talk shows about ending the "politics of personal destruction", but comments like these seem to embrace that destructive tactic.

Just what did the people do, the ones he claims "tampered" with the election?

• Katherine Harris applied the law as she understood it to have existed on Election Day.
• Jeb Bush recused himself from the entire recount process.
• Jim Baker observed the recount on behalf of the Bush campaign.
• The Supreme Court confirmed that Katherine Harris was correct in her application of the law.

Reasonable people can disagree about the correct interpretation of the law. After all, in every case, there are two sides vying for acceptance by the court. To call this tampering, though, is patently dishonest, and it serves one purpose and one purpose only: to try to undermine the Republican Party and the Bush administration by any means necessary. To rephrase the old quote, it's "Damn the truth! Full speed ahead!"

The most fearful thing to me, though, is the possibility that this tactic might succeed.

I don't say this because of concern that my views on the issues of the day might not prevail. I have confidence that my views can hold their own in the market place of ideas.

No, my concern is that their success might place the foundations of our democracy in danger.

Consider, as an example, the game of basketball. The rules that govern the game are supposedly the ones that the players are prepared to abide by. We all know, though, that at the end of a close game, the team that is behind will deliberately foul their opponents because that gives them a chance to win. A team that refuses to foul in this way will not win many games because all teams have been forced to come down to that level.

Similarly, if the Democrats succeed in using slander, innuendo, and outright falsehood to gain political power, they will not be alone for long. Political success is nothing if not a good teacher, and it's a given that Republicans would learn from their loss and adopt the same techniques.

If that happens, then Democrats such as Mr. McAuliffe will have succeeded in doing what over two hundred years worth of enemies have failed to do: they will have gained the power to rule over the ashes of what was once a noble democratic experiment.

The question we must ask Mr. McAuliffe and others who would follow his path is this: Is the success of your party so important that you are willing to sell the soul of your nation to buy it?