Sweet Mothra -- is Feingold the only one left in the party? Democrats, party of one?
Reprimanding a President who has broken the law is not an unreasonable move. Voting against the Patriot Act (twice) is not an unreasonable move. Putting serious questions to judicial nominees is not a bad idea, or somehow unpatriotic.
At some point, the Dems are going to have to show that they have principles, if they're going to be seen as at all different than the other guys. Hell, this play-it-safe-and-don't-alienate hasn't worked out for them in the slightest -- it's time to try something else. And so far, Feingold seems to be on his own in that. Again.
As long as the Dems let the other guys control the agenda, they don't deserve to be in power.
I think they're on to fourth and fifth-guessing the voters by now. I'm pretty damned well sick of it, and before I go trolling on their message boards I just wanted to vent a little. Y'know, a little jumping up and down, screaming "WAKE UP" and perhaps kicking inanimate objects or something. I'd desert them, but the Silly Party hasn't really got much clout in my area.
We ask what it takes for the average American voter to figure out the corrupt, greedy, lying nature of this administration - what does it take the fucking opposing party to start doing something? Bush is not that good and TurdBlossom can't prop him up much longer. Attack, you impotent clowns, for fuck's sake!
Voting for censure could kill the re-election hopes of Dems in close races. So you need to ask yourself what's more important - giving the Prez an ultimately meaningless slap on the wrist, or gaining back majority contol of the senate?
It seems to me that the "Don't get tough--it spooks the voters!" method of thinking has been a large part of how we got to the current state in the first place.
Which is not to say that care shouldn't be exercised in trying to extract ourselves from the quicksand--just that I don't think that particular argument does much but weaken an already weakened party further.
Of course, if Lieberman would just jump ship already, then that'd be a bit of the drag off there...
As long as they don't spill anything on their blue dres...
Well, just keep voting for them anyway. It doesn't matter how weak willed and lilly livered they are, WE MUST NEVER CONSIDER A THIRD PARTY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!
Voting for censure could kill the re-election hopes of Dems in close races.
While I accept that might be true in some cases, it also underscores the point that they should be opposing as much as possible. Their "don't rock the boat" strategy as a party was wrong in 2004, it cost them that election, it is wrong now, it won't work again, and the fucking spineless incumbents that adhere to it are not working for me.
Censure is the most bland, symbolic, empty gesture they can make right now and they wont do it because it might look bad?
That's so weak, I'm truly ashamed for them. Does it look any worse than lying to get us to war? Does it look any worse than giving port security deals to the UAE? Does it look any worse than covering up a CIA leak from the Veep? Does it look any worse than the hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharging from the Veeps buddies at Halliburton, the BILLIONS of dollars literally lost in Iraq, the sanctioning of torture, the signing statements, the cronyist mismanagement that cost us thousands of lives in Katrina, the hand-picked loyalty-oath swearing crowds that appear to support Bush?
Are they afraid of losing the 36% that still support this arrogant insufferable bastard??
If they can't stand up to that, they don't get my vote anyway. Get some stones, Dems. You're fucking LATE.
We need a third AND fourth party.
And we need politicians who are aligned in spirit, but not by party membership. Ultimately, belonging to one organization automatically excludes those who aren't a part of that organization. Loyalty has a dark side that often undermines what is good for all by looking after selfish interests.
Don't be swayed by the red/blue paradigm. It doesn't exist. The world is not black and white. Life is not Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader. We all have elements of both. And more.
As I have said before: you Americans and you quaint provincial politics.
Exactly the point, there are fundamental principles involved in allowing the President to break the law. No red no blue in truth, but the fact is that the red party is allowing it, and it's wrong. Within the current structure we ostensibly have an opposition "voice", so SAY SO, OTHER PARTY. That's what they're fucking FOR. This rampant capitulation to Republicans has GOT.TO.STOP!
A two-party system sucks, (any party system sucks,) but that's what we have for the next few months until November and one party is FOR this administration so we really really need the other party to be AGAINST; not cow-towing lapdog chickenshit equivocating horse-racing idiots.
speaking of blue
That's exactly my point. In the eyes of a Democratic senator, voting for censure would satisfy all of their Bush-hating constituents. But they already have their votes. The votes they must win to get elected are the "swing voters", the centrists...the fence sitters. The ones who want to support their leader in time of war but question his methods. Obviously many senators believe those votes would be lost with a censure vote.
Unfortunately, the goal of the political game is not to act with your own convictions, or even with the convictions of your constituents. The goal is to get elected.
Republicans were ecstatic to see Feingold's censure proposal. Obviously they know something you don't about how it would affect voters. That should be reason enough to let it drop, at least until after November.
♪ ♫ Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...
It IS after November.
2004.
We lost.
Again. This middle-of-the-road-woo-the-swing-vote tack doesn't work.
This is the most corrupt, immoral, arrogant, anti-American administration in American history (I'm a doctor, I should know), and playing it up-the-middle is exactly why any fence-sitters won't be moving.
Make a strong case, make it often, move the fence-sitters with persuasive, passionate, reasoned arguments, not equivocation and complicity.
Okay, I'm not really a doctor, I was doing that part from "Slackers" where the crazy lady at the diner keeps telling people she's a doctor.
In the eyes of a Democratic senator, voting for censure would satisfy all of their Bush-hating constituents. But they already have their votes.
No they dont. They do not have mine. I used to be as blue as it gets. But my former party has failed me and failed my country. They are dogs, worse than the republicans. At least the republicans wear their corruption, greed, and incompetance on their shirt sleeves.
Monkeyfilter: cow-towing lapdog chickenshit equivocating horse-racing idiots
Pete, will you run for the Senate? C'mon!
Hey, don't belittle dogs, now.
I'm the communications director type. I don't have the patience to be a candidate.
Plus there was that little incident with the escorts, the magic suitcase and that barrel of muscadine wine . . and the webcam . .
The Democrats suck, the Republicans suck, and the Greens can't get their act together.
We're doomed.
Aaaaaaargh! Bloody idiots. I have nothing but vitriol for those spineless bastards. Feingold should establish the Progressive Party and leave the party to lickspittles like Lieberman.
I hereby form the Surly party.
We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore.
Guess it's time for northamericans to give up and fully re-instate this monarchy thing. Who knows, a smart buffoon in the court could do many intersting things, sweetening the king's ear.
Everyone rise up and install me as benevolent dictator for life of the free people of Terra, and I promise you all the muscadine wine you can bathe in.
I'm sorry, crataegus, but unless you are in fact Werner Herzog, then I'm afraid there's a much better man for the job. Der Werzog exudes pure trocken riesling from his nipples.
And his pubes are woven strands of the finest gold.
Cheney was here in Green Bay yesterday. I still feel dirty. I'm with petebest. Thank god for the people who showed up to protest. Dems need to grow some balls already or they've lost me.
And I'll bet for every person that is disgusted with the Dems for this, there is an equally disgusted former Republican who hates deficit spending and big government who says the same thing.
Who ARE you going to vote for? And why should the parties care about you anymore, since you're afaik withdrawing from the system. Until we go to instant runoff voting or some other preference system where the two primary candidates aren't at a huge advantage over a third party, neither party needs to really worry about people who are disgusted equally at both parties. They aren't going to vote for anybody who has a shot at winning.
Which isn't to indite you as doing something wrong. After Bush won the last election, I swore I would never vote for the Dems again. In fact I will, but I know its not going to do any good anymore, even if they win. I blame them squarely for their utter failure at the last election which *was theirs to lose. And I know that they will do so again (Hillary? you really think that Red-state America is going to back you on that?) The decision to run Kerry in the primaries was unforgivable. Now, I'm mostly concerned into how not to share the fate as the country goes to Hell. Bush has bankrupted the U.S. (9*10^12 dollars in debt), squandered our good will, and it will take decades of good government, and economic prosperity, which we are not going to get from either party, to repair this.
And you know what? The Americans (us) deserve everything we are going to get. We bought it back in November of 2004. We all knew what junior was like, we let him win anyway. I did my part, I argued, cajoled, begged everyone I knew to vote for Kerry, I showed them all the tangible evidence of what he was like, his hatred of the sciences, his support for abolishing the separation of church and state, his stance on abortion, the number of supreme court justices he will get to appoint, his lies about the war, his disdain for the soldiers, his utter misconceptions about health care, everything. The vietnam vets in my family would rather have who they got than somebody that called them all babykillers.
I was laughed at for saying that they had to let that go, because the future was more important than the past, and this was the better of two evils. Nobody listened. I was a Moonbat. And yet, I was open minded, I was not a serious partisan until 2 years into his first term. I gave Bush a chance. I gave him 2 years and the benefit of the doubt. He was a disappointment at every turn. And this is after I already felt I should be very skeptical of him from his tenure as Governor of Texas. He proposed "Standardized Testing" for every college course offered in the state, because Lord knows, the only way to fix education is to throw another day of exams at the student to see "Is our childern learning?" He's an utter incompetent. He doesn't listen to anyone. He doesn't CARE about anyone except his rich friends.
Well, now its too bad. We are all going to get whats coming to us, and we deserve it. And nothing but years and years of hard work, suffering and dying is going to fix it.
Looking to the Dems is a mistake. What this country needs now is a constitutional convention of governors or a revolution. Revamp the entire Democratic process and squash cronyism and big-money that runs it, and make it possible for a viable third party to win. Either that or we all kill each other in a civil war when we are pushed too far. The pundits are already saying that liberals deserve to be hung as traitors, that San Francisco deserves to be hit by terrorists, etc... And they are given time on television and held up by the right as a fair and balanced counter to the "liberal media". They've tapped our phones, they've put us in free speach zones, made us take loyalty oaths to go to public events. And a few people, non-citzens (mostly) have just... disappeared.
bah... now I'm all angry again. GRRR. The last "Democratic" should have a lower-case 'd'.
Salon has a good take on what is up with Feingold's resolution. The short of it is that Frist put the resolution up for immediate vote - i.e. a vote before anyone has time to analyze the pros and cons and before any real investigation into the spying is performed. i.e. a premature vote. So faced with voting on something they're not informed about or postponing and looking like cowards, the Dems picked the latter. Not a good PR move, but arguably the right thing to do. After all, look what happened with the Patriot Act when people voted without reading it first.
real investigation -> formal government investigation
Obviously the investigations that have been performed are 'real'.
Which will never happen with all the rules changes to make whatever happened either "not illegal" or to be investigated by a non-partisan (ie., Republican) committee. Even if the dems vote for censure, it will not happen, and if it did, it wouldn't mean anything. He needs to be impeached, and it requires the Republicans to grow some morals.
I hate be Chicken Little, but we're screwed. Bush will serve out his next 2 years, and if we're lucky, we'll get a deadlocked congress in 06, Republican version of Clinton in 08. If we're not, the voting machines either don't report what the people want, or the people want more of the same.
Alls I know is that if the Diebold voting machines are of the same quality as the Diebold ATMs I work with, then they're not likely to report anything even remotely accurate.
At the risk of sounding to 'me too', I agree with petebest, we need the dems (bukake party) to get off their knees, wipe their chin and start acting like a damned *opposition party* instead of enabling housewives to a tyranical, abusive husband. Until we start getting these lickspittles to develop some sack and get rid of the damn, rigged electronic voting machines and go back to paper ballots (no electronics or computers means *no electronics and computers, *screw* that 'Oh, it'll be okay if it prints a receipt.' crap.
Until that happens, this country is a hypocrisy of itself and everything it states that it stands for, yet with it's actions proves it is very clearly against.
Ya'll said it. We're so screwed. There will never be another honest election.
I've no more to add. Except maybe Fuck BushCo.
Oh, and you there. You mangy tagline thief.
Yah, YOU, Pantsie!
You stole my tagline.
So take THIS:
MonkeyFilter: I don't have the patience to be a candidate.
The vietnam vets in my family would rather have who they got than somebody that called them all babykillers.
I was laughed at for saying that they had to let that go, because the future was more important than the past, and this was the better of two evils.
The thing is, Kerry protested the war once he got home, but dammit, he was at least there doing his duty while he was in service. He wasn't AWOL from the National Guard. He earned the right to protest.
And whether we like the Democrats we have now or not, they're our best chance for breaking the stranglehold the right-wingers have over the whole government at the moment. What's better - to not vote for a Democratic candidate out of digust for the party in general, or to allow the corrupt cronies in power now to continue without checks and balances?
a Democratic candidate...or to allow the corrupt cronies in power now to continue without checks and balances?
I fail to see the difference. That's like the choice between the abusive boyfriend, or the less abusive boyfriend. More fish in the sea, honey.
Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: "I’m amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president’s numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide…too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they’ll say we’d better just focus on domestic issues…[Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you’re helping the terrorists."
Just how complicit are the Democrasts?
And whether we like the Democrats we have now or not, they're our best chance for breaking the stranglehold the right-wingers have over the whole government at the moment. What's better - to not vote for a Democratic candidate out of digust for the party in general, or to allow the corrupt cronies in power now to continue without checks and balances?
I love this argument. Keep voting for them as they drift farther and farther to the right and you know what they'll do? Keep moving right.
Simple experiment for dog owners: next time your dog craps on the rug, give him a cookie! See how quickly you can train him to stop shitting on your carpet!
I love Frist's complete bullshit line about "We're a nation at war and the President is protecting the American people!"
Well, we're only a nation at war because Bush decided to invade Iraq, which was an act of aggression that had nothing to do with "protecting the American people" - regardless of what the more corrupt wing of the Republican Party wants to say. Frist is a crooked irresponsible (diagnosis-by-videotape) moron who can't be trusted even to walk across a room without somehow doing something that is, at the very least, disingenuous. And I'm being GENEROUS in that estimation.
Fuck all them bastards. Fuck 'em all.
/grumpy, but needs more drugs to reach HST levels.
PS no Hillary won't cut it in 2008. Ppl hate her, even Dems.
PS2 - I don't actually do drugs. BUT THIS BULLSHIT MAKES ME CONSIDER DEVELOPING A HABIT.
PS2 - My state has no Democrats in the Senate.
PS3. d'oh.
I can't wait 'til the PS3's come out...
Teh f8x is gracious.
I love this argument. Keep voting for them as they drift farther and farther to the right and you know what they'll do? Keep moving right.
Not in perpetuity - just this year. Once we get a little balance restored to Congress, we can work on the rest.
(a) elect Democrats
(b) beat them until they behave properly
It's far from ideal, but as I was listening to the latest story about the next bill introduced to curtail women's rights / disenfranchise voters / sell the environment to developers / screw the poor - ALL introduced by Republicans, most approved down party lines, I was thinking about how stupid it is to claim ideological abstinence from voting right now.
It's far from ideal. Vote Democrat & hassle them mercilessly. That's actually how a representative republic is supposed to work. (Well, except for the Democrat part. I suppose if the Republicans are hassling their representatives that much, they really are ignorant, crooked, fascist bastards. Which I don't believe.)
Can I just mention that I enjoy the word 'craven' and that it could be used in this thread with wild and reckless abandon? Thank you.
No, vote third party and if the democrats value their political future they'll start emulating the ideals expressed by said parties. Case in point, Howard Dean, who wouldn't have any political future whatsoever if not for the fact that his ideals mesh closely enough with third parties that he managed to pull a significant number of greens back to the party. If you consistently vote your ideals than parties seeking political power will have no choice but to adopt them.
Why vote when there's no shot at winning? Why not voice support for ideals within a party that has a shot? We're not talking about minutiae or extremes of any kind, just the basics: clean air & water, money for education, tax reform, less paperwork, peaceful diplomacy - these aren't difficult.
The Green party, the Anarchists, the UFO party, these aren't going to have a chance in November. The Democrats are.
Get the Republicans out of power immediately. That's the point. Fine-tune it afterwards.
Election reform. Paper ballots. I forgot those. Those are examples of bi-partisan support issues. The DNC needs to start talking loudly about the basic fundamental differences between them and the Republicans
* No support for torture
* No free giveaways to big oil
* Basic healthcare for all Americans
The Republicans will trot out Gay Adoption and beat that sucker all day long - it's a shitty strategy (what else have they got?) and a great opportunity for the DNC to show up. If they keep sucking like they did in 2004 and are currently, we're going further down the shitter.
This is why I'm not advocating voting for third parties. We don't have time. It's too late for Nader. McCain is not a renegade.
Get them out! Now!
And to be fair, this is not just the case of rewarding a dog that shits on your rug. To compose the analogy that way ignores the fact that there's another, more aggressive dog gnawing on your genitals while shitting on your face. Given the choice of which of those to reward with the title of Four Year Official Pet, it seems pretty obvious.
And then, after that, you can move on to the housebroken St. Bernard/Pekingese mix that works as a hospital pet for cancer patients when she's not saving skiiers trapped in the melting snows of the Rocky mountains. But first, get the doberman off yer nuts.
*high, squeaky voice*
Thank you . . . good point . . . urk
Just doing my best to bring every idea I encounter down to an encompassing genital-centric metaphor. No need to thank me, ma'am.
tracicle's law: as a MoFi thread grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning buggery and/or bestiality approaches 1.
E.g.: Eww Tenacious! Don't tracicle the thread with your dog fucking stories, dude.
And yet, by citing tracicle's law, quid has in fact tracicled the thread. That dirty traciclyst.
(Is it bestiality if the dog is chewing on your nuts? I mean, you're not doing anything to the dog...)
Republicans promised reform in 1994, when they won control of the House for the first time in four decades. But rather than deliver it, GOP leadership has - according to Mann and Ornstein - undermined the institution through "the demise of regular order, the decline of deliberation and the weakening of our system of checks and balances."via
I think its become clear in the last, oh, 4 elections that if you vote your ideology rather than against your fear, you'll get your fear.
So, is it more effective to write or to email one's Senator? I've done both in the past, but I really want this one to be seen.
And here I thought no good would come out of this post!
MonkeyFilter: Bringing every idea encountered down to an encompassing genital-centric metaphor.
OH, and FCKBSH
GramMa! You randy thing you!
It's effective to both email and call one's senators and representative. (Though, my rep is a Republican who likes to start off her reply to any complaint with, "Well, CLINTON..." And I'm all like, "I don't care about Clinton! That's so LAST-DECADE! Bitch, what are you gonna do for me NOW?")
Anyway, there should be numbers for your senators for each of the major cities in your state. (That is to say, DeWine and Voinovich each have numbers that someone in Cleveland can call, others that someone in Cincinnati can call, others that someone in Columbus can call. Presumably it is the same in other states as well.)
I wouldn't be surprised if Harkin, Boxer, and Kerry hopped on board partly due to the campaigning of MoveOn, who have been sending around a pro-censure petition and asking people to call and email their congresscritters. It wouldn't take many calls from constituents to get those three in particular to support the resolution. From the article petebest linked, it looks like one reason they didn't support it at first (aside from CRAVEN CRAVEN CRAVEN CRAVEN CRAVEN) is, supppppppppppposedly, that Feingold surprised everyone with it. Wonder who will hop on next, now that it may feel a little less like the outsticking of the neck?
The Democrats would be wise, in my opinion, to forget about bitching about Republicans and enumerating the ways in which they are all Eeeeevil, and instead concentrating on real-life political objectives in a reality-based sort of way, which discussions of what they stand *for*, who are the viable candidates in the party for (insert race here), and how *exactly* they can approach the American public and reclaim what has historically been their meat+potaters, to wit: the working and middle classes. Every time they vilify Bush - no matter how much merit the charge may or may not have - they are basically saying to the voters "you're stupid and you fucked up." That is not a hugely ingratiating way of persuading people to come over to your side. This republican says: forget Bush. His duck gets lamer by the second. Concentrate of fat or factualish-based reasons why the democratic party and it's candidates in particular deserve to be voted in next election. DO NOT COUNTERPOINT THOSE THINGS AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS OR REPUBLICAN PARTY. If you want top talk about the economy, talk about the *economy*, NOT how the repuiblicans screwed up the economy. If you want to talk about Iraq, talk about Iraq, not republican fuckery in Iraq. Make the case on its merits, not on that republicans are the enemy.
Second, start playing for the same team. THe democrats seem to enjoy spanking each other as much or more than than spanking the republicans. The democratic primaries are especially vicious. Cut it out. Get a room at the Marriot, break out the cigars, fill the room with smoke and pick some friggin candidates - then support them fully and without waver. Hey, no one expects you all to see eye to eye on every subject - but we do expect you to act like grown-ups. Work on that.
Lastly, be realistic in 2008. Hillary Clinton is your front runner?? She may be smart, effective, whatever, but she is far more divisive than her husband could ever hope to be. Ditch her as a candidate. Promise her whatever you have to, but get her to back the hell out. Same goes for Kerry and Gore - the ancient baggage and bad decisions that cost them elections before are still there. And remember that anytime to choose a legislator as a presidential candidate, you hand the opposition a giant bag full of ammo called a "voting record." There has got to be a nice, innofensive, self-deprecating, occasionally funny democratic governor out there that can walk and chew gum at the same time, isn't an obvious crook, doesn't have a tetchy heiress for a wife, got a honorable discharge from Vietnam or (better) Gulf I, and doesn't completely turn into a bubbling vat of nutjob once the cameras stop rolling. Find that motherfucker and draft him.
Next, rein in your extremes. Moveon.org is not helping you! They may have good points, even the occasional excellent point, but in the eyes of the portly six-pack drinking middle they are an elitist bunch of America-hating hippies. Cut 'em loose or (better) pull their teeth a bit. Take a look at what the religious right has done to the republicans - that is what moveon.org and the like does to the democrats.
Lastly, chart out some principles and stick to them - EVEN IF the polls show that people are against you. The Dubai Ports thing showed just exactly how duplicitous the democrats were will to be to gain a single, pyrrhic victory against the administration - they pandered to irrational fears, played on security issues that didn't exist, sent a shiver through foreign investor markets (good solid idea, that! Since they are propping up the dollar just lately), and pissed off mightily on of the few middle eastern Islamic countries that we could solidly count as an ally. Nicely done, dipshits! Stop doing that.
Take it with a grain, since I'm nominally on the other team. But I do feel, regardless of my own personal philosophies, that elections ought to be about real choice, rational discourse, and ultimately? The informed voter making a reasoned decision. Sure, it's a friggin pipe dream, but maybe we can take a small, febrile stab at it once in a while? Because I'll tell you know: if you give me a democratic candidate who is reasonable, rational, states his or her points and sticks by them, doesn't fan the flames of ignorance and has a real, honest-to-goodness plan? I'll vote for them EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THEIR OBJECTIVES. I've voted for Ralph Nader twice, despite the fact that policy-wise I disagere with just about everything the man stands for. Why then? Because he says what he thinks and he sticks by his guns. He's a prissy little crabass, but he walks the walk. And I - and I think there are a lot of us out here that feel the same way - respect that. Get back the voter's respect, democrats, and you'll win elections.
sorry about the typos, the muse was upon me. You get the gist, though.
While I agree with you on principle Fes, and I agree on some of the points (notably, that the Dems should stick together), I disagree that rational discourse is the way to go.
I know, I know, that's crazy talk. But here's the thing - Dems almost always do rational discourse, and they bore people. Michael Deaver created the "Morning in America" Reagan flag-waving bullshit campaign that swayed untold numbers of people who were hurt by the policies they voted for, and this is how Karl Rove has installed the most incompetent, cronyistic, small-picture President in decades (if not ever). By avoiding rational discourse.
The voters for whom rational discourse matters will seek it out. It will be there - but in terms of a national campaign, a party message, I don't believe it to be effective.
Right, reasonable, founding-father-intended, yes. Effective, no.
Ed. note: join us for TV Turnoff week, when petebest goes of the fuckin' deep end and talks about how media matters.
Impeach Bush! Storm the Bastille! Take the country back from these hopeless crooks! That kinda thing.
Pete, I can see your point, but we've had a LOT of exactly that for the last six years, and how much traction has it gotten the democrats? Bush's numbers are low, but there hasn't been any concomitant groundswell of support for democrats, so far as I can tell. Just a general dissatisfaction with everyone. Unless the democrats can develop a concrete alternative that isn't "at least we're not republicans," I think the status quo will be maintained. The vast majority of american voters are not revolutionaries - they don't care about impeachment, they don't want to storm the bastille, they assume that every politician is a crook.
I dunno, I'd argue that we *haven't* had a lot of "storm the Bastille" talk - mostly capitulation from the so-called opposition party. People may be dissatisfied with everyone politically but that's because there's only one Russ Feingold, only one Patrick Leahy that are standing up to Bush officials. When those items make the news it's because they're individual moments, individual people. The DNC is largely uninvolved.
I'm arguing that the DNC should be active, not passive - not necessarily run negative ad after negative ad, or smear any GOP candidates, but to use the record of a GOP-controlled House, a GOP-controlled Congress and for the last six years a GOP-controlled government to say to potential crossover voters, "Look - you may have voted for these guys so that things would get better, but these jokers have screwed you silly"
NOT lay down and say "good jobs at good wages". That kind of "build it and people will come" is exactly why Karl Rove has eaten the Dem's lunch for so long.
For these November elections, you don't have the option of a Bill Clinton who energizes the party - the party has to stand on it's own and support all these congressional candidates (and local elections). They need to pump up for serious beat-down, GOP-has-had-it-comin style messaging, because the "good jobs at good wages" days have been over for at *least* six years.
I'd further argue that the time is right for such a plan of attack. People are sick of the incompetence, the sleazy politics, and they're ready to stick it to someone - make it the GOP before they get teh ghey on everyone's mind again and frighten the soccer moms.
I had forgotten about teh ghey. Now I feel I can no longer in good conscience vote for the Democrats. I will vote Republican to protect my children from teh ghey.
You and half of the heartland.
That's the answer! The Dems just have to convince all teh gheyz to register Republican, and then THEY'LL be the party of teh gheyz and the Dems can retake congress!
IT'S A FLAWLESS PLAN!
At this particular point in time, for the Democrats to NOT talk about what a godawful mess this administration has gotten us into would be like ignoring the elephant in the living room.
No he's not (NSFW)
Pete, MoFi has another thread for personal photos.
I'd argue that we *haven't* had a lot of "storm the Bastille" talk - mostly capitulation from the so-called opposition party.
OK, perhaps not from the democratic party - but from everyone else - the media, the popular culture, and the rest of the world, all have waged a nearly constant campaign of antipathy toward Bush personally and republicans in general. Perhaps the democrats felt that that everyone else could carry their water for them for the last several years, but nevertheless: I think the public here has heard a nearly constant barrage of anti-Bush anti-republican rhetoric for the last three to four years.
And my further contention is that the average jamoke voter is sick of it. Barring any judgement of whether the charges levelled against this administration are valid, Americans don't like to be told they're wrong, don't like to be called stupid, and don't like either of these coming from people they perceive to be either foreign or snippy elitists. I might be wrong, but I think if the deomocrats decide to go against Bush and the republicans personally, I think they'll lose again.
Which is not to say that the democrats ought not go after the issues: Iraq is an issue, deficit is an issue, corruption in an issue. I think that they should go after issues with both hands, with facts and reality-based sorts of arguments. Stake a claim and stick to it. have *solutions* - or at least, concrete ideas. How long have the democrats' driving force been simply to be against whatever the republicans do? That's not a platform, it's pique. you may have voted for these guys so that things would get better, but these jokers have screwed you silly is, in my opinion, not going to work. For one, most people don't think they've gotten screwed, and the improving economy reinforces that; second, I think that there's something that the democrats forget: Americans love America, and the president, for all his faults, is the epitome of America. Not just this president, but ANY president. It's one thing to grumbly complain about the president and the government - hell, it's the official sport of everyone over 65. It's quite another to have him compared to Hitler, to be continually ridiculed as slipping toward an Orwellian nightmare, etc. Rational people know that dissent is not disloyalty, more than most would admit (we are a curmdgeonly nation). But when the charges are continual, the often vicious anti-Americanism coming through from abroad and, let's be honest, echoed more than a little at home - well, after a while, a bit of stubborn willfullness kicks in. Short version: make it personal, and I think they'll drive votes to the republicans.
Fes, people talk "Orwellian nightmare", which I agree is a little OTT, because there's lots of suspicion that Bush II has yet to win in a fair election. You talk about the mistakes of Gore and Kerry, and honestly, the mistakes of Kerry are the mistakes of party strategists. The "mistakes" of Gore mostly include things like "not engaging in Rove-driven dirty election tactics like those used in FL in 2000." Independent recounts done since the Supreme Court installed Bush in 2000 indicate that Gore actually won the vote. But we don't know how he would have dealt with 2001-2005 or if he would have won in 2004.
Bush "won" his second election because Rove et al pushed the fear angle: terrorists, teh ghey. Democrats did not push back on that angle, so Kerry lost the election, but with more votes than any previous victorious candidate. All machine voting errors supposedly ran in Bush's favor, which hardly made the whole thing look less sinister.
I think it is quite probable that Bush legitimately won the 2004 election, but the tactics and machinations involved make it look sketchy. If Diebold's CEO had never made that comment about being committed to delivering Ohio for Bush in 2004, and if the lesser-known suppression of the reports on the Tom Noe "Coingate" scandal hadn't happened, progressives would not be as upset as they have been. Diebold is still a locus of scandal and investigation. Bush hasn't been able to pull off the appearance of honesty with enough people, which is what makes some people so very angry... especially his party's obsession with Clinton's "honesty" and his campaign promises to "restore dignity to the White House." (I personally think it's naive to assume that any politician is "honest.") He could be spying on people right and left WITH THE FISA COURTS' APPROVAL and nobody would say a thing about it.
As far as people being stupid or being told they're stupid... well, it's pretty damn foolish to vote against your interests. Telling people this, however, can be accomplished without insulting their beliefs or their intelligence: how's the bank balance? how's the economy in your county, your state? are you making ends meet? do you have health insurance? is college affordable for those who need it? What are these individual Republicans actually doing for your family?
In many cases, unless you are speaking to someone in a specific industry (banking!), the answer is NOTHING.
I am not a registered member of any political party, but I do usually vote Democrat (the earlier canine-related analogy is a good reason why). What Democrats have done, ever-eager to capture votes in the center, is alienate the left wing of the party: thousands of people who will no longer vote at all because the Dems have made themselves too conservative. I don't think MoveOn is the problem... they are pretty obnoxious (oh, the daily emails!), but they are not the party, only a PAC, and the Republicans have equally obnoxious groups (one can start with the totally mendacious "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth," which managed to start lying in its name, with the part about "truth"). In general, Left Democrats have been interested in the last few years in creating their own institutions to mirror those of the Republican Right: equally irritating talk radio, for example. This works for some sympathetic people and drives other sympathetic people away.
The thing is, the Republicans have had a sophisticated media propaganda machine for years. Dems want one of their own, and given that their mistake in the past two elections seems to have been "not behaving as badly as the other party," it's hard to blame them.
I don't know what the US needs, but Bush isn't it.
PS - About what I said about Frist earlier: rich guy with his own corruption scandal hastily shoved under the rug, albeit one that might not make enough sense to the average middle-american voter to hurt him when he tries to run for President in the future. Don't necessarily look for a Democrat to take advantage of this: it will more likely be another Republican, in the primaries. Will not get the cat-lover vote, either.
the mistakes of Kerry are the mistakes of party strategists.
I absolutely agree, with the first and worst being choosing a not so great candidate. Kerry seems to be a fairly good senator, and educated and thoughtful man, and a moderate liberal - but he had major baggage - the politicizing of his Vietnam War service (on both sides), yakkity Leona Helmsley of a wife, and as I mentioned above: a long and occcasionally inglorious voting record. Hence, my cautions against doing the same thing in '08.
The "mistakes" of Gore mostly include things like "not engaging in Rove-driven dirty election tactics like those used in FL in 2000."
I think that summation is sort of like watching a car crash and then saying that the cause was the headlight flying out the front after it hit the other car. During the '04 race, you had a sitting VP from a two-term presidency going up against a failed business scion of Texas aristocracy. Gore should have *walked* away with it. Everyone assumed that he would walk away with it - including Gore. That was the problem. To my mind, we can bandy Florida all day long, but the point remains that in should have never come to a Florida recount - it should have never been that close of an election. Gore assumed victory and ghostwalked the campaign, while Rove, &c did indeed work their asses off. Say what you will about him persaonally, you can't fault their patience, their persistence, thei talents and, ultimately, their results.
Telling people this, however, can be accomplished without insulting their beliefs or their intelligence: how's the bank balance? &c
Precisely!! This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. You can talk to the results without making it a personal attack. Except for: What are these individual Republicans actually doing for your family? The reality is, a democratic president isn't going to be doing much for your family either. Macro-politics is very small and very far away for the vasy majority of people. And a lot of people get very twitchy when Washington gets closer (as in the Social Security privitization thing).
The thing is, the Republicans have had a sophisticated media propaganda machine for years.
I don't know how *sophisticated* it is, but I'll agree that it has been effective. I think a lot of it, however, has to do with the republicans not diluting their own message. They all say the same things, they all stay on point, and they all vote together (until lately, with approaching elections and continuing gooney-googoo shit at the top).
As for Frist, he's a bad candidate, for all the reasons that I cautioned earlier - sketchy past, goofy pronouncements, personal peccadilloes, voting record. Personally, I think the republicans are all too aware that they appear, rightly or wrongly, to be ethically and morally challenged. They need a candidate who's character and record are pretty much impeccable, and that guy is McCain. Observe his overly deferential talk about supporting Bush during that fool straw poll in Ohio (?). He's bringing himself slowly back into the republican fold after spending the last couple years at loggerheads. McCain's going to be our man in 2008, I can just smell it. And to be honest, the democrats are going to have to come up with a doozy of a candidate to beat him, and I don't think the democratic leadership has that candidate. Personally, I don't even thing they're *looking* for that candidate yet, and I'm not sure they'll start. H. Clinton has already lined up major funding and has started moving rightward (she was always pretty moderate, but lately she's been downright Liebermanesque). Imagine, if you will, a Clinton v McCain race in '08. It would be a blowout of Mondalian proportions.
They all say the same things, they all stay on point, and they all vote together
Translation: They have no conscience or integrity. If the party leaders told them to jump off a cliff, they'd do it.
Imagine, if you will, a Clinton v McCain race in '08. It would be a blowout of Mondalian proportions.
Sigh, that was a depressing election night to watch. I don't know if it makes sense to want an election to be balanced like a good soccer match, but that was nasty. And I rather liked Mondale. Could care less about H. Clinton. And I like McCain, including his maverick streak. Hmmm.
Translation: They have no conscience or integrity.
That's one interpretation. Another could be that they value working as a team to accomplish their goals, or that they understand the importance of providing a unified message and collective face to the public. You presonally disagree philosophically with the aims of the republicans (I assume), so using these tactics successfully seems disingenuous. But to someone who holds similar views? It makes a lot of sense.
Gore should have let Bill Clinton campaign for him.
Kerry wanted him to, but then that heart surgery thing sidelined him. This is proof that God hates us.
The next candidate must let Bill campaign. Nobody does it better.
I know he can't run for the top slot again, but is it legal for Bill Clinton to be a vice president?
I swear, every candidate in any party should go back and just listen to some of Clinton's campaign speeches. Hell, even his policy speeches during his presidency. Smart, engaging, optimistic, inspirational--if it was fake, it was the best fakery ever, but I'm inclined to think it was sincere desire to make things better.
THAT is what I think we're sadly missing. Okay, maybe that's too harsh--there are people on both sides (probably) who want to make things better. But what we're missing is someone articulating that to the voters in a way that makes them believe it. Instead we get either contrarianism, insincere-sounding pre-tested soundbytes, or plain wrong-headedness.
I miss Bill. Even when you didn't understand the policy he was expounding, you felt HE understood it and was being smart about it. Sigh.
Here's an article about some of what I'm trying to get at.
He wouldn't take it. And I don't think Hillary will get close to the nomination. He should campaign though, that was Gore's biggest mistake.
And I like McCain, including his maverick streak. Hmmm.
I used to like him, and I think if it was him the last 6 years we wouldn't be so deep-pole-fucked as a country right now. But his ass-licking of Bush at the RNC last election was pathetic. I lost a lot of respect for him for that. Plus he'd probably throttle a cameraman at some event and blow his chances.
Right now I'm just thinking about getting the Congress back, and I want the DNC to quit trying to get the middle and preach to the liberals. Dukakis was an idiot for ever letting that term be used negatively. The DNC is just as stupid to allow the Rovian right to use it against them.
I don't know what media market you're in Fes, but around the pete-o-sphere it's still "fair and balanced" when it comes to Bush. I hear concerned announcers muse whether or not we're seriously fucked in Iraq, but that's precisely the point: we're way fucked in Iraq - this budget bill completely rapes the poor of services AND the tax cut debate is a complete surreal farce - *That's* the point of view I want coverage to come from, not this old-school "Hmmm, let's find out what the administration says about this" bullshit. They're lying! They've been lying since before 2000 and they're not going to answer honestly, if at all!
The corporate media have failed utterly, I think we agree on that, but I'm not seeing any broad coverage showing how miserable a failure Bush is. I see it in segmented, marginalized pockets like MeFi, but my neighbor has it tuned squarely to Fox. And we need his vote. So DNC - don't fuck up and push teh moderate, goddamit.
And we need his vote.
I agree: you DO need his vote - but my point is that you will not get it by pointing out that he was wrong about Bush all along (and, by implication, that you were right!) I understand the temptation! I am certain there is a large segment of the population that has been anti-Bush from the start who feel that they have finally been validated. I'm here to tell you that, regardless of whether that feeling is right or wrong, I-told-you-so's are not going to win people to your cause. It could easily be that there is a lot of disatisfied republicans out there (I'm one). But there is also the concept of face, and the saving of it. Convince us to vote democratic with honey and reason, and we'll come over to your side. Scream "dupes!" at us and we'll stay the course.
Most people in America are moderates who's primary opinion about politics is the fervent desire to be left alone and proceed with their lives. Give them a candidate that will give them that, and you'll win election after election.
I don't know what media market you're in Fes, but around the pete-o-sphere it's still "fair and balanced" when it comes to Bush.
Perhaps I am a bit off when it comes to this: I don't watch TV news; I read two newspapers a day (STL Post-Dispatch [shit] and the Wall Street Journal [not shit]), but most of my news and commentary comes from the net.
I don;t think that pointing out this administrations mistakes and corruption is saying "I told you so, stupid," to everyone who voted it in. It's more like, "Look, we have to get out of this mess, and these people are making it obvious that they can't or won't do that."
Maybe. But without answering the question of how to get out of the mess, the democrats would be basically asking the voters to elect them simply on the idea that they are not republicans. And I don't think that'll be enough.
Most people in America are moderates who's primary opinion about politics is the fervent desire to be left alone and proceed with their lives. Give them a candidate that will give them that, and you'll win election after election.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't see how Republicans have left people alone - Patriot act and an illegal war being the obvious examples. Corruption scandals (Enron, Abramoff), an education and environmentally damaging budget being the less obvious. And yet Republicans have won all three branches of government, as well as other slots they haven't held in 10/20/50+ years.
Perhaps the "Way to go fucktards, you really know how to pick 'em" slogan isn't the best, but my point is that NOT pointing out what a complete catastrophe voting Republican the last few times has become, is missing a big chance to say "Vote democrat and you'll see it's better".
I concede the point that intelligent voters want to be informed, want to know where candidates stand on issues. But I disagree that that's the only strategy the DNC should be advising, because my neighbor isn't going to read or listen to that. The DNC should be highlighting the spectacular failures of ShrubCo in order to remind swing voters that they need to not screw up again.
Or, y'know, words to that effect.
I don't see how Republicans have left people alone - Patriot act and an illegal war being the obvious examples. Corruption scandals (Enron, Abramoff), an education and environmentally damaging budget being the less obvious.
Because NONE of those things have directly affected more than a small portion of the citizenry. The biggest one is Iraq, but you're still talking not very many people. As wars go, it's a popcorn fart in a distant and rather crappy place full of people that *never* liked us, and there are far too many voters out there that remember what a real war is. Enron and Abramoff? Those were anticlimactic at best. Golly, politicians take money from and may be themselves dicey crooked scumbags? My goodness! The few times that Bush *did* actually start doing things that affected lots of people - Katrina, Social Security, wiretaps - you saw numbers decline precipitously. It's not for nothing SS is the third rail of politics - because it affects everybody. When the federal government starts directly affecting people's lives, the government suffers.
in order to remind swing voters that they need to not screw up again.
If the democrats do that, without giving the voter any other face-saving alternative political path with actual plans underlying it - if they make it an us v them campaign, if their idea of persuading fence-sitting voters is we-were-right-all-along-about-Bush taunts - it is my firm belief they'll lose, both in November and in '08.
I kinda agree with Fes, kinda with pete. While "We're not republicans!" is enough for me, it's gonna take more than that for people with an almost sports-fanatic loyalty to "their team," the GOP. You've got to give them something to appeal to their nobility, their altruism, or at least their ideas of such. Also, things that connect to them specifically--price o' gas, health care, etc.--but as Fes suggests, by saying not only what your opponents didn't do, but what you WOULD do, and how.
Again, look to the KLIN-TON. Bill's speeches were very seldom "us vs. them," but usually about some "we can do better" ideal. Whether you think he was full of it or not, it resonated. Also, he was the UberWonk when it came to details and explaining how things would work. As I said above, even if you didn't understand it, you were pretty confident HE did. (A feeling I never get from Bush...grumblemumble...)
NONE of those things have directly affected more than a small portion of the citizenry. The biggest one is Iraq, but you're still talking not very many people. As wars go, it's a popcorn fart in a distant and rather crappy place full of people that *never* liked us
Would you care to explain why education & the evironment have been slashed in this 2006 budget while we've spent almost 300 BILLION dollars on Iraq and how that affects only "a small portion of the citizenry?"
The deficit ceiling has been raised Four times under Bush, and that's after inheriting a surplus from Clinton.
Would you care to argue that the Republican I vote for is going to challenge these type of policies?
Clinton was a political rock star, agreed. But he was IMPEACHED for (lying about) getting a goddamn blowjob while this POTUS clown we have now murders hundreds of thousands for oil. I wanna see the DNC call corrupt incompetent bullshit for what it is, not try to minimize it with some moderate-leaning mushmouth whitebread crap.
I'm not interested in appealing to people who still believe the Republicans are going to pay down the deficit, get us out of Iraq, stop Iran and North Korea, AND clean up the water & air while educating the new kids. Those people are enjoying the fruits of their voting - Ridiculous, Utter Shit. The Worst (and most damaging to America) Administration in American History. Any DNC memo that says appeal to the reason of the Bushies is a piss down an old hole.
)))!!!
Snaps for ideological divisiveness! Quite a day. In any event, it seems apparent that we disagree fundamentally and irreconciably on many things, including interpretation of American history, macroeconomics, and political theory. On DNC strategy, however, I've said my piece.
Sorry Fes, I got all "het up" as they say. I agree to disagree on DNC strategy, but I don't see how we disagree on American history, as such. Unless it's in the realm of opinion, i.e. "Reagan sucked / Reagan ruled" etc.
I'm far too stupid for macroeconomics, so I'll concede that we may disagree there. I'm not sure how we disagree in political theory exactly but I'd be interested if it was something other than the DNC strategy for November.
Please don't take my partisan vitrol at my neighbor (oooh, that guy makes me so mad!) for any pointed at others here - I deeply respect your counterpoint and interest.
So is it the case then that you are a Bush voter who is not committed to voting Republican in November?
Become Republican (flash anim.) is probably exactly what Fes is saying not to do. As a DNC strategy that is.
Democrat = doormat
Seems to be catching. the blue FPPs a similar thread featuring this Daily Show clip lampooning the ineffective DNC strategy.
I apologize for being a hypersensitive dick, pete and bees. I got to work this morning and landed in a spot of (non-me-related) trouble, so I won't be able to post more for a day or so, but I'll respond to your most recent posts soon as I get a chance. And again, sorry for the tetchiness.
No problem here, Fes -- I always find food for thought in what ye say.
May your spot removal be less time-consuming than ye anticipate.
No worries Fes, hope the work-spot dries quickly.
Did Chy do it? 'Cause he's been actin' fishy lately . . .
OK, sorry about that. Things are better. I had a couple of work-related surprises, and a couple personal-related items (I'm a new uncle; had a job interview yesterday) that precluded posting. In any event, I'm back.
I don't see how we disagree on American history, as such. Unless it's in the realm of opinion, i.e. "Reagan sucked / Reagan ruled" etc.
That item was related to your earlier statement referring to now as "The Worst (and most damaging to America) Administration in American History." First, it's not over yet - there is lots ; second, there are LOTS of worse periods in American history than now. One need only go back a generation to the Vietnam era, a conflict which was FAR more divisive, far more influential on American and world poltiics, and far more deadly - to reach Vietnam-era levels of casualties at current rates, the Iraq war would have to go on for another 30 years or so. My contention being: we live right now in some of the most peaceful and prosperous of times in human history. Indeed, I think it is a testament to that idea that the conflict in Iraq - tiny and localized as it is compared to the armed conflicts of even recent history - generates so much attention and criticism. We are becoming a far more peaceful species, I think. It is a bit of vanity that most Americans have, due to our lack of sense of history, that we continually feel we are living in the most dramatic and meaningful period of time. But if anything, to my mind we are in a bit of a historical lull, as compared to the encompassng events of the 20th century. It is a matter of perspective, I think - we are inclined to be myopic vis history because of our own lack of it.
I'm far too stupid for macroeconomics, so I'll concede that we may disagree there
I doubt that, Mr. Slippery :) But I was referring to this passage: "The deficit ceiling has been raised Four times under Bush, and that's after inheriting a surplus from Clinton." I had two contentions with that. Caveat: I am a fiscal conservative, and think that wildly inappropriate stewardship of the federal budget is one of the most egregious charges that can be laid at the feet of this administration. That said: (a) deficit spending has been the rule rather than the exception at the federal level, and deficit spending in times of economic downturn is no sin, if done specifically to assist in restarting economic growth. Tax cuts are similarly inclined - tax cuts during economic downturns have been consitently shown to asist (not singlehandedly, but assist) in shortening down cycles and speeding turnaround; and (b) Clinton, for all his good and bad points as a president, can not really be said to have generated a surplus - most of that was due to events that were effectively outside of his control. The tech boom and the Long Run especially, and a lot of that can be laid to the feet of "irrational exuberance" and the forebearance and relentless damping of interest rates conducted by Alan Greenspan at the Fed. There was also the matter of the tobacco extortion, which pumped a lot of funds into state coffers, which they in turn put into general budget items, which in turn took heat off the federal government to supplement unfunded mandates. Everyone got flush during the Clinton era, but in many ways it was an ephemeral flush. I heard more than once during the Floraida recounts that Bush would be wise to concede to Gore for the long-term betterment of the Republicans, since it was obvious at the time that an economic downturn was coming AND it was economics that sent Bush I from office.
So is it the case then that you are a Bush voter who is not committed to voting Republican in November?
:) Quite possibly. I have admitted admitted here, during Bush-Kerry, that I had planned to vote for Kerry, and it was only familial issues that precluded me from doing so. 1 2
In the past, I have voted for candidates from nearly every party with national appeal: republicans, democrats, libertarians, greens, reform, independant, even the Illinois Lesbian's Party (I have made it a point of honor to vote for every candidate the ILP fields). I am, on the other hand, a registered republican and vote in the republican primaries. While in many wasy I am an atypical conservative, I feel that my beliefs coincide better with the core platform of classical republicanism: fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, social equality under the law, pro free global trade, etc. I am also a traditionalist, a bit of a stoic, and believe that personal ethics ought to have an aspect of personal honor.
As you can imagine, no candidate ever encompasses every one of those. And I have a perverse streak that prompts me, often, to vote for underdog candidates even when my personal politics is opposed to theirs. But nevertheless, in the two party system, I find myself agreeing in general with republicans more than I do with democrats.
Except for the fiscal conservatism and psooibly the free global trade, I don't see any connection between the values you list and the Republican party's "core values" as opposed to other parties.
shoot - that's too much to process while I pretend to work the gaseousdecontaminoparticularfier - will Re: soon . .
Underpants Monster: hence my delimiter "classical" republicanism. This administration, to my mind, is in many ways republican in name only. I make no claims to superior understanding of the various parties' evolving platforms over time, but my overall feel is that my political beliefs roughly coincide with republicanism as practiced during the latter half of the 19th and former half of the 20th centuries. I am, I think, a bit of a neo-Victorian/Edwardian dandy :)
Thank you h-dogg - I knew that was out there somewhere! MMMwah!
Last night as I was trying to get to sleep, I kept getting little kicks and punches in my abdomen. Finally I decided to just get up and be done with it, and so caught most of the Feingold appearance. That guy has the most plastic smile I've ever seen. Aside from that, definitely a great guy & politician. I have a feeling we'll see him in the '08 primaries. Mr. Minda thinks the right will paint him as a far-left extremist, and he'll lose. What do you think? And, is he good presidential material?
um, cause you're pregnant, right Minda? you're not hosting some freaky alien predator-parasite thingy, are you???
Just a regular baby, Medusa. Although sometimes I *do* think she's going to come right out of my stomach, all alien style. She can kick hard!
when my sister was preggers she joked she was going to give birth to an octopedal soccer star!
It was a bit of a "ready" smile, but the right wing blastards will smear anyone - why not the best?
congrats minda25 :)
That's a good term for it, petebest. I'll have to remember it.
Medusa, she had it exactly right! And thanks, petebest :o)
Well, I have to give credit to Monkeybashi for the term. She came up with it in a fit of pique - or a typo. I forget.
Typo. Yep.
I never have piquey fits.
Okay Fes, now I have time to consider your posts.
*claps / rubs hands together, swigs vodka*
aaaaaaaaaand -Go!
That item was related to your earlier statement referring to now as "The Worst (and most damaging to America) Administration in American History." First, it's not over yet - there is lots ; second, there are LOTS of worse periods in American history than now. One need only go back a generation to the Vietnam era, a conflict which was FAR more divisive, far more influential on American and world poltiics, and far more deadly - to reach Vietnam-era levels of casualties at current rates, the Iraq war would have to go on for another 30 years or so. My contention being: we live right now in some of the most peaceful and prosperous of times in human history. Indeed, I think it is a testament to that idea that the conflict in Iraq - tiny and localized as it is compared to the armed conflicts of even recent history - generates so much attention and criticism. We are becoming a far more peaceful species, I think. It is a bit of vanity that most Americans have, due to our lack of sense of history, that we continually feel we are living in the most dramatic and meaningful period of time. But if anything, to my mind we are in a bit of a historical lull, as compared to the encompassng events of the 20th century. It is a matter of perspective, I think - we are inclined to be myopic vis history because of our own lack of it.
I think I see the disconnect. I was referring to the workings of the present administration in terms of it's scandals (cooking prewar intelligence, saudi connections, AWOL from TANG, losing the popular vote, promoting torture) and secrecy (valerie plame, illegal wiretaps, Scott McClellan's "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" etc.), it's incompetence (Katrina, no-bid contracts, vetoing anti-profiteering bills) and lack of financial dicipline (history-busting deficits- 9 trillion, 300 billion on an ill-run war, 9 billion lost for some reason in that war, 240 million overcharge from no-bid Halliburton as reported by the Pentagon's *own auditors* yet paid anyway in that war, cutting education & the environment, not supporting homeland security in America by properly funding police & fire departments).
In terms of the everyday experience of life in this America, it's better than the Depression etc. absolutely.
" . . . go back a generation to the Vietnam era, a conflict which was FAR more divisive, far more influential on American and world poltiics, and far more deadly - to reach Vietnam-era levels of casualties at current rates, the Iraq war would have to go on for another 30 years or so. "
Firstly, we don't have the benefit of hindsight on Iraq - who's to say the public discourse won't get as bad as Vietnam yet? Secondly, the POTUS recently said that the outcome of the Iraq war will depend on future presidents - there's plenty of discussion and evidence that we're there for a long, long time. And lastly, the middle-east is famous for its never-ending conflicts - the far-reaching impacts of this war can only be decided by history in any account. And I don't like the look of it.
I was thinking you would go back to the administration of Harding or Fillmore or something and say "that was worse", so I may have presented it badly.
. . . "The deficit ceiling has been raised Four times under Bush, and that's after inheriting a surplus from Clinton." I had two contentions with that. Caveat: I am a fiscal conservative, and think that wildly inappropriate stewardship of the federal budget is one of the most egregious charges that can be laid at the feet of this administration. That said: (a) deficit spending has been the rule rather than the exception at the federal level, and deficit spending in times of economic downturn is no sin, if done specifically to assist in restarting economic growth. Tax cuts are similarly inclined - tax cuts during economic downturns have been consitently shown to asist (not singlehandedly, but assist) in shortening down cycles and speeding turnaround; and (b) Clinton, for all his good and bad points as a president, can not really be said to have generated a surplus - most of that was due to events that were effectively outside of his control. The tech boom and the Long Run especially, and a lot of that can be laid to the feet of "irrational exuberance" and the forebearance and relentless damping of interest rates conducted by Alan Greenspan at the Fed. There was also the matter of the tobacco extortion, which pumped a lot of funds into state coffers, which they in turn put into general budget items, which in turn took heat off the federal government to supplement unfunded mandates. Everyone got flush during the Clinton era, but in many ways it was an ephemeral flush. I heard more than once during the Floraida recounts that Bush would be wise to concede to Gore for the long-term betterment of the Republicans, since it was obvious at the time that an economic downturn was coming AND it was economics that sent Bush I from office.
That last part is fascinating if only because I was going to follow up to the last post by saying "of course if a Democrat wins the White House next time, you'll see these Iraq chickens come home to roost and they'll get the blame"
And I concede many of your points there, so I'll only say this: deficit spending has been the rule because since Reagan, the Republicans have been the majority in the WH and have ridden that "voodoo economics" / "trickle-down" train (and you remember who coined the voodoo economics term, of course). I disagree that tax cuts are the way to go since 2000. I especially disagree that tax cuts are the way to go during wartime. That just smacks of lunacy to me, but there you go. How can we fund a war and not tax? What, cut medicaid, the arts, environment and education? Oh. Right.
Okay, other than that, yes.
I have admitted admitted here, during Bush-Kerry, that I had planned to vote for Kerry, and it was only familial issues that precluded me from doing so.
Okay, this might be the main point of contention vis a vis the Democratic Party's strategy for November (and beyond).
How can you support an administration which you know to be more dismissive of family policies than another based on familial issues? If you're talking about *rich* families, it might be a different argument, but taken as a whole, America has families that need education, environmental protections, financial support, police & fire protections - all aspects that Bush is much weaker than than Kerry would be. All of those programs are cut under Bush's 2006 budget. All of them are budgetarily moot because of Bush's Iraq war. Why would people vote that way? What part of the 2004 Republican message regarding familial issues struck you such that you would choose to vote Bush rather than Kerry?
As a second question, do you stand by that today?
Okay, that's all I got. Thanks again for the discussion, it is much appreciated.
Much obliged! I'll have ripostes, if you don't mind - gimme some time - but this last one I can talk to now: "How can you support an administration which you know to be more dismissive of family policies than another based on familial issues?" I'm a verbose idiot: the reason I didn't vote for Kerry is that I didn't vote at all - my wife, who had spent nearly four hours in line to vote, called me and I, rather than have her abandon her place in line to go get our kids, I opted to skip voting and take care of the sprats so that her hours of standing around waiting to cast her vote wouldn't be wasted. Those are the "familial issues" that precluded me from voting for Kerry. I have no idea who she voted for - she and I keep our own individual counsel on that.
But I can tell you that family-related political issues didn't figure into my decision on who I planned to vote for either way. When I was a consultant with the Air Force, we were all sitting around complaining about this or that, and one of the airmen I worked with shrugged his shoulder and said something very profound: "When you take the government dime, you have to play by the government rules. And the government rules suck." That man is, in my book, 100% right. I trust *every* administration to try and screw me and my family over - by reaching into my pocket, by spending what they take on stupid shit and, on the sad, sad day that I have to petition them for some of it back, to make me jump through more hoops and kiss more ass than any man ought to have to in a pair of lifetimes. So I plan and and I save, I pay an accountant good cash to make sure that I get every legal penny back on my taxes, I don't figure Social Security into my retirement plans, and I don't ask the government for anything I don't absolutely have to. They're all scumbags, and the best thing my family can do is have nothing to do with them beyond the necessary.
"More than 10m grassroots Republican activists were sent an internet advertisement this weekend.
It starts with a hooded man running through a bombed out building. As the sounds of gunshots and a fast-beating heart fade, a voice intones: 'Terrorists declared war on our country. Today, the terrorists still fight this war.'
After a reassuring shot of President George W. Bush vowing to defend the nation, and a reference to his pursuit of the international communications of al-Qaeda members, the advert cuts to clips of four angry Democrats. They suggest he has broken the law and hint at impeachment. 'Censure? Impeachment? Is this the Democrat’s plan?'"
Oh - sorry, is that not okay? Oh, well we'll be quiet then.
yes, quiet down Democrats! You're bothering the people running the country into the ground! Please, just behave and stick to themes of moderation and good jobs at good wages!
More chicken anyone?
Republicans like Sen. Arlen Specter have said that the nomination of Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, presents an excellent opportunity to finally get to the bottom of how the administration has been secretly eavesdropping on Americans:
"There is no doubt there's an enormous threat from terrorism, but the president does not have a blank check," Specter said on "Fox News Sunday." "Now, with General Hayden up for confirmation, this will give us an opportunity to try to find out."
What.
??
The Iraq war serves as a prime illustration of this yin-yang debate. Feingold in his speech was characteristically direct: "Why are so many Democrats too timid to say what everyone in America knows? It's time to redeploy the troops. It's time to bring the troops out of Iraq. I say bring them home by the end of the year."
Hearing Feingold's words, influential state Sen. Lou D'Allesandro, who backed John Edwards in 2004, turned to me and whispered, "That's pretty bold."
Warner's position is a trifle more nuanced and a tad more boring. As you deal with the following extract from Warner's speech, just remember the Little Engine That Could. If you repeat, "I think I can," enough times, you'll get through it.
"The new Iraqi government," Warner said, "has to start really showing the fortitude and its own responsibility to care about its own people -- and that means months, not years, in terms of the ability to step up and disband the militias and try to bring about some level of stability. Now, if we're going to make that happen, the only way it can happen is if we involve the balance of the Iraqi neighbors. Bring them all to the table. Form some level of a Regional Contact Group, so this is no longer simply an American problem."
My point entirely. Russ rocks. I think he gets that what my particular demographic wants is for them to say it. Call it lying to get to war. Call it a right-wing fiasco. Say it you waffling chimps!!
Democrats blast Bush for 'playing politics' with 9/11Bush began with a two-minute tribute to the "nearly 3,000" victims of the September 11 attacks, but most of his 17-minute speech was devoted to justifying his foreign policy
Bush's prime time address showed how he has been able to use the power of incumbency to command public attention and make his points. Democrats objected to the tone.
"The American people deserved better last night," Reid said in prepared remarks. "They deserved a chance to reclaim that sense of unity, purpose and patriotism that swept through our country five years ago."
Blistering retort, Dems.
Hasselhoffian in its stellarness.
Fittingly, the entire article is about Bush and what he thinks, or wants the weakminded 51% to think.
Wooo! Go opposition party! Sweat!
Sweat?
Opposition party?
FWIW, I've been listening to Clinton's autobiography (an FPP in that perhaps). He's got a unique perspective on how the far-right-neo-con-fascists came out of the woods to take over politics and each Democratic loss is usually described in terms of competing liberal factions that reduce the effectiveness of the whole Democratic party.
1972 Nixon v. McGovern
Nixon.
That said, this complete caving in to BushCo with the possible exception of Feingold and occasionally Leahy and Kennedy is teh suck.
The most corrupt, incompetent administration in history, with miles and miles of paper trails, sound bites, everything but the baby-eaten-on-live-TV and "the American people deserve better" is all they got?
Fuck me.
Fuck me.
I gave you a hug yesterday. Don't read anything else into that pete.
/derail
As long as a certain part of the population buys at least a part of their program, they can do no wrong. It doesn't hurt them that the Democrats have been even more incompetent.
The last debate, Kerry had a throwaway line "They talk about family values, but don't value families." Never referred to again, it could have have peeled off some of the social conservatives if it was made more of a focus. And their fiscal track record has been better than the GOP, (for various reasons), but nary a word.
Bush can't articulate anything simple, but does it emphatically, and repeatedly. The Democratic leadership hasn't even reached that level.
I wish H-dogg would post his excellent linkitude to the DNC blog - sometimes it seems like they're not even aware of just how shockingly inept (a.k.a. corrupt) BushCo is and never ever calls them on it.
I wish H-dogg would post his excellent linkitude to the DNC blog
Which links did you have in mind? (Probably NSFW.)
That's more like it.
Sweeet! Bring the bon temps senator!
Which links did you have in mind?
The usual spot-on "oh yeah, the Republican leadership is corrupt and constantly getting busted for it though you'd never know by the cowed silence and lack of spine shown by the fat-cat liberal mainstream media."
Y'know - the usual.
Funny. The very same thought whizzed through my mind as I read not only the Republicans, but the Democrats who voted in favor of S.3930. I shook my head in disbelief, and said out loud something to the effect of "you're all worthless scum." I think it's the first time I will consciously remember a Senate vote with clarity. Those who voted in favor, I cannot forget.
I just e-mailed Senator Pryor and told him what I think. I hope all of you who have names on that list will do the same. I just wish I could do more right now.
Fortunately, both of my Senators gave Nays. But what's up with NJ? Both of their spineless Democrat Senators caved in.
*glares angrily across the river to the soiled Jersey shores*
Foley: Republican or Democrat?
Google news shows a few instances of Foley labelled as a Dem, but following the links to the articles shows that they've been corrected.
Pfft. corrected. That's big-D Democrat thinking for ya.
Damage done, mission accomplished.
9/11.
Just makin a snarky point about the DNC smallish bear, nothing about you there, apologies if that came out wrong.
Foley Sex Scandal
"'This is going to be the most difficult 30 days in the last 12 years that we've been in the majority,' said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., on CBS' 'Face the Nation.'"
Damn that's sad. I don't doubt he's right either.
Shit.
Katrina and Iraq? Cakewalk. Underage Sex? OMG LOL
Yeah, being held accountable must suck when you're a freaking pedophile enabler.
The reason its bad is because it doesn't spin easily.
War? Tell the people to be afraid.
Katrina? Blame local government.
Pedophilia: Blame the kids!
Thats brilliant!
Those 16 year old boys were asking to be harassed!
They're clearly enaged in sedition. Send them to detention!
MOFI Meetup! And a fun, campground-like setting to boot!
"Anyone who ... speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens."
Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
Hell yeah! Recommend that shit!
No Reason To Make NiceIn the House, Suddenly Righteous Republicans"The bill we offer today, the minority bill of rights, is crafted based on the exact text that then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi submitted in 2004 to then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert," declared McHenry, with 10 Republican colleagues arrayed around him. "We're submitting this minority bill of rights, which will ensure that all sides are protected, that fairness and openness is in fact granted by the new majority."
Pelosi is in Syria why again?
I think somebody thought this was a good idea, but I don't see how. I mean as the Speaker of the House she wields a certain amount of power and wants to understand the situation blah blah, but the whole thing stinks of politics and I can't see how this isn't being received poorly by everyone.
In America, that is. Where the Americans live.
An excellent piece. Thanks for posting, H-dogg.
Moreover, let's just say this about the Democratic Party. They can wash their hands of this war as much as they want publicly, but their endorsement of this crude neocolonial exploitation plan makes them accomplices in the occupation, and further legitimizes the insurgency. It is hard to argue with the logic of armed resistance to U.S. forces in Iraq when both American parties, representing the vast majority of the American voting public, endorse the same draconian plan to rob the country's riches.
I'd held on to a little hope when Bush got elected (both times), and was actually excited when the Dems won Congress ("we'll FINALLY see some justice!"). When I learned that they blatantly refused to impeach, I lost some of that hope. When I learned that they refused to end the war, I lost it all together.
Also, I'm completely unsurprised that they voted to go to war without even considering the facts. It makes me angry, but certainly not surprised. I'm equally unsurprised and angry that there haven't been (or will be, really) any actual consequences for anyone in the administration for any of their illegal actions.
There is a bottom-line here: Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and other top administration officials shirked their duties by not planning for the troubles predicted by the intelligence community.
Only if you can make a case for that. Which, apparently, the Democrats cannot.
Losers.
Republicans and Democrats
Sins of commission and sins of omission.
I'm enraged by the Republicans.
I'm appalled by the Democrats.
WTF is going on that nothing can be done in this country? You'd think there would be a huge wave of outrage...oh, wait. I know what's wrong. Somebody calmed with waters with oil.
Is this the part where I talk about TV again?
*clears throat, taps papers on podium*
Ladies and Gentlemen; since the dawn of time, humans have looked into the communal campfire and told stories about toothpaste, lawyers, and why Brad left Jen.
(Wait for laughter, applause to finish)
I just caught some of this, and it made me sick to my stomach. The two-party system is officially dead in my book, and the country sure is headed in that direction...
*ironic echo of a dead soul left screaming*
I no longer make any distinctions between Democrats and Republicans. They all suck wilted rutabaga poop. EOS.
"Okay, Uncle Sam, now grab your ankles. No, no, stick your ass higher in the air. No, higher."
- The Democratic Party
Senators emailed.
False sense of security restored.
TUM, remember, under this regime in this day and age, the only security warnings you need to worry about are the terrioriststs allarts.
Whoops, there goes Bin Ladan.
No, over there. Over there. He ducked. No, over there.
Ummmm, something shiny.
Now, what were we talking about?
Is anyone else warming up to the idea of Hillary for President just to make every right-wing freakshow crap on themselves in a steaming paranoid rage?
Obama, also good. Whatever.
Good grief.
When is National Koran Week, btw? National Necromonocon Week?
Personally, I'm looking forward to National LOLCATBIBLE Week.
That is a wondrous work indeed, SMT. But the bestest part is that Genesis 1:1 starts with "O hai."
Oh I love the intrawebs sometimes.
1 In teh beginz is teh cat macro, and teh cat macro sez "Oh hai Ceiling Cat" and teh cat macro iz teh Ceiling Cat.
2 Teh cat macro an teh Ceiling Cat iz teh bests frenz in teh begins.
3 Him maeks alls teh cookies; no cookies iz maed wifout him.
4 Him haz teh liefs, an becuz ov teh liefs teh doodz sez "Oh hay lite."
5 Teh lite iz pwns teh darks, but teh darks iz liek "Wtf."
*waits for the cat thing to go away forever*
Oh hai, rocket. Don u lik teh lolkittehs?
Teh lolkittehs liek uz.
Purrhaps u needs to tell summ1 about it.
This cannot be this hard. FIGHT you assh*les!
Democratic aides said the aim is to win the president's signature by week's end, when Congress hopes to adjourn for the year. To do so, Democrats made scores of concessions, pulling hundreds of millions of dollars from the National Institutes of Health, special education and other programs they had said deserved far more than Bush was willing to spend. They also dropped a challenge to the president's policy of prohibiting aid to international family-planning groups that offer abortions.
under this regimein this day and age, the only security warnings you need to worry about are the terrioriststs allarts. Whoops, there goes Bin Ladan. No, over there. Over there. He ducked. No, over there. Ummmm, something shiny. Now, what were we talking about?