For awhile, I've been harping on my opposition to what I've been calling the Democratic Narrative of Weakness, viz. "If only _____ (D-___) had a [spine|balls|stones], we would have [passed|stopped|won] ____."
My riposte has been that the Democrats aren't weak; they're servicing the only constituencies that matter to them, which have very little to do with the citizens who voted them into office. So, the Dems aren't weak. They suck.
However, at the AU meetup, it was pointed out to me that the Dems really are weak. Could you imagine, my interlocutor asked, LBJ or Tip O'Neill putting up with Joe Lieberman's behavior? Not for a minute.
So, the Dems suck, and they're weak too!
Reminds me of the old joke whose set-up is "You want a second opinion? OK!"
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Joe
serves those who are important to them quite well, and gives them cover to play the weakness whine game. So he should be thanked and rewarded with chairmanships and support against a "fellow" Dem who doesn't serve the really important people as well. Joe never actually goes off the reservation. He only stabs in the back those issues that have the potential of thwarting his corporate masters.
Lieberman is the symbol of the Democratic Party.
And this is why I want Harry Reid to lose his reelection bid.
Ideally, it throws the position of majority leader open to the other two powerful Democrats in the Senate, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer.
Never mind that Schumer is horribly beholden to Wall Street and would further perpetuate the bankers' domination of the political system. You know what? In spite of all that, he'd still be the superior majority leader, because at least he's not pathetic like Reid.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
Reid
is only pathetic if his leadership is viewed as serving the people. If it is viewed as serving corporate interests, then he, like Joe, is a bright shiny jewel in the corporatist crown. Just consider all the changes toward corporatist benefit under his minority leadership , as well as majority leadership. The only ones "pathetic" are the ones who believe the dems are weak. Heck, the Democratic leadership has even managed to stack the Supreme Court with corporatists. Why was Roberts shooed in? Why no going to the mat on Alito? On issue, after issue from bankruptcy reform, to telecom immunity to Patriot act, to Bank bailouts, etc., the constant theme is corporate benefit, loss to populace protection. That's not loss of focus. That's not scattered weakness. It's success. Very good success. Just not success for those whom the Democratic Party pretends to serve.
I still think they're weak.
Insofar as I think a politician with strong convictions and nerve could utterly flay them. Corporatist
Dems are strong enough in their own paradigm, but come at them without propriety and etiquette and see how long they hold up.
I think they could be bullied into submission, quite frankly.
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
Best explanation yet for the Grayson phenomenon:
Democrats have always been disappointing, dating right back to the origins of the modern Party with Andrew Jackson. With James Buchanan, Dems even have the dictionary portrait example of being both disappointing and weak.
Some of us, though, grew up on the legend of our parents' Democratic Party of FDR and Truman. Sure they were disappointing in various respects, but you would never have considered them weak. Say what you want about LBJ, "weak" is not one of the words that comes to mind:
="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Lyndon_Johnson_and_Richard_Russell.jpg"
As much as I am disappointed and irritated by the inevitable compromises and trimming of Democratic politicians, I can't stand the current fashion of cowering obeisance to Versailles
Court Etiquette. With the fighting Dems of my youth, at least you thought the ball would be advanced down the field. Nowadays, you constantly wonder whether they're tipping off the play to the other side before the snap.
It says it all to me that Joe Lieberman was a protégé of Abe Ribicoff.
Didn't Joe Lieberman have a Senate protege?
I can't remember what happened to one in particular...
The sooner we recognize this, the better...
It became apparent when Dems rigged an election. Once they became willing to sacrifice fundamental principles of democracy for their desired ends, I stopped trusting them. And the fact that they control all levers of Government and have a President who can use his bully pulpit to do anything he wants, yet we *still* have generally conservative policies then it is very hard to argue weakness rather than Suckitude.