It is so saddening, frustrating and disheartening to watch the left run full speed blindly into the Rovian trap of “It’s all the fault of those Democrats!” Time was a person had to go to looking in the right-wing blogage pails for Dem-bashing but now that the left blogosphere has fully capitulated why, it’s Damn-the-Democrats everywhere, all of the time. Somewhere, deep in the fetid recesses of the swamps of Bushland, MC Rove is, rat-like, rubbing his little hands together and twitching his whiskers in glee.
Frustration and anger by the American left, indeed by anyone who cherishes freedom, liberty and responsible government, is completely understandable and correct. There is much to be angry about, and every aspect seems to be steadily deteriorating. However, the anger being expressed by the left towards Democrats is utterly misplaced; it is a classic case of transference, a phenomenon wherein feelings that should properly be directed towards one entity are erroneously directed towards another.
In this case, the outrage appropriately expressed by the left towards BushCo has had no immediate effect, resulting in higher and higher levels of frustration. Seeking an outlet for their anger, and seeing themselves as helpless and impotent against their true enemy, the left instead is reduced to lashing out against the closest available target, their natural allies the Democrats. In doing so they follow the seductive path of lies so repetitiously laid out and smoothed by the right – Blame Everything on the Democrats – or that of the Naderites (now echoed by Gravel) – There Is No Difference Between Republicans and Democrats. The left, like an angry employee whose frustration with an abusive but untouchable employer is transferred into rage at an innocent but vulnerable spouse, has turned upon the only ally available that might offer a way out of what is otherwise an untenable dilemma. It is very, very sad to see.
Rage (unmetabolized, unreasoning anger) by the left towards Democrats can be roughly divided into three interrelated but distinguishable areas; Impeachment, the Occupation of Iraq, and Unconstitutional Acts. Culpability for all three of these areas, and all subsets thereof, should be properly directed towards Bush and his administration instead.
Iraq
The occupation of Iraq by Bush (and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, etc.) is already doomed. There will be no peaceful solution. Gen. Petraeus has stated clearly that military force will not succeed without a viable political solution: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq.” Secretary of Defense Gates has admitted what everyone already knows, that the political situation in Iraq is in shambles and unlikely to improve. Worse yet, American armed forces are on the verge of a system-wide collapse, a looming debacle evident even to the far right. Combat tours have been extended and units redeployed at a level that is completely unsustainable. With over $200 Billion of combat equipment destroyed or worn out, all of our remaining materiel is deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan – there is nothing left for replacement troops to use in training. New soldier recruitment rates are lagging in spite of orders to loosen enlistment standards, so much so that waivers for criminal convictions have sharply increased. The New Army will soon be in danger of being run not from the top down by skilled officers and non-coms, but from the bottom up by gang-bangers.
When US forces on the ground in Iraq collapse, as they will by summer of 2008, they will be forced to retreat into enclaves (hunkered down as sitting ducks for enemy artillery attacks) or leave the country completely. Either way, Iraq will descend into chaos. At best, sectarian violence will escalate, with Iranian and Saudi financial and weaponry support fueling the violence. (US supplied weapons will flow through Saudi Arabia.) Complete lawlessness in Iraq will facilitate the spread of terrorist violence throughout the Middle East and beyond. A proliferation of rogue independent jihadists will emerge to further destabilize Lebanon, and Jordan will begin to slide into anarchy.
But the Middle East is not the Indochinese Peninsula, and the Domino Effect is far more likely to happen here and now than it was after Vietnam. In the worst case, uncontrolled violence could easily spread into Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Weapons and jihadists will have open access to the Palestinian Territories, from which a constant rain of rockets and mortar attacks will focus on Israel. The Kurds, fearful of being overrun, will mobilize and the Turks, who have already stationed 200,000 armed troops along the Kurdish border, will invade. Rearmed and free of Pakistani constraint, the Taliban will sweep across Afghanistan and our erstwhile Afghani tribal allies, sensing a power shift, will realign and turn against the Coalition Forces who will be compelled to cede the countryside and retreat into Kabul. In the face of this cataclysm the United States will be helpless, because our Army will be broken.
This debacle is the fault of George W. Bush and his administration, not the Democrats. With the unavoidability of this disaster now clear in the White House, however, the political strategy of BushCo is to shift blame to Democrats. Any reluctance, any hesitation, any criticism will be paraded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Any denial of funding will be held out as the cause of the inevitable collapse.
(For those who might argue that the public will not blame Democrats for what is so clearly Bush’s fault, please remember that the BushCo propaganda machine was able to successfully convince the voting public that Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, genuine authentic decorated war heroes, were actually soft on defense and unwilling to directly confront America’s enemies while the deserter GW Bush would be the best choice to protect America. It would be politically irresponsible to underestimate the gullibility of this nation’s voters)
The Democratic leadership has determined to not hand this political tool to Bush, but instead to give him whatever he asks for militarily. The Democratic political counter-strategy is to give Bush as much as he requests, and force him to be the one to deal with the consequences of his own mistakes. The Bush strategy of delaying any resolution in Iraq until after he leaves office now will clearly not succeed – the enormity of his errors will be plain to see by next summer, well in advance of the next elections.
Unconstitutional Acts
The list of these committed by Bush (and Cheney, and Gonzales, etc.) is long and does not bear repeating here. Many, if not all, on the left now argue that Democrats are to be held complicit in these usurpations, especially following the recent FISA legislation. Even the usually brilliant and politically sophisticated Glenn Greenwald feels that Democrats are now “disgusting” and “unconscionable,” arguing that the 2006 election gives proof that obstructing Bush’s grasp for dictatorial powers is politically safe.
But circumstances in 2008 will not be the same as those of 2006. By next summer the entire Middle East and beyond will be a cauldron of armed conflict, horrific beyond anything the world has ever seen, and there will be nothing the United States can do to stop it. BushCo will undoubtedly try to beat on Democrats for the mess that they themselves have made, and there is no sense whatsoever in the Democrats handing over more clubs with which to inflict the beating. Anything Bush asks for that is termed by him as necessary for national security will be given to him - period. Heading into the 2008 elections, there can be not the slightest whiff of Democratic obstruction of Bush’s ability to fight against external enemies. If, horrifically, there is another terrorist attack on US soil, Democrats cannot risk being seen as having in the slightest way obstructed Bush’s ability to prevent it.
Some, indeed many, have argued that the Democrats are agreeing to Bush’s dictatorial aspirations because they want such powers for themselves. This is patent nonsense, for which there is no evidence in fact. If it were so, why have any hearings? Why speak out against the power grasps? Why offer any resistance whatsoever? Why not make the recent FISA legislation permanent instead of imposing a six-month limitation? If there is in reality a complicit Democratic-Republican-Corporatist
plan to revoke constitutional government and impose a dictatorship, why bother with what must in that case be merely Kabuki political theater? Why not instead simply agree completely with BushCo that these are all needed measures, that Guantanamo is necessary, that habeas corpus is a luxury we cannot afford, that any and all civil liberties must be sacrificed for the greater cause of anti-terrorist triumphalism? Why not jump wholeheartedly on the bandwagon of fear and drive the citizenry into complete cowering compliance?
The simple and clear answer is that the majority of Democrats are openly opposed to Bush’s policies because they are in fact opposed to Bush’s policies. To attack the Democrats at this time for what are the sins of BushCo is to fall heedlessly into a political trap laid by Rove, and others think so as well (Karl Rove is Tricking You Again by drational).
Democrat political jockeying is surely cynical and risky, but it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. To participate in the campaign by BushCo to split the left into feuding factions is politically naïve, foolish, self-destructive, and so very, very sad to see.
Impeachment
Removal of Bush (and/or Cheney, and/or Gonzales, etc.) from office is devoutly wished for by the left, but not by the American people in general. Impeaching Gonzales, even if successful, would be a waste of time – Bush would simply move someone else equally compliant into the position on a temporary basis and not nominate any successor at all - there would be no confirmation hearings and investigations would continue to be stonewalled. Nothing functionally would be changed. Impeaching Cheney is even more problematic in terms of success and does not serve to rein in Bush himself. Cheney has become Bush’s Dark Angel; impeachment proceedings would only draw them closer and strengthen Cheney’s grip on Bush’s decision making.
Why not impeach Bush himself? Other than the obvious downside of elevating Cheney to the Presidency, a recent poll shows insufficient political support for such a move:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 6-8, 2007. N=1,014 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"
There is justification: 36%
There is NOT justification: 62%
Unsure: 3%
So if not just Bush or only Cheney, why not impeach both at the same time and install Nancy Pelosi as President in what would amount to a legalistic coupe d’état? Beyond being the least likely scenario to get past the Republican True Believer block in the US Senate, does Pelosi even want to be President? Until recently I had considered that she would, and in circumstances other than those looming she might still. However, the almost incomprehensible catastrophe that is about to be unleashed on the world as a result of Bush’s errors is a burden that neither she nor any sane person would willingly embrace. Far better politically to leave Bush and Cheney in place and let the Republican Party reap the full force of the fury of the American electorate in 2008. Were Pelosi to embark on an impeachment effort, the ensuing “distraction” to Bush would be another reason to blame the nightmare to come on the Democrats – Had they not distracted Bush he would have been able to save everything, but then those damn Democrats and their phony political impeachment got in his way…..
These are, it must be granted, cynical politics, and there is little here to be proud of. However, and this is the key distinction, the circumstances faced today by the Democrats are not their own fault – they are the direct result of actions taken by George W. Bush. That Bush has been able to create so much destruction is the fault of the Republican Party and, it must be said, the American electorate who put them in a position to seize power and commit such awful acts. There is no plainer way to say this: It is not the fault of the Democrats that Bush and the Republicans have done what they have done. The entire fault lies with Bush and the Republicans. For anyone to assert otherwise is a travesty of reason and a defilement of logic.
To allege that Democrats are complicit, that they bear any blame, that they are no different from Republicans, that they are all part of some Corporatist Cabal that has seized the Republic, is to provide cover for those truly culpable. To take such a position is unwise, defeatist, self-destructive, counter-productive, foolish and naïve.
There is no kind or gentle way to say this and the stakes are too high, the time too short to countenance anything other than blunt confrontation:
Those on the left who do less than provide full and complete support for the Democratic Party now and for all of its candidates in 2008 are acting as the unwitting tools of the Republican totalitarian cabal, and are by their actions endangering the very freedoms they claim to want to defend. These are perilous times, and the battle lines for democracy in this country could not be clearer. Any action, any words, any behaviors that impede the ability of Democrats to seize back the Presidency and the Congress from Republican authoritarianism are nothing less than acts against American constitutional democracy. There will be time enough to rebuild the Democratic Party starting in 2010; for now the focus must be on saving the Nation itself.
Either you are with us, or you are against us. Either you stand close with the forces that are trying to recover our Nation, or you are allied with the enemies of freedom. I beg of you; think it through. Reflect upon your choices calmly, consider carefully and choose wisely. It is no overstatement to say the future of democracy now rests within your hands.
- bringiton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
As you might imagine from my recent posts...
... I agree with much of what you say.
Rather than reiterate all the points I agree with, let me say this: 2008 national elections. Solid blue. Period.
Here's where I'm not with you. You describe a Middle East ready to explode and suggest that it's wise strategy to give Bush enough rope so that comes to pass and he gets the blame. That's not just a "cynical" strategy; if it's true, it's an abomination.
Also, while I strongly advocate pure blue voting (and ideally with better nominees than the Blue Dogs), "if you're not with us yer agin' us" can easily translate into an STFU
message for people who want the best out of a Democratic majority. Right now, we have a clear Democratic majority in the House, and it's not reliably voting for the right things. I don't want to blame the blameless, but I will blame the blameworthy leadership and the turncoats. Letting Bush make his most obviously illegal and unconstitutional acts now legal ain't clever strategy. It's a failure. We lost, they won. Period. And the fact that it creates a backlash that makes Karl Rove cackle suggests that the wayward Dems shouldn't have voted for it, not that we should learn to love it.
Also, there are numerous other polls that say half the country or more is in favor of impeachment. The "is there justification" question seems to slant it toward doubt whether sufficient evidence is totally in place.
All that said, I too have zero tolerance for that "they're all the same" talk. The numbers simply don't bear that out. It's misguided, juvenile, disempowering venting at a time we're contending with the most powerful organized crime operation our country has ever seen.
Ah, Bringiton! At last you step out front ...
Pimpin' Ain't Easy
Bringiton,
The psychological phenomenon I see you exhibiting is excessive identification with something outside of yourself.
You are NOT the Democratic party. When folks like me criticise the Democratic party we are not criticising Democratic voters. We are not criticising you.
The strategy you lay out sounds great for Democratic politicians but it does nothing for you, for Americans living at home or dying abroad. Or maybe after 2010 as you say.
2010? Are we already kicking the can down the road to the election after the next?
What? The people who will deal with the consequences of Bush's mistakes are me, you, all Americans and a pretty big chunk of people around the world, like in Iraq and the Middle East.
After 2009 George W. Bush will retire to Paraguay where he will be immune to prosecution and live a life of luxury and baby-eating until the end of his days. He will sleep soundly every single night.
It's the same old "give them enough rope" strategy the Dems have been following since 1999: Let the GOP rape the Constitution, spread death and destruction around the world, bankrupt our economy... all so the Dems can count on the resulting sympathy points to win the next election?
Guess what, it hasn't worked. The Dems lost every single election since 2000 on that strategy. The only exception was 2006 and that was because people voted for them out of hope that they would end the fucking war, not out of pity.
Why would somebody hang themselves if you give them a rope? Why wouldn't they hang you? Or whip your ass with it? That's what the GOP is doing. I've never understood that phrase.
I like this other phrase you use:
Isn't that exactly what you're accusing progressives who criticise the Democratic party of doing?
I say, as citizens, we should criticise our elected representatives without mercy. They work for us. And if you want to prevent the GOP from staying in office, just vote for them anyway.
As activists, as a movement, we're not going to get anywhere if politicians and other activists can get us to shut the fuck up and give up our demands simply by dangling the boogeyman of another GOP victory in front of us. Which, they guarantee, is inevitable if we show anything less than total support when they sell us down the river.
No. You. Didn't.
The truth is the
The truth is the Congressional Democrats, since their taking power in Congress, have not done one thing to stop Bush on anything he really wants.
The real question: Are the Democrats in any real sense a party?
From SMBIVA:
Among Democrats, it's the aisle-crossers who control the party as an institution. They're like the tiller on a boat -- an inch this way or that, and you've tacked. Or gybed, as the case may be.
It's true that if you average up the (expressed) views of Democratic and Republican officeholders you end up with two different-sounding songs. But all the Bernie Sanderses and Dennis Kucinich-es and Ted Kennedys etc ad soporem are in effect lashed to a chariot whose reins are firmly in the hands of the Lantoses and Liebermans. So the ineffectual enlightenment of the former is worse than useless -- it's an actual snare and delusion, like the sweet nectar that draws the poor fly into the flytrap.
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2007/0...
Calls em as I sees 'em
Look, you can put Party(tm) over all else. Fine, go ahead and vote by (D) and everything will be "Just Fine"...
Right.
Ok, so let's say we don't have a maniac at the helm, what can we expect from these Congressional Clowns?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08...
Explain to me how it matters if there was all Dems everywhere? This would have still been passed even if Heir Decider wasn't there to threaten their August vacation. You think the DIA/NSA/CIA are going to give up these programs just because you voted "blue".
Give it up. They all need to go. Impeach anyone who is against the Constitution. Any states with recall should start motions now and let's remove all of these clowns.
problem #1
The Democratic leadership has determined to not hand this political tool to Bush, but instead to give him whatever he asks for militarily.
"hand him this political tool?" that's a nice way of talking about the media environment, but not the right way. the fact is that no matter what the democrats do- from shaving their heads and giving up everything they own to the poor, to raping babies on camera- what the media will say they do is determined according to a tight, republican crafted, script. the dems can play nice, or not, and the chris matthews of this world will scream and shout and use polemic and the worst form of "infortainment" visual brainwashing technique, and otherwise try to convince people that the sky is green and water is dry.
the democrats must stop pandering to a media they can never appease, and from which they will never receive a fair hearing.
i haven't had any coffee yet, but i recall a comparison of dem candidates who followed the DLC plan in 06, and represented themselves as milquetoast pushovers who were republican lite on the WOT. they didn't do nearly as well as those more progressive candidates who said all the "wrong" things re: conventional wisdom. iirc, progressive dems kicked ass by comparison.
short version: your argument is flawed from this point because it assumes that "what the dems do/say" will be presented factually by the media. it won't. it's not. for a long time now. wtf do you think we're trying to do here, but correct that? ;-)
ha ha ha ha
GWB and the Republican party did not pass the FISA legislation.
The Democratic congress didn't even need to hold the vote. Time after time, you useful idiots who want us to support the democratic party regardless of performance clearly show yourselves to be nothing but bitter partisans. You don't actually care about reform, or protecting the constitution. You only care about getting Democrat's elected.
To put it bluntly, go fuck yourself. They wanted power, we gave it to them. They have to earn the right to keep it and so far they have failed miserably.
problem #2
Anything Bush asks for that is termed by him as necessary for national security will be given to him - period. Heading into the 2008 elections, there can be not the slightest whiff of Democratic obstruction of Bush’s ability to fight against external enemies.
this sounds suspiciously close to "we must trust in the king and god will save us from this dire peril!" you're not suggesting that fear dictate policy, or color decision making? that's what they do on the right, but progressives shouldn't make this mistake. yes, bush will get all the power he asks for, and more, and yes, he'll fuck it up despite being made a king. but this won't in any way makes dems look better/good. they will be, and indeed are, seen as lapdogs.
Some, indeed many, have argued that the Democrats are agreeing to Bush’s dictatorial aspirations because they want such powers for themselves. This is patent nonsense, for which there is no evidence in fact. If it were so, why have any hearings? Why speak out against the power grasps? Why offer any resistance whatsoever? Why not make the recent FISA legislation permanent instead of imposing a six-month limitation?
c'mon, this is too naive. playing to the public, getting some face time in front of the cameras, wow! i just can't imagine a politician who'd do that! hearings aren't holding people in contempt and having the sgt at arms march them to a cell until they straighten up and answer tough questions. congress has that power, for all it is too timid to use it. oh wait- power is for the executive, let's give him some more.
as to the sundown on fisa: i'll make you a bet. i've got a dollar says that in six months, for the reasons you outline, dems will not only pass it again/make it permanent, they'll give him even more power when they do. like they did this time. even my friend ian admits he got "punked" by dems on this bill.
and if you don't think hillary or obama are just as excited as julie annie to get ahold of the New American Throne, you're not listening to what they are actually saying. again and again, the remind us of the "need" for a US presence in the ME, and the "defense" of israel. the narrative may change under a dem administration, but it will only become a "kinder, gentler" version of endless war. the war provides the cloak that the executive needs to justify monarchial power. and so it will go on.
The Democrats did not get
The Democrats did not get punked. They wanted this bill. You're just falling for all of that bullshit political theater. The Democrats are just pandering to you, they really truly believe this was a good bill.
As long as you keep pretending otherwise, you're just a naive little kid.
problem #3
Democrat political jockeying is surely cynical and risky, but it is the best that can be done under the circumstances. To participate in the campaign by BushCo to split the left into feuding factions is politically naïve, foolish, self-destructive, and so very, very sad to see.
risky? to whom? not incumbents who are pretty sure they can count on suckers like...some people, who will turn up and vote for them no matter what they fail to accomplish. "it's me or something even worse, whatcha gonna do, rube?"
bushco isn't telling me what to think and feel, i do that for myself. as i think most progressives do. and self-destructive? hmmm, let me think about that for a minute. i suppose all my labors and efforts of the last six years to get to the point of a majority have been self destructive, i tend to drink too much these days. but i distinctly remember being told, again and again and again: 'wait until we are a majority. all will change.'
i waited. it hasn't. i'm pissed. what is so hard to understand about that? or why so many in the blogosphere, people who gave money they didn't have and time they never got paid for, some of whom are literally dead because they stressed themselves to elect dems who couldn't even be bothered to cough up a little health insurance for their flunkies....ok, i'm losing my temper here. i'll stop.
problem #4
"with us or against us?" wow, my head is exploding, i never thought to hear that in this context. um, ok.
"democracy is in my hands?" hahahaha, what democracy? the one in which my votes aren't even counted, or the one in which "my" reps vote to give the monarch more power than he asked for and more money than he asked for to fund his endless war? the one in which american citizens are spied upon, locked up without due process, and demonized in the media before being tortured to death?
but ok, i had no idea i was so powerful! quick, let me restore constitutional government. oh, wait- i can't. i tried that, i even went to washington and worked with congressional types and everything. for some reason, it was more important what the TV people, the republican party, and big corporate donors said. i threw the dems some parties, but they all went to the ones in McLean instead...
in all seriousness, bringiton: thanks for the stimulating contribution. it's so good to read your work, even when i strenuously disagree.
soullight, reread the link. "punked" refers to those
who believed the dems would do the right thing on fisa, but who see now that they weren't really telling progressives the truth.
Draught of Wormwood, Yarrow, Gall And Rue
These days there is nothing workable remaining but pragmatism, the Idealist passed on long ago with the remains of George McGovern’s presidential candidacy. The only thing that matters now is winning the Presidency in 2008, this is all that there is, the sole meaningful focus for salvation of our democracy. Another Republican in the White House, another four years of radical reactionary theocratic authoritarian judicial appointments, and we shall have given over the courts; there will be no recovery, the balance of powers will crumble, all will be lost.
Vastleft, I will not accept responsibility for how others, for their own purposes and to their own ends, may through a lens of their own imagining reinterpret what I say. I very carefully did not say SFU or anything close to it. I did in the strongest possible terms counsel that words have consequences, and that those who choose to attack Democrats as a party at this particular time risk delivering the next presidency into Republican hands and in doing so destroy any hope of restoring our constitutional freedoms. That being said, people are certainly free to disagree and say what they please. Split the left and elect more Republicans, however, and that freedom of speech will soon disappear – so please, everyone, choose your words wisely.
After 2,300 of my own words the decision to employ the “with us or against us” divide was willful and deliberate. Time is short, the consequences grave, no more room for nuance and nicety; if you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Yes. I. Did.
As to the FISA gambit, Democrats could have blocked or defeated it and handed BushCo the out they are seeking; anything untoward in the future would then be blamed on the Democrats for standing in the way of the needs of the Commander in Chief. By passing it the risk was that the left would snap and attack, which they did. Rove and BushCo won that round not because of what Democrats in Congress did, but because of what the vocal left chose to do. Rove’s brilliance, twisted as it may be, lies in understanding how to position a move, how to bring pressure to bear, and how the opposition will react. This time, the Democratic leadership had no choice politically but to do what they did. The left, on the other hand, did have a choice – excoriate the Democratic leadership, or support them. Once again, Rove read his opposition correctly and the cause of restoring freedom has suffered as a result. If the left continues to lunge slathering after every red herring Rove drags across our path, there will be no coherent progressive movement remaining by November 2008.
Shystee, I generally enjoy reading what you have to say even when I disagree. Perhaps your adrenaline was pumping a bit because I couldn’t follow all of your comments clearly, some words may be missing; please forgive what I do not address. The entire world will indeed have to deal with the destruction wrought by BushCo, and the sad truth is that it was already too late by January 2008 to do anything about Bush’s decisions either domestic or international. The impeachment issue I covered above; if you see a path to removing Bush and Cheney from office short of armed insurrection, please explain – otherwise, they will squat there like some twin evil cancerous growths for another 528 days. Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, merely a coalition sufficient to control the committees and portions of the legislative agenda. Republican Senators can block any legislation they choose, and Bush can veto any bills he dislikes. It is unhelpful to keep repeating the untruth that Democrats control Congress – they do not.
We should not be kicking any cans down any road, nor am I advocating any such thing. What I did say is that the ’08 election must focus first and foremost on placing a Democrat in the White House – essentially nothing else matters. Secondarily, a larger majority in the House and a true majority in the Senate would be wonderful, because it will allow us to begin the process of reforming the Democratic Party representation into a more progressive cast in time for the 2010 elections. My opinion, trying to reform the Democratic caucus AND elect a Democrat president is far too much to undertake in one election cycle. Call me overly prudent, but I want a bird in my hand before I go chasing around after others in the shrubbery.
As to my psychopathology, thank you for the proffered assessment but let me assure you I do not identify with the Democratic Party. It is simply the only tool currently available to reach the ends I desire. Greens are lovely people but the environment, important as it is, simply will not do as the sole means by which to govern us through modern times – an appreciation for international politics and a sound educational strategy beyond Save Baby Seals would also be helpful. Nader gave us Bush, not that I would have supported the misogynistic narcissist anyway. Libertarians? Natural Law? Ross Perot? Really. For the foreseeable future progressive hopes must rest with the Democratic Party. I’m not happy about it, but I am both resigned and determined.
Recently in another post I used an analogy which I will repeat here, forgive me but I have so few. Consider us adrift in an ocean full of sharks and other dangerous beasts. The rowboat which sustains us is our Constitution, and the only means we have for propulsion is one paddle, the Democratic Party (some bad, bad people stole the Republican one). We can use the sole remaining oar, however warped and twisted and splintery it may be, to help us find shelter and safety where we can reshape it into something more respectable and useful. For now, however, we will have to use it as it is and having some people, however well-intentioned, reaching over trying to batter it into bits and pieces is simply not helpful – Please, Stop.
Lastly (for now), I could not agree more that the current situation is appalling, disgusting, abhorrent, repugnant, and revolting. With the exception of re-electing Clinton in 1996, the American electorate chose poorly in five consecutive electoral chances. The blame for the damage done by the Republican criminal cabal rests with the Republicans themselves, and that is where it must be kept. To castigate Democrats for not immediately reversing the long term effects of twelve years of rampant malfeasance is at best unfair and in my opinion extremely unwise. The direction of the country, and of the world, over the next year and a half is already ordained by decisions implemented by the Republicans, and nothing the congressional Democrats can do will change anything about it. All that can be done is to position the nation to take a true, full step towards reform in 2008. Fail to accomplish that, and everything is lost.
Lately I have been re-reading Yeats; the old Celt never disappoints:
problem the final
as far as polls are concerned, whatever. just off the top of my head- i'll ask for a little proof that SCLM
are properly scientific. i worked for a firm that conducted polls, ha ha ha, people there were stoned a lot. but my own anecdotal evidence aside: i seriously want to see the find details behind many of these polls. who is conducting them, and how? what does the sample look like, with respect to the population? age, race, income- what's the breakdown? who paid for the poll? how often does this polling group get paid by this organization? how does this stack up to other recent polls, in which i've read support for impeachment as high as in the 60s and as low as in the 20s? did they call people who only have cell phones and no landlines? that's a big group of the young, you know.
i am only one dyke, but as i keep saying: impeachment is the best conversation topic/party showstopper around! strike it up with a stranger today! someone who looks pissed off, about something. i keep trying to find an Honest Republican who will defend bush, but for some reason i can't. but people who want to blame bush for all their problems? natch. i tend to trust my experiences in this way- i've been in more than five states in the last few months, and the love of bush is very hard to find these days, even as perceiving the desire for impeachment is easy.
You are absolutely right,
You are absolutely right, Chicago Dyke. I apologize. I should have red the link, and not just assumed.
no worries, soullite
we all skim in our reading. you are a gracious progressive and shame republicans everywhere with the ease in which you apologize and admit being wrong. corrente's commenters are the best.
bringiton, well put
And I keep trying to make the point too, that what we're making lots of noise about when the Dems don't reach perfection is so much less fearsome than continued depredations by their opponents the GoPerverts, it's not even a comparison. We really need to stop being used as a bad example of how little we really care about the wellbeing of our country. Thanks, buddies.
Ruth
Guess I'm not much of a 'joiner' (a fair carpenter, tho--wink)
'especially when the invitation comes in the a form indistinguishable from a threat.
Be "of us" or be "anathema"?
Lacks a certain je n'cest pas quoi? openness to alternative, albeit sympathetic, perspectives???
"To allege that Democrats are complicit, that they bear any blame, that they are no different from Republicans, that they are all part of some Corporatist
Cabal that has seized the Republic, is to provide cover for those truly culpable. To take such a position is unwise, defeatist, self-destructive, counter-productive, foolish and naïve."
No matter how close to reality it teeters? As WI Thomas, pioneering sociologist at UofCHi, wrote: "That is real which is real in it's consequences."
To willfully disregard evidence of complicity to maintain, or proclaim, a spurious--at minimum, a meretricious--party unity is not the way to engage my sympathy. The DEM LEADERSHIP seems not actually to disapprove of the notion of the Unitary Executive consolidating more and more power.
It wasn't the "Blue Dogs" alone who facilitated and approved the wholesale violations of citizens' constitutional rights by the Congress last weekend when it granted the fascisti the power to spy on the citizenry without warrant.
It wasn't the "blue-dogs," it was the leadership--Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Murtha, the whole, feckless, useless, worthless, gutless crew--who brought the fucking bills to the floor where they must have know what the outcome would be.
There's an understandable need to cling to the Democrats, because in the maelstrom it is comforting to cling to something, anything...
In rare synonymy, both Franklin and Jefferson coined the same sentiment, almost simultaneously, when they both remarked to the effect that 'he who would be both secure and free desires that which never was nor ever will be.' (Jefferson, i think, wrote the actual couplet.)
Ike wanted to name Congress in his Axis of Worry
According to Chalmers Johnson, Eisenhower originally wanted to warn the nation against the "Military/Industrial/Congressional complex," but was persuaded to keep Congress out of it, by powerful Congresscritters.
In any case, It wasnt only the GOP in which the danger resided. It came from the natural synonymy of interest between the military (for the systems, and the places and troops to man them) and industry (supplying the wherewithal) whose jobs and payrolls sustained the pols who continued to vote for appropriations supporting both.
Political tautology in perfect circularity. Think Scoop Jackson, the Senator from Boeing. But Domenici's the Senator from Los Alamos. Biden's the senator from Dow. etc
Pragmatism good, complacency bad
Defectors
(Well, okay, that idiot in Pennsyltucky may be an exception, but still …)
sorry, dahlin, he's NOT the 'exception', and that's the 'problem.' There are 41 soi disant 'blue-dog dems' in the house; 218's the magic number; the 'dems' hold 232...half of them 'defect' on any issue and do the fucking math...WASF!
42?
Vote Blue? You're kidding right?
Before we go advocating which platform we should vote on, as if there is a choice, can we get our vote counted? All of this means nothing until the vote is secure. If we are going to be pragmatic, "real," about this then, before we go about advocating which party we think we should vote for we need to make sure our vote matters.
Bringiton, you still have to address the matter of the vote. In fact, until you address it all other positions are moot.
Xenophon, serious as a heart attack...
... a pre-emptive war, and an assault on the Constitution. All unlikely to have happened if Al Gore were president. We are fighting fascists, and we need a bit of solidarity of our own.
Solidarity goes two ways.
You can not support a leader that does not support you.
Period.
Similarly, Xenophon's comment is absolutely on target.
You can not support a leader if your vote doesn't count. Remember this: Al Gore capitulated to Bu$h. Al Gore chose not to fight for his own votes, and neither did John Kerry.
Remember that when you wag your finger at someone who participated in two presidential elections and contributed money to both candidates for nothing other than the warm and fuzzy feeling of backing bullshit. I will do it again rather than sit idly by and give the Rethuglicans a free pass.
The problem is people who will not lead are not leaders.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Kelley B,
Xenophon's topic, the four-alarm need for honest votes is most worthy, of course. But I'm not sure that these other discussion points are suddenly invalidated because bringiton and yours truly haven't personally solved the problem of vote-tally irregularities.
In any case, not being an idiot, I wasn't arguing against legitimate vote counts or the importance thereof. I was responding to the finger wagged in what appeared to be my direction: "Vote Blue? You're kidding right?"
I've spoken bluntly and frequently of late about our weak-kneed leadership in Congress and our turncoat Blue Dogs and DLCers. But, like Bringiton, I'm inclined to suggest that the freeflowing rage at the Dems in toto might be ultimately destructive.
That Gore didn't take a particular step during the 2000 bagjob sticks in your craw. Fair enough, I suppose. The impact of Naderist "they're all the same-ism" sticks in mine.
I should add that splinter votes in Florida...
... aren't the only or most important things that stick in my craw from 2000.
There are lots, including the lying, slanted press that made it into a "horserace" to begin with, the caging of minority votes, the bogus uncertified military write-in votes, paperless voting machines from a winger company, the fake "citizens" protest, the moron who agreed to the butterfly ballot, etc., etc., and notably the Supreme Court who coronated the Worst. President. Ever. rather than get an honest count or do, which has been done in disputed elections before, to call for a new vote.
But we are at our maximal influence with progressives, and one -- not the only one -- but one of the constructive things we can do is help prevent our fellow progressives' well-earned frustration from turning into defeatism, one manifestation of which is "protest votes," something which our adversaries would never do, as they rally around raw power.
Xenophon, We’re all over That Vote Tally Issue Here in CA
How you doing on it out your way?
Turns out you can rig the electronic machines, but it isn’t as easy as one might think and there are safeguards that can be added on.
But vote stealing is nothing new, paper ballots are not any safer and larceny is a knife that cuts both ways. Suggest you Google “Mayor Daley Chicago Vote Kennedy Nixon” and see what turns up.
Maybe the most straightforward approach is just to get us some better quality thieves?
Xenophon - this time with links
Xenophon, We’re All Over That Vote Tally Issue Here In CA
How you doing on it out your way?
Turns out you can rig the electronic machines, but it isn’t as easy as one might think and there are safeguards that can be added on.
But vote stealing is nothing new, paper ballots are not any safer and thievery is a knife that cuts both ways. Suggest you Google “Mayor Daley Chicago Vote Kennedy Nixon” and see what turns up.
Maybe the most straightforward approach is just to get us some better quality thieves?
Fricking HTML #@!%*%@#!!!!
Too late at night, too tired to figure it out, bugger it.
Links:
CA electronic vote machine saga:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Mayor Daley steals the 1960 election - with paper ballots:
http://search.comcast.net/?cat=Web&con=n...
Been away from my desk
Bringiton,
Just wanted to let you know I'm reading, running; myself, am tired as hell.
In Chicago we have a sort of corrupt compensation in order to adjust for our stolen votes or over stuffed ballot boxes but . . .
It's really not that hard to hack an election. Particularly when the flaw isn't just in the machines but in the code to decipher and count the machines (when you load the chip into the reader, the reader program can be compromised to give skewed results. So, you can hack the machine without ever touching the machine, the security measures suck). But I won't argue that point. We'll just charge it to the cost of doing business for now.
However, I will say that as an independent I have no stake in either party. As a Black Man I have no stake in either party. We caught more hell under Clinton and the Democrats than under Bush 1. So from my perspective it's six of one half a dozen of the other.
So in the spirit of American democracy. I would ask what points in the democratic platform you would suggest are significantly better than those in the republican platform to justify a momentary allegiance? Remember we are not all Democrats nor are all of us Liberals. Because it's Blue is not a sufficient argument let alone a persuasive one.
One last point.
Loved the post.
X
CD cites a problem “#1”
Wasn’t trying to tiptoe around the media issues, rather I walked briskly right past. The post was already over my self-imposed 2500 word limit which is as much of my writing as even I want to read and I like me - most of the time.
Media. Big topic. Massively complex. But since you raise the subject, here’s the CliffsNotes version:
Congressional Democrat positioning vis a vis Bush and his demands for “national security” and the Iraq Occupation are not directed at pleasing the MSM, or with the expectation that there will be anything like fairness any time soon. With rare exception (Olbermann, yes?) the MSM are corporate shills and in the pocket of Corporatist
Authoritarianism. It is about giving cover to (1) the Democratic Presidential Nominee and (2) whichever congressional Democrats might need it (Amy Kolchubar, for instance, or is she a stealth Corporatist, or maybe she’s already been co-opted?) Each of them need to be able to look voters in the eye and honestly claim that Bush had everything he asked for and still he failed, so blame BushCo and the Republicans.
The election in 2008 will not be like anything in the past, and it cannot be approached in the same way. Between now and then Iraq at least and perhaps the entire Middle East will have gone completely to hell. American voters will be looking for someone to blame. The Democratic leadership needs to do what ever it takes to make certain that everything points to the Republicans, as epitomized by Bush and those close to him.
Will the MSM support Republicans and demonize Democrats in 2008? Yes they will. But the MSM will not be the only game this time around. Non-traditional television, like Stewart and Colbert, will also continue to increase their influence, with the Daily Show becoming a must-watch not just for political cognoscenti but for competing “hard-news” MSM. Those guys are, for now at least, on our side.
Perhaps most meaningful is the growing favorable cash position enjoyed by Democrats over Republicans. Assuming Bush and Repugs continue to slide in the polls, more and more money will flow into Democratic hands. The resulting advertising space dominance will let Democratic candidates take their message directly to the voters, stepping around the MSM Corporatist echo chamber.
The internet, including blogs like this one, will have a far greater influence in 2008 on what voters perceive than ever before. How much, and in what direction, remains to be determined. I do understand WTF
you’re trying to do in terms of correctly exposing Republican perfidy. That effort is all to the good. I am also clear in my mind about the potential effect of negative comments on this site and others regarding Democrats As A Collective and I seek to change the underlying attitudes into ones that are more positive and less destructive - WTF is unclear about that? ;-)
CD cites a problem “#2” Part A
“Sounds suspiciously close” sounds to me suspiciously close to strawman construction. I said no such thing. What I’ve described is a political tactic designed to undermine Republican authority when all hell breaks loose in spite of BushCo having everything they’ve asked for. And, just to clarify, Bush is onerous and grasping and maniacal and incompetent and many bad things but he is far from being a “king.” See FDR and forced seizure and imprisonment of 120,000 Americans for comparison – in your view was FDR a “king”?
You’re not suggesting that there is never a healthy role for fear, are you? I myself have a rational fear of grizzly bears and keep a good distance from them so as to avoid being eaten. I also have a rational fear of what will happen to my country if the next president is a Republican – any Republican. I would lube up and bend over for Satan Herself if it would guarantee the next White House occupant will be a Democrat – any Democrat, rather than any Republican. Irrational fear, the sort peddled by BushCo, is destructive and should be condemned. Rational fear, of for example grizzly bears and Republicans, is a healthy thing and should be respected.
Another strawman, tsk tsk. My argument was not whether politicians preen and pander, they do. It was about the relative effectiveness of Democratic leadership behavior in view of the objectives. I suppose it comes down to how the Democrats as a whole are fundamentally perceived. You seem to be arguing that they are all members of the Corporatist
Authoritarian Cabal, and so no matter what they do the intent is to advance that cause. I disagree. Some Democrats are sellouts, but not all. Out here where I grew up and now live again, we have a number of representatives who are good people (yes, I know, some here argue that character somehow doesn’t count – but it does for me and I won’t give it up) such as Pete Stark, George Miller, my own Anna Eschoo, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi. I’ve been around these people, watched them closely, campaigned for them over a lifetime – I known them well. It pains me to read harsh and untrue commentaries made by others who do not know them. I chalk it up to misplaced anger and ignorance, but still, it is hurtful to read.
There are good and bad Democrats, just as there are good and bad white men or good and bad black lesbians. Blanket group condemnations are rarely justifiable. It is, I think, critically important to learn how to discern between them and reject the bad while embracing the good. (((cd))), even when I think you’re wrong.
CD cites a problem “#2” Part B
I’m no fan of H or O but no worries about either of them for either of us, neither one of them will be President. Between H and O and any WhiteMan(R) the white guy wins, no question – say hello to Presnitt Mitt. As to whether the Dems are just as bad as Republicans, well, we disagree and I can’t really believe that you actually think so yourself. Even if they are just a softer fist, getting a Dem as president would still be a step in the right direction and that’s how this will have to be done, one small step at a time – or are you thinking something bigger and bolder is required but are afraid to come right out and say so?
Have you read through the comment section on Ian Welsh’s post? Liberals chewing on progressives, the left eating its own. Just what I’m saying is wrong-headed to be doing and just what C.Rove&Co wanted. Sad. All this time and energy misdirected.
If you really want to make a bet, let’s put something more interesting than a dollar on the table. :-P
CD cites a problem “#3”
Life is full of these, isn’t it? This legislative session and this election cycle there will be many choices that are limited to between bad and much, much worse. Sucks. Not happy about it. Still have to make the least bad choice, or Much Much Worse is what will happen. Destroying the Least Worse choice is self-destructive, IMHO, sober or otherwise. After two decades of Republican Corporatist
Authoritarian rule, it will take more than one election to straighten out the mess.
Something that irritates the hell out of me is this MSM/Republican talking point that just keeps getting repeated, even by well-meaning progressives, about Democrats having majority control in congress – they don’t. Democrats do not have a majority of either chamber in actuality because the “Blue Dogs” are the philosophical heirs of Reconstruction Democrats, theocratic bigots who are indistinguishable from current Republicans. Both Reid and Pelosi are trying to govern from a minority position through coalitions that are fragile at best, and it’s a struggle. At the moment we have the worst of all possible representative governments, with both the House and the Senate operating as though they were parliamentary organs. It will take another cycle, maybe two, to get a true majority in place. For a decent overview see Matt Stoller’s piece at OpenLeft.
Patience, Grasshopper. (And I mean that in the kindest possible way. There is still a long hard slog ahead, must keep focus on the true enemy and not fall out amongst ourselves.)
CD cites a problem “#4”
Good, control of temper is generally beneficial.
Sigh. Maybe a bit too early in the AM for full temperament control. Understandable, and a piece of information worth filing away for possible future reference. You and I should never ever talk until we’ve both had that caffeine jones taken care of.
But seriously here, an occasional metaphorical head explosion is a worthwhile experience. Think of it as a high colonic for the brain, clean out all the cobwebs and other – ah –stuff. Good to have one’s cherished assumptions challenged. Good to have to rethink again who it is that really should be getting dumped on. One treatment may not be sufficient but I will persist until you get your thinking clear.
And thank you for reading and responding, it is the dialectic that moves us forward.
CD cites a problem “The Final”
Polls, yes, well, they are what they are and they aren’t perfect, but they’re something better than just chewing the fat with the neighbors. I picked the USA/Gallup as an example on Bush impeachment because (a) it is recent; (b) it was large enough to be meaningful, some of the other “impeachment” polls have too small an “N” to mean anything; (c) the results were pretty much at the median of the range from 20% to 60%; (d) the question phrasing seemed fair - “Is it justified” - which is a way to make people stop and think and respond from a rational process rather than emotionally, from say anger; (e) it’s still Gallup, and all the demographic breakdown wonky stuff is there at the site, probe away.
Speaking of chewing the fat and neighbors, I live in the SF Bay Area, pretty liberal we are, and even here once you get past the anger and the frothing there is little real stomach for impeachment. I would say not more than half of the many people I talk with actually think it would be a good idea to impeach both Bush and Cheney, and less than a third think it would be worthwhile to impeach just one or the other.
Ther's a lot of talk about the ’08 elections, and a lot of resignation over the destruction that is yet to flow from decisions already made. A lot of anger and a lot of sorrow and a lot of vowing to not ever let this sort of thing happen again. A focus, primarily, on the future rather than on retribution for the past. Personally I’d like to see the bastards tried and hauled off to Leavenworth, but my neighbors are less vindictive.
Maybe the difference between your experience and mine is in the way in which we ask the question. That’s how it is with polls, eh?
Are you seriously saying it isn’t possible to do good work while stoned?
Damn.
Snideley Whiplash, Dudley Doright, and Little Nell
Great post. Great responses. This is why the little bistro to the left of The Department of No! They Would Never Do That! in The Mighty Corrente Building is not just a spot, but The Spot.
It's very late, and I don't have the energy to write anything sensible.
But I was out of the country for some of last week, and the fact that Alberto Gonzales could now, legally, read my email, without a warrant and only the vaguest of post facto judicial review--after, God save the mark, the hearings we all saw--is down to the Senatorial Democratic leadership, and nobody else.
I think I'm going to send Harry Reid--and everyone who's been reading Corrente knows that I've defended Reid many, many times--a HarryGram tomorrow. A post-paid empty box, so that when he gets some stones, he can mail them to me.
I was once where bringiton is right now (as Shystee, I'm sure, will testify). And I think bringiton's post is brilliant, and I certainly hope it's true.
But ya know? I feel a little bit like, oh, like Little Nell tied to the railroad tracks by Snideley Whiplash. And I hear the sound of an oncoming train.
But here comes Dudley Doright, on his horse Horse. I hear the rescuing hoofbeats growing louder, louder, louder... And then softer, softer, softer, as Dudley, ever teh stupid, rides off into the distance.
And now the train sounds louder and louder....
Now, sure, Snideley Whiplash is the first cause of my predicament. But to label my total pissed-off-ness at Dudley Doright as "transference"...
Well, no. I don't buy that. Nice try, though.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Er, is there ANY case when criticism of the Democrats is OK?
What's the line we shouldn't cross?
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Ah, Lambert, Welcome Back!
Was getting concerned, didn’t seem right for me to get battered around this much without you taking at least one hack.
‘Tis late here and I’ll have more to say in the morning but of course there’s a line, there always is, and it lies between constructive and destructive.
Nobody much is happy right now, not me and not you and not Harry and not Nancy. GW is the only one sleeping well at night. This mess is going to get a whole lot worse before it has a chance to get better, and a lot of decent people are going to have to do things they don’t actually want to do. My wish is that we can keep a semblance of cohesiveness on the side of light, however dim that light may sometimes appear, lest the forces of darkness overrun us all.
More about boundaries, and transference, and what it might mean that you sometimes picture yourself as Little Nell (!) tomorrow.
Semblance of cohesiveness....
Two interesting links on cohesiveness...
Attytood: Rove's crowning achievement the wiretap bill:
And Rove (and you) are at least semi-correct on "dividing" Democrats, but if Reid and Pelosi didn't want to divide the Party, they shouldn't have let the bill pass in the form that it did. Personally, I'm more in "The Democratic Party" left me, mode. I've defended Reid many times, but to put Alberto Gonzales in charge of determining who gets surveilled, after all we know... And at midnight... It beggars belief. It's like with the Republicans: Every time I think they can't lower the bar, they surprise me. And Reid had to have known that was what was in the bill. (Please don't tell me about the sunset provision. All that does is give set a reasonable expectation for the next LIHOP event.)
And from Scary shit:
I like the "no legislation" idea. This is one case where nothing is better than something.
NOTE 1 Source of Atrios's "prove me wrong" riff seems to be >Arther Silver.
NOTE 2 I don't often identify with Little Nell, believe it. And it seems that, in this case, the cigar might not be a cigar, since looking at the narrative, it's clearly an authoritarian sadistic frame, although masked as a relatively benign childhood cartoon. Eesh, the mental and spiritual corruption these days. Too much.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Bugs Everywhere
Sometime in the night a cosmic ray burst or NSA mind probe or who knows what evil influence disabled the wireless router so there went half a day getting it replaced. Next up is spraying my mother’s house for ants, a huge column of Argentines is weaving from one end to the other. Poor little beasties, whatever is left salvageable of my soul will have to be expended on exterminating untold numbers of innocent life forms whose only mistake was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it ain’t one bug it’s another.
Actual intelligent exchange with sentient beings, not happening today.
This thread appears to be reaching the end of its natural life, a couple of comment replies remaining and my work here is done, on to another start, find a new way to stimulate and annoy.
Xenophon asks a reasonable question, why should he vote Democratic, exactly? Why, indeed, should anyone is the bigger conundrum, and thin gruel it is. I’ll be serving up a steaming platter of slim pickings next time out.
Note: Lambert, no need to be shy about the pinafore fetish, in SF you wouldn’t draw a second glance.