Letters to the Editor
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 697 Editor's Choice: 53
-
@Athenian -- I don't buy it...
[Read the article: Rep. Sheehan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I express my own frustrations about the ineffectiveness and slow -- if not glacial -- pace of the Democrats, I frequently hear arguments like those made by Athenian.
But I don't buy it.
If our system of government is so "plodding," how, in six years, did George Bush manage to, first, get elected twice under dubious circumstances, then implement so many "Executive Decisions" that have eviscerated aspects of our Constitution, thrown Checks and Balances to the wolves, and shanghaied democracy?
We don't have a system of government that is TOO responsive to public will. We have one that is UNRESPONSIVE...and is under the near-dictatorial powers of a president run amok.
And ok, I understand majority votes and all of that, but those bloody reps should have sent that war funding bill back to the President again and again.
They didn't because they were afraid. Afraid of the sticks and stones thrown by the Republicans. Afraid that someone would call them names.
But damn it, they should have figured out how to spin the ridiculous and inevitable "Democrats don't care about the troops" argument into the message that conveyed the reality: "Bush doesn't care about the troops. He care so little he doesn't want to even bring them home, much less put some rational, reasonable limits on the timeframe."
If gridlock and partisan bickering is all we can expect, and this is a lame duck Congress, then at least they should use this time to shout to the rafters that democracy is in danger.
But the fact is, this has nothing to do with founding fathers, or our system.
It has to do with politicians who don't want to rock the boat, and who are too scared to do anything lest they get the conservative psycho-bloggers and tv talking heads on their case.
They just want to get elected. They want campaign funding. They want to keep their cushy butts in their cushy Congressional and Senate seats.
And they want that a whole helluva lot more than they want to end this war, bring troops home, save the last vestiges of civil and human rights in America, or solve any of the litany of other problems Bush has wrought.
It's not time to be realistic anymore.
The old argument that how democracy works doesn't take into account the new reality of the pseudo-democracy-slash-banana republic we actually live in.
Even if they can't pass a single damn bill, it's time for the Democrats to speak up, to get angry, to vote to impeach, to gin up opposition to Bush...to bloody well FIGHT BACK.
Anything less and yes, someone* SHOULD take Nancy Pelosi's seat away from her, because she's doing a piss poor job so far.
* Not Sheehan, of course!
-
Help Me Understand
[Read the article: Rep. Sheehan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Congress is by design a deliberative body."
Yes, that's true.
But with a stacked Supreme court, an Executive Branch run amok and blocking any efforts by Congress to hold them accountable, checks and balances HAVE BROKEN DOWN.
Congress rejigged voting districts, an action which in part helped gerrymander Repubs into a majority position, where they were able to then help put a conservative majority on the Supreme court.
We have a Presidential election decided by the Supreme Court.
What exactly should a typical American do, while Congress deliberates, as we send more people to die in Iraq, watch our national reputation circle the drain of world opinion, live in fear of escalating terrorism THANKS TO the Bush efforts to combat it, watch civil rights abrogated by the Supreme Court, and so on.
The ONLY body of government where we have ANY voice of ANY ability to effect change is with Congress.
How long should Americans sit by while Congress "deliberates?"
-
@Athenian
[Read the article: Rep. Sheehan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Those are my two cents."
And a valuable contribution they are!
Enjoying your thoughts, and you make some very interesting points.
I'm really waffly on Pelosi. There are times that I suspect she's a very astute, near-Machiavellian power player who knows what she's doing. And then there are times I become absolutely furious with the lack of anything substantive that seems to be coming from her at present. I fall on the side of being disappointed in her at present. She may be doing what the party needs, but I don't feel she's doing what America needs, or what Congress needs. I agree with you on Reid. He's dead weight.
If Obama wasn't running for President at present, AND if someone sharpened his political knives a bit, he'd be the one who could get out there and rile people up. He has the rhetorical skills. But he really needs a little more fire. But he'd be a high-wattage spokesperson for the America's disgust with business as usual, Bush style.