Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 2118 Editor's Choice: 74
-
more on moderate Republicans
[Read the article: Alito, the nuclear option and the Democrats' thin hopes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In an earlier comment (in the post about Elephants forgetting), I started making a case for moderate Republicans AND Democrats being the key to defeating this nomination. Today, there's a story in the WaPo, making a similar case... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100864_pf.html
The ideal outcome, for my money, would be to avoid the filibuster/nuclear option, because finessing the whole thing-- with Alito losing the simple up or down vote-- would be so much more satisfying. And it would demonstrate-- once more-- that the American people really don't want what they're "selling."
Setting the abortion issue aside, there are many other worthy issues on which moderate Republicans can find reason to vote NO on Alito, given his propensity to side with the BigGuys over the little guy. And, many not so moderate Republicans also care deeply about the environment, education, the ADA, and Veterans issues, any of which are likely to come before the Court in the near future. (The war in Iraq will bring many of them to a head. Think: veterans health issues--Gulf War Syndrome, Mental Health; civil liberties; torture: are we for it or agin' it?; Superfund cleanups; product liability issues; consumer & investor protections post-Enron, and post airline bankruptcies; and on and on.) Can any of the current senators really trust that Alito, given his track-record, will come down on the moral side in any of these issues? It's still early days, but so far, my hunch is no.
More importantly, finessing such an outcome would exhibit the kind of leadership (as opposed to fractiousness) that the American people have given up expecting from Congress. Of course, this would require that some Democrats and Republicans discuss these issues among themselves, outside of their formal meeting rooms, but if the Gang of 14 could do what they did a few months ago, then surely, some like-minded senators from both parties could do something similar now.
After all, it's the Neocons who really want the Battle Royale, probably as much as they want their (entitled) seat on the court. They've been itching for this fight for some time. Unlike the Neocons, the Democrats and other Progressives would rather govern than fight. (D'uh!) Denying the Neocons both the fight and the seat would be a REAL win. (For traditional Republicans, too, if they count reclaiming their party's heart and soul as a win.)
-
Democrats Deserve Respect
[Read the article: Deliverance for Democrats?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LinearBob and pugla46 are exactly right-- can it really matter how anyone votes, if ALL of the votes are not counted? Accurately?
As I had to remind a Philly Inquirer columnist some time ago when he was criticizing the Democrats for losing in 2000... Gore actually did win the election [despite being constantly sabotaged by the MSM], and, given the situation in Florida, probably by a greater margin than the official one.
And-- the truth [sigh] is barely trickling from a hidden stream about 2004. Perhaps the Coingate scandal in Ohio will spill some more, but it likely won't be in time for the next election.
I've been blogging-- and commenting on others' blogs-- about this (non-?)voting issue for some time. Amazingly, so-called progressives don't really seem to get it, but, instead, fall right in line with GOP talking points that label such criticisms as "whining," as if increasing the margin of ACTUAL victory could somehow magically erase a PERCEPTION of defeat resulting from the effects of the black-box voting and the Diebold CEO that enabled the GOP in stealing 2 elections (3 if you count 2002 and Tom DeLay's questionable tactics).
What better plank for the DNC to begin building a platform with than "...making sure that EVERYONE gets to vote and that EVERY VOTE gets counted?" Could there be any plank more (small-d) democratic than that?
All of that being said... I must also agree that the past 5 to 10 years of watching the Democratic Party flounder has been exceedingly painful. But that was under different leadership. Dean is now heading up the DNC, and building the organization up from the grassroots. And those who have been paying attention must notice that Reid and Pelosi have already demonstrated (more than once) that they are neither Daschle nor Gephardt. [Many thanks to the gods!] Both Reid and Pelosi deserve respect and the opportunity to be judged on their own efforts and results, not their predecessors. They are not appeasers of the GOP.
As for message discipline... that can't really work for Democrats the way it does for Republicans. After all, for Republicans (in these times), their game has become mostly about the Loyalty factor, and winning at any cost. Ideally, for Democrats, the message is about the substance of the Policy. Also... being a Democrat, by default, means being more inclusive, and less rigid. A tricky thing-- finding the right balance of consistent message and inclusiveness, but I think Reid & Pelosi are up to the challenge.
[And, a final snarky question for any lurking Greens/Naderites? Still think there's no difference?]
-
Thanks for clarifying
[Read the article: Deliverance for Democrats?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rob H:
My criticism of the previous Democratic leadership did/does not really extend to all Democratic members of both houses, and I really didn't make that distinction as clearly as I might. Thank you for your help in clarifying.
The Democrats you mentioned are all heroes, especially in this current environment, where the administration controls all branches of government (yes, even SCOTUS), as well as the press, either by paying for ghost-written propaganda (Williams, et al) or by manipulating our so-called liberal papers with admin-supporting front page stories timed to synch with the Sunday talk shows.
As for Nader, I was a fan of his... until he started painting the Democratic Party with such broad strokes... contributing in some way to our-- i.e., the country's-- current circumstances.
I guess I should have labelled my question rhetorical, rather than snarky, since I was less interested in responses to that question than to the voting issue, which is the real reason for the recent Democratic "defeats," not the party's platform. (I thought the parentheses might indicate "reflection.") ;~)