Letters to the Editor
-
Casual..Observer, and the Democratic Party
Quite a pickle.
-- casual_observer
I don't really thinks it all that tough or all that hard to see what needs to be done. We've already begun replacing some of the worst. We just keep finding candidates to run in primaries against sackless Dems, and of course find strong willed Dems to run against any and all Republican Senate and Congressional seats that are in play.
Make it more and more clear that we are doing that, so the Dems currently hemming and hawing might find a little spine with which to cast their floor votes between now and the time we boot them out.
I'm not saying it will be at all easy to do all of that and be successful at it. I'm just saying that it's an easy and obvious choice to make as far as what are best shot at cleaning this mess up is.
-
GG
Is there something wrong with them supporting the 22 Democratic Senators who stood up and opposed the condemnation resolution, or supporting the numerous House Democrats who would have done the same? -- GlennGreenwald
There was no agenda behind my question Glenn. I was sincerely wondering-out-loud. But now that you bring it up, I would say that yeah, off the top of my head, I can see "something wrong" with supporting anyone with a "D" next to their name at this point. It just goes back to a general disagreement about where we are as a country. Or perhaps what I perceive to be a disagreement.
With the exception of a few Green candidates I have voted for Democrats exclusively in the past. Never again. I believe that supporting and voting for a party (and its members) that continue to screw you and the country over is not a very intelligent policy. I find it absurd in fact. How does the message, that what they are doing is unacceptable, ever reach them if we all vote for them regardless? And, before you go off on a rant about how those 22 did not screw anyone, let me just say that I agree, they didn't. This time. Practically speaking and WRT the Dem leadership... does it matter? Where have they been? They are a party that has control of the reins of power. Should they not be held responsible as a party? What happens when you target individuals, win those battles and still get screwed? What happens when Hillary Clinton gets elected and nothing changes?
I believe that your stance -- and feel free to correct me if I am wrong -- is that they shouldn't be held responsible as a party. That, even though you recognize the futility of it all and write frequently about how the Dems are spineless, craven capitulators (at best), you still would recommend people attempt to work within the system to move the Democratic party to a "more sensible place." Thus, in this case, the loaded question: "Is there something wrong with (move-on) supporting the 22 Dem Senators..."
To me there is just no logic or common sense behind that stance. I sincerely am not trying to call you out, bait you or offend you here but, I see only fear and ignorance driving that belief. The problem is systemic. The system, as it has been changed/gamed, is no longer responsive to that stance (if it ever was). Whether or not this 22 voted this way, this time or that 22 vote another way, another time, the facts on the ground are... well, they are obvious. Which is why El Cid (I think it was him) and me asked you to read and comment on Chris Floyd's Post-Mortem America essay. Given that it came out at nearly the same time as your post concerning the fact that what America is has fundamentally changed -- that nearly every illegal action we abhor has now become the sanctioned law of the land, etc.
So, if I am correct in my assessment, then you can perhaps see why it is more than a bit frustrating for me to see people so ready to be fooled again and again and again because they are afraid. Either way, my post in response to Timberman was sincere and not meant to be antagonistic. I realize that may be difficult to believe but I really was simply wondering-out-loud.
-
@ Glenn
They tried this. Barbara Boxer introduced a resolution condemning the attacks on Cleland and Kerry, along with the MoveOn ad. I don't know exactly what the vote was, but most Democrats voted for it but almost no Republicans did. As a result, it failed to get the 60 votes necessary for cloture. So it never got voted on.
Shouldn't have done a separate resolution. They should have instead demanded amendments to the proposed one. Maybe I don't know enough about Senate rules to know if such was possible, but that would have been wiser.
Then, instead of saying: "since you won't condemn attacks on Democratic veterans, and you want to make this partisan, we won't vote for your resolution," they instead turned around and voted for the MoveOn-only resolution. Brilliant. Courageous. Awesome.
<*sigh*> They're still bringing knives to gunfights.
Second (at least) time they got rolled on this type of move (the FISA amendment fiasco). Filibuster the damn things. Better to have open debate (maybe the viewers will learn a few things) and nothing happens than to cave to this type of bovine scat being dumped on them. Are they really this clueless? If so, maybe they deserve to get beaten, and we can, down the road, put up tacticians with the street-fighting wiles of Gingrich who are also principled statespersons with the integrity of a Lincoln or Kennedy.
I really feel that this nation is open to more principled and honest (and courageous) politicians. I think a person that comes across like that would be a shoo-in in today's toxic environment.
Cheers,
-
@ adnoto
I believe that your stance -- and feel free to correct me if I am wrong -- is that they shouldn't be held responsible as a party. That, even though you recognize the futility of it all and write frequently about how the Dems are spineless, craven capitulators (at best), you still would recommend people attempt to work within the system to move the Democratic party to a "more sensible place." Thus, in this case, the loaded question: "Is there something wrong with (move-on) supporting the 22 Dem Senators..."
You say we have to punish the miscreants by withdrawing support. But isn't praise (and/or support) part of the "training program" too? Reward good behaviour too, and your message to the party is twice as strong.
At least that's my take on it if we agree that we have to use the vehicle of the Democratic Party to achieve progress (I won't enter into a discussion of the practical feasibility of third parties under our current WTO system here).
Cheers,