Letters to the Editor
-
@ "I'll go with: cowardly, stupid and criminal!"
Ahh, but then you are reinforcing a meme that is near and dear to the GOP's heart. Dems are weak.
I'll go with English_roG's take for now:
Yes it's a gutless and pathetic strategy that is also cynical and immoral.
But it will work.
-- English_roG
There is precedent for this strategy:
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
- Napoleon Bonaparte
However, it does make one question who it is these politicians think they really represent; who they feel they must answer to. It doesn't appear to be the American people. I'll give them a year or two at the most. If they do take control in another upset in 2008, they had better start listening to the people who put them in office. OTOH, those who think we will be withdrawing all troops immediately from Iraq under any future administration, even a long shot like Paul or Kucinich, had better get used to something closer to reality. It's called a "quagmire" for a reason.
A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament; a mixed up and troubled situation; a hopeless tangle.
People will claim it's just a ruse to stay in Iraq longer. It isn't. But I'm starting to think that impeachment, not a battle over funding on that issue, is the way to go.
-
And...
I want Glenn, and other bloggers, to keep writing more posts just like this one.
-
Leadership
Over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher put up a post yesterday titled "There is no Democratic Party in Congress". She illustrated the post with a photo of Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi dancing. My favorite comment in the comment thread was that although they were dancing, we could be certain that neither one was leading.
I think that comment sums it up entirely. Glenn has cited poll after poll indicating that the American people overwhelmingly want the war brought to an end. Polls also indicate a desire for much stronger oversight of the illegal activities of the Bush Administration. Yet, time and again, the "leadership" in Congress keeps falling in line right behind the RWNM talking points, lest they be labeled "soft". As Glenn points out here and previously, this fear of being soft on terrorists results, inevitably, in simply being soft.
There seems to be increasing noise from progressives on a need for wholesale leadership changes in Congress. Suggestions I've seen bandied about include Feingold and Holt to lead the intelligence committees and Dodd or Feingold as Senate Majority Leader. What is unclear to me is just how any changes like this could be brought about.
The irony of today's latest "cave-ins" is especially strong. The opportunities available if we had true leadership in the Democratic Party are amazing. We now have public confirmation of torture and obstruction of justice within the CIA, coupled with strong suggestions of a White House involvement with the "imposition" of torture as an interrogation technique. We have confirmation that the concept of the "surge" was fatally flawed: despite a definite drop in violence, the surge has produced absolutely nothing in terms of political reconciliation in Iraq, so there is still absolutely no viable plan for moving forward or back home.
With real leadership, using the two issues described above, coupled with the massive deficit, looming recession and other domestic issues, the Democratic Party could essentially tell the Republicans to sit down and shut up while the adults finally take over and begin the long, slow process of repairing the damage of the last seven years. The Republican incompetence that got us here is staggering. The Democratic incompetence in refusing to take charge when the situation clearly demands it is nothing short of abdication. Perhaps the only route to achieving the needed leadership within the Democratic Party is for the needed to leaders to simply step up and take over, telling the current Democratic leaders, along with the Republicans, to sit down and shut up.
-
Stop letting Repubs off the hook
If the Repubs want to filibuster, then make them filibuster. Let them showcase their obstinance.
If Bush wants to veto, then make him veto. Let him showcase his obstinance.
Let our public watch as Bush the Repubs continuously stand in the way of ending the Iraq disaster. The Repubs don't want to have to publicly stand in the way of ending the Iraq occupation. It makes them look horrible. Stop letting them off the hook. Good god! It's so basic and obvious it defies description that our Democrats aren't doing it. Position the conservatives into being forced to publicly defend their highly unpopular views, over and over again.
Instead the Dems fold and make themselves look cowardly and without the will to fight for their own principles. The Repubs laugh at this, and the public loses more faith that Democrats can stand up for anything other than obviously winning subjects like giving health care to children.
Make them filibuster. Make them veto. Make them actually pay the political price for supporting unpopular and disasterous policies.
They are also folding on pay-as-you-go, which is so incredibly stupid it boggles the mind. The Dems are poised to undercut the public's feeling that they are more trustworthy with the budget and the economy than Republicans are. And they're doing it willingly. They're doing it to themselves!
-
bebop abopa beep
Let's all put it together for him, big round of applause for the po-mo minstrel show! He'sa show'in his dialect chops! Now clap! Clap it lowd! Lowder! Mmmmmmmmmmmm! Let's go-a fishin'!
-
@ El Cid
Yes, But They Are Standing Up To Their Base
See? They are not spineless. They exhibit courage and fortitude when truly necessary.
-
Mr. Veto must be a scary guy
From The Hill article:
In the end, Democrats realized they would not be able to muster enough Republican votes to override Bush’s veto. The president vowed to reject any spending package that exceeded the $933 billion limit he set.
If some Democratic representative puts forward a bill that says confiscation of all kittens and puppies owned by Democrats in the country in order grind them up into bone-meal fertilizer for Republican Agri-farmers should never be allowed will, "in the end", Democrats capitulate because they realize that they won't "be able to muster enough Republican votes to override Bush's veto"? Is there ever an end to this BS veto tactic being the actually spoken of and used excuse by cowards that don't represent anyone but their opponents?