Letters to the Editor
-
Here's the answer Joan.
On Talking Points, the following link will explain why the Senators running for president did not get back to vote.
It sound to me like our fearless leadership rushed the vote.
See for yourself.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/why_didnt_senators_running_for_president_vote_on_mukasey.php
-
The Democrat disease
Sadly, I agree with Karl Rove, who said that the Democrats had their window to change everything, and they blew it in an epic way. The disease of Democratic presidential candidates again and again is that they equivocate, that they can't take a strong stand and go to war. Now that appears to be a disease of the entire Democratic Party.
These pathetic congressional reps have no courage and no fight in them. If they did--if they were more concerned with selflessly representing the interests of their constituents instead of worrying about how doing what's right might affect their election prospects--they would pull out all the stops to end the war, pass universal healthcare, and impeach Bush and Cheney, all actions that the majority of the people they serve have been demanding.
The feeling I have now is one I have felt one other time recently: the days after 9/11. Then I thought the U.S. had a real shot at rallying the world around us and changing it for the better. We dropped that ball with spectacular stupidity and incompetence. We had a chance to remake our government and repudiate the damage done by the Bush administration and the right wing since 2001, but the Democrats dropped that ball as well. It makes we want to weep.
Forget Gen. Petraeus, Democrats. You're the ones who have betrayed us. Please change your symbol from a donkey to a jellyfish. Then again, an ass is completely appropriate.
-
Part of the problem is in the poll
I always see these polls about America's dissatisfaction with Congress and think they are asking the wrong question. On top of that everyone who parrots them propagates the myth.
The question always repeated is some form of: "Are you satisfied with Congress as a whole?" Who cares?
Congress is where men and women from widely disparate parts of a huge empire meet to debate and, hopefully, reach compromises the issues important to their constituents. And when those representatives do not get all that was demanded of them, the people back home blame Congress as a whole. It's always the other districts' congresspersons that are raining on the parade.
It seems to me a better measure would be to get approval ratings of the individual candidates in their home districts and combine them to determine a Congressional approval rating. Maybe, to be more accurate, the frequency a representative votes with the majority could be included when determining the true approval rating.
Parliamentary behavior will always be unattractive because it requires nuance and lacks the decisiveness and immediacy of a sole ruler. But I think if people really liked the actions of Congress, especially when it represents the broad swath ours does, that means something is seriously wrong. It means debate is lost and we might as well hand over the keys to the Kingdom, for that is what it now is.
-
Part of the problem is in the poll
I always see these polls about America's dissatisfaction with Congress and think they are asking the wrong question. On top of that everyone who parrots them propagates the myth.
The question always repeated is some form of: "Are you satisfied with Congress as a whole?" Who cares?
Congress is where men and women from widely disparate parts of a huge empire meet to debate and, hopefully, reach compromises the issues important to their constituents. And when those representatives do not get all that was demanded of them, the people back home blame Congress as a whole. It's always the other districts' congresspersons that are raining on the parade.
It seems to me a better measure would be to get approval ratings of the individual candidates in their home districts and combine them to determine a Congressional approval rating. Maybe, to be more accurate, the frequency a representative votes with the majority could be included when determining the true approval rating.
Parliamentary behavior will always be unattractive because it requires nuance and lacks the decisiveness and immediacy of a sole ruler. But I think if people really liked the actions of Congress, especially when it represents the broad swath ours does, that means something is seriously wrong. It means debate is lost and we might as well hand over the keys to the Kingdom, for that is what it now is.
-
Where is our persistence....
When up against zealots, persistence is fundamental to defeating them. Public is presently very subject to quick return on instant action. Persistence is not in the appetite. Short of wind as a former Arab dictator would observe. A Karl Rove is very persistent like an Arab dictator and can become a backbone to even a jellyfish. The backbone as shown in today's Wall Street Journal is still holding the jellyfish together.
Hillary for all her faults has persistence. The Democrats have to gird their loins along with her - they haven't yet.
-
Black Friday
Friday was a depressing day, but indicative of what ails the Democratic party. It is ironic that central to the story was Senator Schumer, who was instrumental in helping the Democrats retake the Senate. He did so by imposing some party discipline and also by applying a simple rule -- when attacked, respond within 24 hours. So what does he do with respect to the Mukasey vote: he breaks party ranks along with Senator Feinstein to hand President Bush yet another victory, coincidentally approximately 24 hours after yet another speech by the President railing against the obstructionist Democrats blocking Mukasey. Spineless isn't a strong enough word to describe this vote. But of course it is a familiar story. Everytime any matter of consequence comes up, the President and the Republicans can count on picking off at least a couple of Democrats because the Democrats in Congress seem like a bunch of patsies who think party discipline means nothing and who believe that it is a virtue to be nonpartisan, even in the face of Republicans who do not.
People forever have complained about incumbents. The problem is that miraculously, the incumbents usually win in spite of it. It would seem the only incumbents most people dislike happen to be in other districts or states, but the local guy gets the benefit of the doubt. It helps, of course, that incumbents have such a huge advantage in raising money, which lets them buy advertising to tell the world about the good job they aren't really doing. People need to start paying attention to the voting records of their Senators and Congressman and vote in the primaries to get rid of the ones that can't be relied upon like Senators Feinstein and Schumer. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to ever happen.