...this just isn't worth following anymore. I'm through with politics.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Lord
First Obama proclaims Coburn his BFF, then we find out that Hillary is part of that truly scary Christian Reconstructionist branch in Congress, and now Richardson is proclaiming IA’s first caucus God-given. Doesn’t matter what the details are. These people are ready for prime time, the best we can do???
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Exactly My Point
I've mentioned frequently that one reason I'm not a Dem and why I find them so disheartening in the face of the united message and movement of the Busheviks is that they have no principled message of their own around which to rally voters and base the policy choices that voters say they want. Here's a perfect example, in a book review critical of the sad Matt Bai who nevertheless says the same thing in his new book, an example that claims to refute the point:
At its most fundamental level, Bai's "no new ideas" argument seems flawed. He has organized his book around a false dichotomy; nobody is against smart ideas, but what good are ideas without political power and without the fundamental vision that has been the foundation of progressive values for decades?
But the basic tenets of progressivism -- fairness and equality; human dignity and the ability to earn a living and support a family, no matter if it is gay or straight, married or not; corporate responsibility and an end to the rampant political corruption and corporate cronyism that so dominates the Republican party; affordable healthcare for all; green economic development; cutting back a bloated military budget and investing in infrastructure and education, and real security without fear-mongering -- none of these ideas are new. And if a candidate ran on them aggressively, and had the necessary resources, he or she would be on the road to getting elected.
Excuse me, but . . . wuhhhhh???? The argument is that the Dems don't have a central message that can be their image, their brand, their reason for being, and this guy argues, "nuh-uh, we have fairness and equality; human dignity and the ability to earn a living and support a family, no matter if it is gay or straight, married or not; corporate responsibility and an end to the rampant political corruption and corporate cronyism that so dominates the Republican party; affordable healthcare for all; green economic development; cutting back a bloated military budget and investing in infrastructure and education, and real security without fear-mongering." Gosh, what a precise and memorable thing to say. And people have a hard time believing that the Dems stand for some THING?
And this review is being linked to by one of the more popular second-tier blogs as if it says something meaningful. That's the Dems' problem in a nutshell. People want to be inspired, they want to believe in a better future, they want something to look forward to, and the brighter minds of the Dems say, "Here it is--fairness and equality; human dignity and the ability to earn a living and support a family, no matter if it is gay or straight, married or not; corporate responsibility and an end to the rampant political corruption and corporate cronyism that so dominates the Republican party; affordable healthcare for all; green economic development; cutting back a bloated military budget and investing in infrastructure and education, and real security without fear-mongering." Against a strong political party, the Repubs wouldn't have a chance without cheating again. But I won't be surprised if they win the White House in 2008 straight out. And, even though the review is right that Bai is a Beltway tool, this is why Beltway tools are not going away any time soon.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
What Would MORE Failure Look Like?
The Dems’ “we can’t afford to be tough or we might fail” strategy doesn’t quite seem to be working, does it?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Too Much to Clean Up
One of the many problems with the Dems’ “don’t do everything needed now, just wait until we get the Presidency and then we’ll make things right again” strategy is that the magnitude of the distortion and destruction is so great that energies to clean up the very largest Constitutional messes will be used up quickly, leaving nothing for the multitudes of littler messes that will then go unaddressed, like this example of DOJ interjection into death penalty cases, setting yet another precedent of concentrated national control that the Dems won’t likely correct, leaving it sitting there for the next Repubs to rachet into even greater power and threat. (And that’s assuming the Dems DO get the Presidency.)
Friday, August 10, 2007
Proof That Mister Rogers Was Nice But Misguided Man
I have from time to time gone after that saint known as Mister Rogers and all his fellow "don't conflict, just get along with everyone no matter how stupid or mendacious" colleagues on public television. I hold them personally responsible for much of the idiotic behavior of the Democratic Party as it's handed over our Legacy and Democracy to the plutocrats and bullies of the opposition party. Yes, they're all nice and well-intentioned folks (but, seriously, would you have any of them over to any party you wanted to be fun?). However, the underlying philosophy of their "educational" efforts was always questionable, and using television to sell it basically just promoted use of television. This post lays it all out wonderfully, noting the contribution to our ADD society and politics, but it needed to go to the next step and link it to the resulting milktoast strategies of political party that once was the major hope we had of resisting the loss of our political system. You should never let very many "reasonable" people organize more than the annual songfest. One of the best things that could have happened over the last couple of decades would have been to let the Repubs win in their annual quest to dismantle public television.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Standing for Something Counts for Blogs, Too
I agree with practically everything Demosthenes adds to the current "why don't they pay attention to blogs?" argument going on right now, but I'd like to replay an old record that thudded loudly a year or so ago. He rightly notes that the blogs are seen primarily (totally?) as a source of funds, for legit candidates and possible wannabes, but that whatever messages are being posted are primarily for the choir and its self-absorption ("look at me on tv!!", "John Kerry blogged with me!!!"). There's no point in lamenting the sole value as an ATM that the progressive blogs have earned. That's where it's been intentionally taken.
Two dot-commers who failed in the boom of the 90s, one of whom got caught cheating, turned the idea and principle world of Billmon (as he famously noted) into a money-making enterprise, at least for them and a few others. Since then, Kos in particular got famous and wealthy by pulling the old Tom Sawyer makes money conning others to do his work, and by shutting off any serious discussion of the ethical implications of the founders' fraudulent activity, with all their acolytes chanting in unison, "Kommandante Kos doesn't control me, Kommandante Kos doesn't control me" when they followed his orders to deny oxygen from the reveal of Armstrong. It was a clear example of what's wrong with the blogs, just as it's wrong with the party it supports and which craps on it. The bloggers expound and stand for issues and some are smarter than others and seem like interesting if often too high maintenance people. But if someone asked, "What is the uniting principle of our blogosphere?", what would they say? There would be a 621 word statement they called a principle, incorporating 18-25 issues and concepts. IOW, just like the Dems.
The Dem leadership [sic] knows that, when push comes, the blogs can't mobilize anyone around any central core ideas. They can be anything they want because there's nothing to truly hold them accountable to. A party and a movement based on, say, Lincoln's underlying beliefs, or King's, would present and proclaim a message to future voters that would inspire and make those principle-less focus grouped "leaders" afraid to cross. But Kos, Armstrong, Bowers, et al., for all their strong stands, are clearly shooting for "leading" and profiting from their new "fame." The one clear and obvious operating principle of this blogosphere IS raising campaign funds and whatever influence they bring for a few key bloggers, and ideas, principle, and standing for something that can unify and advance this nation are all just peripheral, no matter how devoted to and heart-felt the causes for which the minions write. And until the rest of the blogs accept this and what they are and where they're (not) taking us, they'll just keeping putting the whitewash on that fence.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Harry Reid really frustrates me...
...he ticks me off, then makes me happy, then ticks me off, then makes me really happy...
“All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case. Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate. Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment."Hells yeah.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Dingellsaurus
The Christian Science Monitor calls out the cynical and backhanded ploy of John Dingell (D-GM) to use a mega gasoline tax to shortcircuit real economizing standards on the US auto industry. Good stuff on the newly discovered fossil, Dingellsaurus, which sounds like it might also have DNA evolved into Barack Obama.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Two Against One
Yeah, let's count on the fed courts to back the Dems in Congress when they apply the magical "defunding" solution or anything else they dream up to deal with Bushnev.
Impeachment is the only way to avoid the courts where he will win. And impeachment can be used against judges who trash the Constitution, too.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Rahm nails it for once
I’m far from a Rahm Emanuel fan, but I can’t think of a better response to the “Cheney = Fourth Branch of Gov’t” issue than this (via C&L):
O.K., says Emanuel.This is absolutely, positively the perfect way to handle this. The Dems are in charge of the legislative branch (well, the House at least...the Connecticut for Lieberman Party controls the Senate), and we should see a lot more now. Be careful, Rahm (and other top Dems)...you start doing this kind of thing, and I might just come to expect it.
If Cheney's a member of the legislative branch, the Democratic Caucus chair suggests, the vice president won't need all the money that currently goes to pay for his executive office, extensive staff and that secure undisclosed location that is so often his haunt. So Emanuel plans this week to offer an amendment to a spending bill that would defund the Office of the Vice President.
Of course, there would still be funding for the Office of the Senate President. But, let's be frank, the rare tie-breaking duties and ceremonial administrative functions associated with that position won't require more than a smidgen of the money that now goes to the vice president's epic executive-branch operations.
"This amendment will ensure that the vice president's funding is consistent with his legal arguments," say Emanuel, a former aide to President Clinton who, like Cheney, has served in both the legislative and executive branches.
Monday, June 18, 2007
"We'd Like to Lead, But We Just Can't"
Even after demonstration after demonstration of their clueless vapidity, it's still amazing that the Dem Congressional leadership can say the things they say in this article. “We’d like to but we just can’t.” Do it anyway. Hang Iraq and every other problem Americans are having on Bushnev and his Repub cronies. Don’t have the votes? Then make sure people know who’s blocking them. This isn’t rocket science, but it is to people with the brains and guts of this bunch. It’s simple. People wanted change. You got elected and claim you can’t change things. Tell me why we vote for you again in ’08? (Big Tent Democrat is nicer about it here.)
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Our Hope for the Future
Not really going to say much about this new poll showing the Dems tanking because they’ve attached themselves to the Repubs on Iraq despite all their claims to the contrary. Other bloggers have much more and better to say on this in particular. My only addition to it would be that the Dems attaching themselves as they have was predictable and predicted. (Here, as a matter of fact.) Having them in the majority is better than having Repubs on the margins, but the change needed from traditional Beltway ways requires a revolutionary, confrontational mindset, not the blather and pabulum that have made the Democratic Party what it is today. (I’m not the only one with this “doom and gloom” view. Here’s from a recent MIT report, quoted in the Financial Times, that shows college grads falling behind economically: “only a re-orientation of government policy can restore the general prosperity of the postwar boom.”)
I’ve pretty much stopped commenting on what’s happening politically because it’s a waste of time and scarce mental energy. We have serious problems but no leaders who seriously get it in more than a couple of components, at best, and the cliff is speeding up at us fast. I’ve said here before that it may be that we will just have to go off that cliff and wait to see what pieces can still be picked up before we do what’s necessary to save our democracy. I believe that more than ever after the last year. It’s not going to happen from any of those folks playing the “debate” games this week. They don’t have the capacity to see what’s happening and needed, sorta talking but not really walking. Gore finally does, but has wisely decided to stay out of it at this point. He knows how hard it is to wash off the taint. It really is going to take that cliff to make us wake up. It took a Great Depression and a World War to make us ready for this guy. Hopefully Al will still be around.
[As if you need any more proof of the Dems’ dangerous incapacities, just note that the Congressional Dems are sponsoring legislation to wipe out the landmark auto emissions agreement led by CA and other states, in a move to take power on the fed level and support reps from coal- and auto-producing states. And Pelosi is from where? These are the people we really expect to save us? Seriously???]
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Tuesday Blogroll!!
I’m off work today (Happy Harry Truman Day!), so it’s time to see what our impeccable (and growing) blogroll is coming up with...let’s get to it!
Being that it is Harry Truman’s birthday, I guess we should mention that not everybody agrees on, shall we say, the level of his greatness (Existentialist Cowboy).
For a second or two, I actually thought this was real (Skippy)...that’s a bit of an indictment of myself, but that’s an even bigger (I hope) indictment of how much I think of my president’s decision-making abilities.
Garance Franke-Ruta’s horrid “You can’t lift up your shirt till you’re 21!” proposal is getting justifiably slaughtered. Roy at Alicublog is happily up to the task of addressing this stupidity, as is Avedon, and Mannion (for that matter, so is non-blogroller Jon Swift). Echidne takes a more measured tone. So does Scott at LG&M. Me? I’m just glad that the country has started to realize that electing people who would create laws based on what makes them feel all icky inside might not be a good idea. Still a ways to go, of course, but...yeah. How about we enforce the laws we have (i.e. underage drinking) and see what that does first? Just a thought.
I knew I was going to link to somebody’s post about how the Kansas National Guard (and equipment needed to help repair the Kansas town that was 95% wiped off the map this weekend) is in Iraq and unable to help with the full force they normally would...I just couldn’t decide who would get the honors. We’ll give the honor to Steve Soto at Left Coaster.
What’s worse...a) that we have something that could be even reasonably considered concentration camps, or b) that we won’t let the UN in to take a look at them (Alter Destiny)? USA! USA!
Oh, and those levees? 100% fixed. Honest (Attytood).
House Dems unveil their new Iraq plan (BooMan). Not bad. No mandatory withdrawal date, but it requires the issue to come back onto the table soon, which I’ll take. Talk Left shares some thoughts as well.
And speaking of ‘not perfect, but not too shabby,’ Grist discusses Obama’s recent speech about CAFE standards.
April consumer credit is way up (CorrenteWire). But everything’s fine. Nothing to see here.
George Soros is one of the most FEARED MEN IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!! (C&L)
Overton Window = the Scientology of think tank strategy (Demosthenes).
Conservatives have only been feminizing liberals for 200 years (Digby...and FDL)...let’s keep being really reasonable with them and hope they end up seeing things our way. Isn’t that right, mainstream media? And speaking of media, the KC Star takes some, shall we say, creative liberties (Fired Up! Missouri) with a McClatchy story and makes it just a wee bit more GOP-friendly. And nobody so vividly illustrates the media’s faults better than Glenn Greenwald. You mean Brit Hume isn’t a serious journalist?? Wha??? So...why exactly does the media suck (Dana B.)?
So how long until people notice that Afghanistan is no longer under our control (First Draft)?
Tom Wolfe says Bushnev is relatively well-read (Wolcott). Well that settles that!
Liberal Oasis has your Sunday talk show wrap-up. You’ve been warned.
Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising talks about the past, present, and future of the progressive blogosphere.
David at Debate Link details yet another way that a Democratic DOJ will have to make significant repairs.
And you knew I couldn’t go without at least one link to the fact that 3 of 10 Republican presidential candidates don’t believe in evolution (Pandagon), didn’t you? And one who does believe in evolution doesn’t really believe that having a BFF with mob ties is really a problem.
The discussion thread in this Upyernoz atheism post is very much worth reading. I don’t consider myself an atheist (I know what I’m not more than I know what I am), but most of the atheists I’ve known/read have explained their position very well. And I’ve seen too many examples of them trying to win anybody over until confronted. I respect that too.
Let your asthma flag fly (Susie Madrak). I like this.
And finally, this is fantastic (TBogg). Never say liberals are too shrill for humor.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Screw You, Dick
No, not THAT Dick. The OTHER Dick. The one who shares a state with me (via RS).
In yet another example of the government-industry revolving door, "Peabody Energy, the world's largest private sector coal company, has hired Dick Gephardt's firm to spearhead its drive to defeat efforts by Democrats to put caps on carbon emissions in a bid to combat global warming," reports O'Dwyer's. Gephardt, a Democrat and the former U.S. House Majority Leader, will advocate for increased public funding of "clean coal technologies."
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Lou Einstein
I know I’ve been saying this a lot lately, but how sad the world has become when Lou Dobbs is one of its best sources of wisdom. Here's proof:
This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that millions of voters thought would be so vastly different from the last gaggle of partisan buffoons in the Republican-led 109th Congress. With almost 30,000 young Americans killed or wounded in Iraq, with a half-trillion dollars spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this Congress can do no better than publicly fulminate in futility and bray endlessly without effect on the course and conduct of the war in Iraq. Is there no sense of proportion and higher purpose anywhere in Washington?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Raising the Gates
Big Tent Democrat over at Talk Left spreads it thick and well-deserved on Kos and his krew, using a poster's analysis of the current "approved truth" about Iraq to point out the self-defeating nonsense they're spewing at the mega-site. "You say, at one point: Just the numbers aren't on the side of those who wish to end the war. That's your problem right there. You see that as a conclusion instead of as a starting point. You see it as an answer, not a question.That the votes aren't there right now is not relevant to the conversation. What matters is how we get those votes." And this: "That is what is so utterly maddening about the approach you and a small minority take here - you're not engaging in smart politics. You need to be seeking how to make people change their mind. The conversation must be about "what should be done" - because really, anything can be done. It's wrong to start from a premise that is inherently self-limiting. Whatever comes out of the House, and what is looking like will come out is simply awful even if untouched afterwards, will be watered down even more. This is the beginning of the compromises, NOT the end."
Exactly right. Leadership and progress depend on clear and resolutely pursued vision toward better conditions for more people, not starting your politics and negotiations already giving away what you’re willing to as if that doesn’t become the starting point for the real game. The Dems want to be the party of “where people are and can see right now,” hoping not to offend or challenge in order to squeak out votes to keep them and their largess in office. What do you think Bobby Kennedy would think right now about a party so determined to ignore his quote of Shaw: “Some see things as they are and ask ‘why?’ I see things that never were and ask ‘Why not?’”
You can count the heirs to RFK on one hand these days. What a moronic and corrupt political party. Congrats, Kos and Armstrong and your tech savvy and politics stupid Kommandante Korps. Forget crashing the gate. You are the gate.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Why Gore Will Be the Next President
From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:
Democrats think Sen. Hillary Clinton "has the best chance of being elected president in 2008, followed by Barack Obama and John Edwards," according to a new Gallup Poll. "Most Democrats believe Al Gore would have a slim chance of winning, if any, should he decide to run."
Recall that these "Democrats" are the ones who dumped Howard Dean for John Kerry because "he was the most electable."
I'm sending my resume to Al immediately.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
And I meant to post this yesterday...
...Joementum is threatening to switch sides if Democrats vote with the will of the people. Boo hoo. Yesterday BooMan did a nice job of pointing out that Dems won’t lose control over anything if he switches teams, and in fact his switch would open the door for real chairs of certain committees.
Lieberman is currently responsible for oversight into the executive department, their organization, and their compliance with international organizations of which the United States is a member. This gets into the heart of the unitary executive theory. I don't know how aggressive Daniel Akaka would be in this role. But he'd have to be a more reliable and effective investigator than Lieberman.Now would be the best possible time to cut this whore loose. Instead of Joementum pulling Dems around on a string, exchanging threats for leadership positions, Dems would have been playing Joementum for leadership positions, then letting him jump once they got what they wanted from him. I like that. In other words, with my head and my heart, I can now say to Joementum, don't let the door knob hit you on the way out.
I admit it...
...while my favorite of the 2008 candidates is Bill Richardson (he's more conservative than me, but he's a negotiator, and he gets things done...occasionally that's a good thing...), I'm starting to get pretty fond of Obama. Not necessarily Obama the Office Holder (yet), but Obama the Speaker (via Corrente).
“Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we’d be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we’re in the last throes. I’m sure he forecast sun today,” Obama said to laughter from supporters holding campaign signs over their heads to keep dry. “When Dick Cheney says it’s a good thing, you know that you’ve probably got some big problems.”How hard is it to say things like that and still come off as likeable? Not hard at all. When Kerry or Hillary or even (to an extent) John Edwards take a poke at Bush or Cheney, it comes across as "My advisors told me it's okay to say that, and polls say people think it might be funny." When Obama says it, it has an infinitely more natural feel.
Plus, of course, the jab has the added effect of being 10000% right. And Cheney seems to be on a crusade to prove it right on a daily basis now (via C&L).
Vice President Cheney is going out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't think he has anything to apologize for.The other thing about the Obama article is, like lambert said, Obama drew 16,000 in Texas in the rain. I almost pointed out that even our president wouldn't draw that in Texas, but then I remembered that any event of his would be limited to people who had at least $1,000,000 and signed a loyalty oath, so that comparison doesn't even apply. Bottom line is, Hillary still has the connections, but Obama has the people. And unfortunately for Edwards, Obama has everything he has (charm, populist feel), only more. New odds (as I seem to be giving every time I post now):
In an unprecedented display of public verbosity from the typically taciturn vice president, Cheney spoke for the second time in three days with ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl. During today's 22-minute interview in a Sydney restaurant, Cheney showed no sign of backing down from controversy. Rather, he:
* Repeated and amplified his opinion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed course in Iraq would validate al Qaeda. (After Cheney's last interview with Karl, Pelosi called upon President Bush to repudiate the comments.)
* Refused to acknowledge any failure of U.S. policy in Iraq.
* Stood by his 1991 prediction that an invasion of Iraq would result in a quagmire -- but said that 9/11 changed the dynamics such that it had to be done anyway.
* Expressed pride in having done "some very controversial things" since 9/11 that he said have averted further terrorist attacks within our borders.
* Said it was "probably inaccurate" to call him an all-powerful vice president.
* Refused to address any of the serious accusations leveled against him during the course of the trial of his former chief of staff, Scooter Libby.
* Refused to rule out military action against Iran.
Obama 40%
Hillary 35%
Edwards 15%
Anybody else 10%
Hopefully whoever wins picks Richardson as their running mate.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)