Democrats showing some intestinal fortitude
Following the controversial Bush appointments of Gonzales, Wolfowitz and Goss are we finally seeing a group of Democrats with the strength to stand up against Republicans and say "no" to a nomination. Appointing John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN is equivalent to appointing Jerry Falwell to lead the Rainbow Coalition. It’s a mistake. Hopefully after the Foreign Relations Committee hears more evidence of how Bolton fabricated evidence of a biological weapons program in Cuba he will be denied this post.
Didn’t Cheney do the same with nuclear information regarding Iraq? Maybe while we are at it we can convene a committee and get rid of him too.
Didn’t Cheney do the same with nuclear information regarding Iraq? Maybe while we are at it we can convene a committee and get rid of him too.
posted by mochi at 12:49 PM
8 Comments:
Mochi, I haven't seen the lack of "intestinal fortitude" you allude to. I have seen the Democrats as pretty steadfast and inflexible for a while. And while I may not agree with a lot of their principles, they seem more likely to stick to them than the current variety of Republican...
What do you think?
I feel the Democrats have been standing up to the Republicans. But the government, led by Republicans, manipulated the people so much with these childish terror threats- crop dusters, bridge bombers, germ warfare. Anyone who dissented was out of touch with reality, reckless, a political terrorist, you hate America. Do you want to see another 9/11? The mainstream media and the government's stronghold on it can be easily used to control the people, and it was in leading up to the Iraq invasion. However, as time has progressed, more information becomes available and the people eventually realize what a load of bullshit it all is. There are still those who are blinded by their devotion to a political party that they cannot admit it or even confront it, which is sad. But more people seem to realize what a bunch of scumbags we have running our country. With that, the Democrats argument has become more justifiable; even more now that we passed the election and got John Kerry the hell out of the way. The Democrats were indeed gaining momentum throughout 2004, and Bush's approval was not strong. However, people could not ultimately get over John Kerry's shoddy voting record and just his overall lack of vision. It struck me as being impossible to lose an election to Bush after a disastrous 4 years; Kerry managed to. Even with the setback of the election, the argument against what this administration does is still very strong. The Schiavo fiasco seemed to have backfired, Tom Delay is a pussy douchebag, and Iraq is a disaster. No one is buying Bush's social security plan. I think that even if his plan was legit, most people still would not support it because it is coming from his mouth: the W effect again. The people can only be fooled for so long. It is unfortunate because there are good Republicans out there, even some in Congress! They dare not speak out, though, given the sensitivity of today's political climate. But who knows what the hell will happen by the midterm elections.
Hi CH,
I understand what you are saying, but there is only one realistic way of looking at it. I understand your dislike for the Republicans, but you have to honestly ask and answer truthfully the question: "what do Democrats want?"
Honesty is key in answering this one...
-Jack
I think the Dems have caved on some important issues; said they shared their voters' values, and then voted the other way... sometimes, a betrayal (for instance, the confirmation of Atty General Gonzales). And Kerry... he really betrayed us. All's well at the cave of Skull & Bones.
Oops I forgot to add: "What do Democrats want?" If you mean democratic politicians, I guess many of them, like republican politicians, want those campaign dollars and similar perks.*
If you mean what do the Democrat voters want, I think diversity of values has fractured both parties, somewhat, so there appeat to be several shades of red and blue.
*But I like Barbara Boxer!
Jack, good question and I have the answer for you sans spin! It is POWER. They want control. My overall point was really that Democrats seems to be gaining momentum against this hawkish administration because more corruption is being revealed as time progresses. And Democratic control may not make things better, but practical solutions to our problems would. Nothing practical is being achieved or even strived for anymore. As far as I am concerned, getting all Republicans out of Congress will not solve anything; I LIKE having conservatives in Congress, we need that balance – that is true representation and what we truly stand for.
While I may not always agree with them, I do respect real conservatives and their values, like you Jack. Trouble is, the true conservative platform is not being fulfilled here, which is tragic because the actions of Bush and co. (whatever their value system is it is by no means conservatism) undermine honest conservatives like you. We are in a politically sensitive climate, and (I think I am interpreting your inference correctly Jack) Democrat control will not necessarily make things better; but practical solutions that strive for the greater good of the most people possible will. And if we are the most influential nation in the history of the world, our neighbors need not be shunned like they have been. What I think would be best for this country is the emergence of a third party, but anytime over the past 15 years it has happened, they get some momentum then get shot down with bitter intolerance because they take votes from one of the major parties –Perot from the Republicans and Nader from the Democrats. And it is easiest to shoot them down since they essentially branch off from one of the two major big money parties. What if we were to have a third party that branches from the middle and “takes” votes from both sides then? That is what the Libertarian party would and could do; while there are some things in their platform I do disagree with, I think they have a terrific agenda for reaching a practical middle ground. Diversity in political thought and acceptance of different ideas, other than being limited to corporate-controlled democrat or republican leadership, left or right, red or blue, with us or against us, would actually make us stronger and more credible. If you were given a million dollars to invest, would you throw it all in one or two places? No, you should diversify your investments in different areas for best results. We need to do the same with our ideas and politics: diversify our thought process for the best results. The challenge lies in defeating apathy and the notion that a third party is threatening I guess. Jack, thanks for bringing that question up; it was enlightening and assisted me in articulating my argument.
I thought the Schiavo legislation was a classic example of Dmocrats not being willing to stick their necks out on something that was clearly wrong.
Mochi, I would agree with you there. But then I then I consider this: how did Democrats manage to stay out of the mainstream media on this issue? Save for the sporadic mention of Sen Bill Nelson and Rep.Jim Davis (D-Fl.), you cannot find many quotes from the left. Could they possibly be this stupid? Now, let me present this theory explaining how this affair will ultimately play into their hands:
1. Schiavo affair makes headlines over the family's internal vendetta.
2. Thought-police in Congress get political. Monkeyboy DeLay, in a manner consistent with that of the diva, and most likely a feeble attempt to save political face, starts foaming at the mouth. And of course, there is that memo.
3. Several polls with different wording of the question were released; they all revealed that a majority wanted the tube removed; an even greater majority did not want government involvement; this was a private family matter.
4. Republicans, well they still get involved. Faster than you can say, "tsunami," the President sobered up and rushed to D.C. to sign the bill
5. The death on demand cult in the judiciary, having gained influence with the emergence of science and rationalism, still err on the side of Deathculture USA; the neo-liberal cult hell-bent on all things deceased.
6. I looked at the roll call for the house bill, and was astonished at the number of Democrats that DID NOT VOTE.
I therefore conclude that, Democrats, by staying out of the issue in the media and not voting on the issue i.e. not getting involved and recognizing the family’s privacy, actually play the political card most effectively. While they surely had their opinions and would love to have gone after the GOP, they watched the polls and watched some opponents get very involved, and that end was still not achieved. The Democrats let the judiciary’s decision be and, in actuality, did not get involved in any way, as the people desired.
They will still fuck it up somehow though. I trust we can all agree on that?
Post a Comment
<< Home