Monday, June 11, 2007
Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Is it my imagination or is the Dem. leadership in Congress really screwing things up?
First they aren't able to stand up to Bush & CO about timelines and such because they are afraid of the backlash of defunding the war being spun as being against the troops (which fear -- whatever happened to the Dems. being the party of Franklin Delano "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" Roosevelt? -- of course and rightly so, turns people off from the Dems. as they feel the Dems. care only about political calculations): if they could have just got out a simple, resonating message ("does your boss ever not give you a timeline and/or benchmarks? so why should we who represent you, the people who are collectively the President's boss -- you're his commander and unless you're in the military, he's not your commander -- not give the President a timeline for his work?"), they would have been seen as bravely going against what would be, according to the punditocracy, politically expedient and moving towards peace.
Then, of course, we have the immigration debacle. No matter what happens now, the Dems. will be blamed: "Reid couldn't get the bill through", etc. If the bill works well, the President gets the credit, but if it fails, it'll be blamed on the Dems. ...
And now the Dems. are still trying to have a Yurpean style "no confidence" vote for Gonzo? If you don't trust him, subpeona him to testify, under oath, before Congress -- and impeach him if he doesn't cooperate or lies. That's the American system! Doing things the Yurpean way will just continue the stereotype of Dems. as effete, etc.
So what's with the Dem. leadership? The Pres. is un-popular, etc. And they are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again? And they wonder why people don't trust Dems. to fight terrorists if Dems. can't even check the GOP?
*
Pardon any typos, etc. I was up too late last night ...
First they aren't able to stand up to Bush & CO about timelines and such because they are afraid of the backlash of defunding the war being spun as being against the troops (which fear -- whatever happened to the Dems. being the party of Franklin Delano "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" Roosevelt? -- of course and rightly so, turns people off from the Dems. as they feel the Dems. care only about political calculations): if they could have just got out a simple, resonating message ("does your boss ever not give you a timeline and/or benchmarks? so why should we who represent you, the people who are collectively the President's boss -- you're his commander and unless you're in the military, he's not your commander -- not give the President a timeline for his work?"), they would have been seen as bravely going against what would be, according to the punditocracy, politically expedient and moving towards peace.
Then, of course, we have the immigration debacle. No matter what happens now, the Dems. will be blamed: "Reid couldn't get the bill through", etc. If the bill works well, the President gets the credit, but if it fails, it'll be blamed on the Dems. ...
And now the Dems. are still trying to have a Yurpean style "no confidence" vote for Gonzo? If you don't trust him, subpeona him to testify, under oath, before Congress -- and impeach him if he doesn't cooperate or lies. That's the American system! Doing things the Yurpean way will just continue the stereotype of Dems. as effete, etc.
So what's with the Dem. leadership? The Pres. is un-popular, etc. And they are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory yet again? And they wonder why people don't trust Dems. to fight terrorists if Dems. can't even check the GOP?
*
Pardon any typos, etc. I was up too late last night ...
# posted by alberich @ 12:17 PM 
