We've heard the pathetic wailing for going on five years now, offered up for every and any excuse -- impeach Bush, impeach the president, impeach the crook, impeach the liar.
The 2000 election, 9/11, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, warrantless surveillance of terrorists, ingrown toenails, whatever.
Now they even have a song, penned and recorded by (Canadian) Neil Young.
When comes to actually putting it into practice though, not so much.
In fact, when Senator Russ Feingold recently introduced a resolution to simply censure the president -- a step much less severe than impeachment -- he couldn't get anyone to second it.
In fact when asked for comment by the media, his Democratic Senate colleagues RAN AWAY. Some actually hid in the bathroom.
Yeah, uh, okay. So much for solidarity within the Democratic party.
But I'm sure the chants will continue. And Neil will keep singing.
But they don't matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'm surprised Neil didn't learn his lesson when Ronnie van Zandt (may God rest his soul) got all up in his business.
I'm not.
I have a lot of respect for Neil Young as an artist. And I respect his right to express his political views. It just seems like some criticisms should only be leveled by the citizenry. I think I might have a double standard in that regard, however, since I don’t seem to mind taking shots at other heads of state whenever I feel like it.
But that's the point, CB -- it's not working for them.
Despite the many missteps of the Bush administration -- and there've been more than a few -- the Dems can't get any traction at all.
By all rights, they should sweep the fall elections this year, but frankly I doubt they will.
They squeal and shriek about everything. They go to 11 on every issue.
They have no focus, no message, no agenda, no credibility nothing.
"Bush sucks" is not a political platform -- they should have learned that in 2004.
Liberals in the US stopped being progressive somewhere along the way. They became very conservative about their platform planks.
In the early Nineties some opportunists in the GOP noticed this and figured out a way to market "progressive conservatism" (in some cases, it was more than marketing), elbowing the Dems off their own rails. It was a desperation move to keep the Party viable, and it worked surprisingly well.
Things began to get flipped around. Clinton aided and abetted the process because he was a Centrist president, socially left-ish and fiscally right-ish. He aggravated the Democrats’ identity crisis by his success.
Enter G-Dub and his gang, continuing the transmogrification of the GOP. The anemic state of the Dems allowed for a crazier swing than would normally have taken place. To my view, the GOP has become a monstrous amalgamation of the worst of both parties has had to offer over the past half-century. Arrogance, megalomania, fiscal fantasy, ideology over common sense...
It seems like the Dems are now desperate enough to become progressive again, maybe even in a new way. I’m still waiting to hear what that’s going to be, though. It baffles me that they can’t seem to come up with a strong, clear message.
My personal hope is for the emergence of a third party that will gradually grow in viability. The US needs an option that isn’t so beholden to ideology, but is more able to assess and implement ideas on their own merits.
I'll keep my views of CW for now (because I don't believe it).
But that IS the analysis -- the Dems are literally running around with their arms flailing, with no message and no platform.
I think they're biggest problem is that they've moved so far from the center that they're completely out of touch with the views of most Americans. We're much more conservative than we were even 25 years ago.
In essence, the center is farther to the right than it used to be, if that makes any sense.
Clinton moved to the center on certain policies, largely because his presidency was failing, but he was never a true centrist.
As to Scott's view of the GOP, personally I think that's a little on the Battlestar Galactica side of things. But I do agree that one dominant party is not good for democracy -- tends to make the dominant one fat, stupid and lazy.
I think what pisses off the Dems the most about Bush and Co. is they do what they think it right and really don't give a crap what their critics think.
It's a risky proposition, and the view has its shortcomings.
But I'll take it over the duplicity of Dems like Clinton, who could sign a proclamation on women's rights with his right hand while molesting a public employee with his left. You just got the sense that even he didn't believe his own BS.
And I don't hold out a lot of hope for any emergent third party -- I just don't see it happening.
Post a Comment