Though it’s been going on for decades now, the schoolboy-taunt style of political “debate” that the Republicans have perfected makes me sick. What makes me sicker is that so many of my fellow Americans fall for it, over and over again.
Now, however, “cut and run,” has sailed back into the national lexicon — particularly on Capitol Hill.
As Congress debated the Iraq war yesterday, Republicans bombarded Democrats at every turn with the phrase, the GOP’s latest way of branding their opponents on the congressional record — and in headlines — as weak on defense.
“Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans,” declared Bill Frist, Senate majority leader.
Why don’t you just pull down your tailored pants and moon your opponents while you’re at it Senators? Maybe spit a few raspberries from the lecturn while you’re at it. I know, you could run up behind Joe Biden and give him a fucking wedgie! Or maybe you could bum rush Harry Reid and give him a swirly … NOTHING says class like giving a frail, doddering old man a good dunking in a toilet!
Good thing that the Democrat’s former candidate for President has finally joined them on the schoolyard. Maybe he and some of his fellow Senators could just meet by the fucking jungle gym and have a good playground brawl.
THIS is what passes for discourse in this country as we slaughter women and children in foreign lands.
Originally posted at Liberal Street Fighter
so sad in a country that once hosted the likes of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, the original Constitutional Convention, where oratory used to bring out crowds.
Well, Madman, to be fair, the past ain’t what it used to be.
Thomas Jefferson’s political opponents spread vicious rumors that Jefferson had fathered children by one of his slaves (a rumor that turned out to be extremely true!).
In the presidential election of 1884, Grover Cleveland’s opponent, James Blaine, used a slogan to taunt Cleveland for having fathered a child out of wedlock: Ma, ma, where’s my pa? Gone to the White House, ha ha ha.
Politics has always involved an element of pandering, and yes, it is often mean-spirited. But a sense of historical perspective means that we understand that it was always thus, and always will be.
Yes, I despise the mud-slinging tactics of the Republicans. They have destroyed the bipartisanship spirit in both the House and the Senate, but maybe that’s a good thing in the long run, because it will force people to choose sides. I prefer having a battle with clear divisions.
As far as the level of debate…well, right now, I agree it’s toxic. But debates in the House and Senate have always been contentious and yes, often puerile and foolish. There is an increase in partisanship now, and that means that the level of debate has gotten much nastier.
Fast-forward to the present, and we have THIS speech that should make us all proud:
That’s a keeper.
Full text of Feingold’s speech
love that speech.
Intellectually I know that you’re right, but thanks to the way politics is covered, it seems that speeches like Feingold’s just go by the boards. I suppose it was little different than the coverage by the yellow journalists back in the day.
So many real problems, so little real discussion.
It’s a question of respect.
Notice that Feingold respects his audience. He stakes out his position and states quite clearly why he is concerned with Bush’s lawbreaking. Feingold shows that he’s thought it through, invites his listeners to do the same, and assumes that they know enough about this issue to judge his speech.
It’s also important to note Abraham Lincoln, of the famed Lincoln-Douglas Debates, lost his bid to be US Senator from Illinois, but in the long run of history, it was Lincoln’s views that prevailed. (There were actually seven debates, each held in a different city in Illinois.)
You may recall that it was during the Galesburg debate of 7 October 1858 that Lincoln utterly demolished Douglas’ position on slavery. Lincoln pointed out that if Douglas supported the Dred Scott decision, then NO state could legally exclude slavery. The issue of slavery had to be resolved one way or the other; either every state would allow people to be held as property, or none would. This was the foundation of Lincoln’s famous speech to the Republican State Convention on 16 April 1858 in Springfield, Illinois:
As with slavery, we cannot accept half-measures when it comes to illegal government surveillance of our private communications, nor with illegal government intrusion into our homes for warrantless searches. We have a long uphill battle ahead of us and it’s a daunting task. But our task is peanuts compared to the one that Lincoln and his Republicans set before themselves.
As pathetic as our elected leaders rhetoric is, as lacking in vision and comprehension as they appear to be, I think a good portion of the responsibility for this needs to be laid at the feet of the propagandists, (notably the wingnut wurlitzer), and their minions in the compliant media.
These days, no one has more influence on either the content or the tone of the public debate than the language specialists who formulate the rhetoric and use it to elicit the emotional response, (notice I didn’t say “reasoned response”)they want. And because this manipulative machinery is so well entrenched, so dominant in the political landscape, that virtually the only people who get enough coverage in the press are the ones who play the game. Hence the battallion of talking head gasbags relentlessly repeating nonsense and bullshit, and the mannequins at the heart of the punditiocracy sucking it up over and over again.
I suggest that if our media was more responsible to the truth, more diligent in their pursuit of facts, the politicians would have to elevate both the relevance and the tenor of their dialogue else face certain ridicule from a media cohort actually doing it’s job.
Many may think that if our politicians behaved better and were more responsible that the media would follow. I suggest the exact opposite is more likely true; if the media showed the diligence and skepticism that is a prerequisite for doing their job correctly, the politicians, “feeling the fire at their feet” so to speak, would reflexively work harder at not being the self-absorbed narcissitic wankers that they truly are at heart.