For those of you who have not CALMED THE FUCK DOWN, you can enter into the parallel universe of HIGHER BRODERISM, currently displayed at the New York Times. In an article entitled Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush, Carl Hulse inverts blogosphere wisdom.
The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.
The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.
Democratic opponents of the legislation said their political position was driven by a substantive determination that the bill, which creates rules for interrogating and trying terrorism suspects, is fundamentally flawed and a dangerous departure from founding American principles.
Carl Hulse fails to recognize that Democratic Presidential aspirants have to win Democratic primaries, while the leadership failed to keep eleven members from giving bipartisan cover to the biggest power grab since Adolf Hitler snagged Austria in the Anschluss.
While the left howls in pain, the disciples of Higher Broderism talk about the bravery of Democrats.
Display appropriate viturperative shrillness below.
That was a real projection of congressional power by Democratic members of Congress. It was so inspiring to see them capture and hold the moral highground.
:rolleyes:
I need to go chop of Carl Hulse’s hands.
And then my own head. the stupid, it buuuuuurrrrrns!
Umm, does the writer not recognize, along with anyone that has a pulse, that come hell or high water, Bush/Republicans would still attempt to make use of national security as a political issue?
I’ll get back to being pissed tomorrow, for now I’m thrilled because we just got a postcard announcing that we’re going to be a “Nielsen family”. We have to await their phonecall to get the details, but it seems like a very good possibility that our week will be during November sweeps. My newfound hatred for Disney’s various networks (and old hatred of Fox) finally has a constructive outlet.
Heh. Tell them you watch Sundance Channel 24/7. I used to drive people crazy because when they asked what stations I listened to, I would add stuff like “the BBC world service” (this was in the days before the ‘Net when you had to get the WS via shortwave).
I hesitate to think what someone would think I’m like from looking at my viewing habits. Our TiVo records about half stuff like Stargate SG-1 and Mythbusters, about half stuff from Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network, and about half stuff like The Colbert Report and KO. Someone probably thinks I’m a politically aware ten-year-old nerd.
Already have the weirdness covered, my grandmother is the other household member and she really does watch Turner Classic Movies 24/7, and even keeps it on while she sleeps. In fact, I told DirecTV while searching for the best package before I moved over here that she really would be happy paying $10 a month for just that one channel.
I’m not sure exactly what I’ll be watching that week, but I do know there will be more viewing than normal and none of it will be Disney. Several people have already suggested pet shows that they think I should check out when the ratings count. I don’t really have a pet show now that Arrested Development is gone (except for G4TV reruns). I wish I could say Studio 60, but I watched the first 2 episodes and they were good but nothing special.
We don’t get MSNBC or SciFi or a number of other channels I like here right now due to the aforementioned search for cheaper programming, so that is one thing we will have to remedy before Nielsen week starts.
Can I just mention instead that I read the bit about Foley resigning after the reports that he was chatting up teenagers on the Net with less than honorable intentions, and immediately afterward had to drag out the Clorox to bleach my eyeballs?
Sick, sick, sick.
Can someone over here at the Pond explain to me why I am not supposed to be livid at Debbie Stabenow and the other 10. Read all about it on the Orange site yesterday and frankly didn’t get it. Maybe frogs can explain it to me better. 😉
My interpretation of all that was we’re not supposed to be mad at them because we still need them to beat the Republicans in a few weeks, so they get a pass for now.
Personally, I was shocked to see Stabenow on the list. It isn’t as though she hasn’t made some votes that I thought were poor choices in the past, but usually not on something like this.
So, I am going to split the difference : vote for her, but be livid at her for the rest of her Senatorial career, which I hope will end by the hands of a primary challenger next cycle (who I will support and vote for).
I’ll drink to that! Thanks for the response to my question. Have a good weekend, and Go Blue! (at least this weekend!)
I’m sick of blue – college football, that is.
And I’m sicker of Stabenow. Very sick. I cannot believe she voted for this bill. I cannot believe she voted for the bankruptcy bill. I cannot believe she voted for. . oh to hell with it.
I’m with you. People over at Kos, especially, keep talking about “strategy” — which apparently means, “maybe the Bushits finally screwed up enough that we can win a few crumbs without getting anybody mad at us.”
I wish somebody could explain why a pro-torture Dem is better than a pro-torture Bushit.
There’s strategy, and then there’s tactics. (Note: I didn’t read the Kos article so I have no idea what it says.) The tactics of the moment are that we have to get a Democratic majority in one house of Congress. Preferably both. Will it change anything? Always in motion, the future is; but if the Republicans continue to hold all the cards we get to see more of the same for the next two years. I don’t think I can take it, and I’m not sure the country can either, and I’m willing to take a chance on the Democrats.
Strategy is to get candidates into office who share our views; candidates who will be beholden to only one special interest, and that’s the people of their district; candidates who will — well, you get the idea. For the current election cycle we’re stuck with the candidates we have now, with a few possible extraordinary exceptions (hello, Foley, don’t let the door hit you on the way out) and fulminating about the situation isn’t going to do any good. Learning from the situation, though . . . that could do some good if we apply the lessons learned to the next election cycle, starting now.
As for why a pro-torture Democrat is better than a pro-torture Republican, I should think that would be obvious five weeks before an election. There’s a (D) behind that name, and you get enough (D)s, you have some hope of things changing. If you don’t, things stay the way they are now. Am I happy about a pro-torture vote? No. Do I think candidates who make votes like this should be replaced at the earliest opportunity? Yes. But like I said, right now we are in the tactical phase of the operation. The key right now is to get Republicans out of power. To do that we have to get Democrats into power. There is no alternative. Once we get Democrats into power, we can start on phase 2 of the operation, which is to get better Democrats in power.
OK, I understand electability. My real point is that Stabenow and the others would be MORE ELECTABLE if they took the time to DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM THEIR GOP COUNTERPARTS. I thought, (apparently in a very naive way) that preventing the legalizing of torture might, just might, have been an opportune time to do the distinguishing thing referred to above.
Bottom Line: I have no sympathy for the 11.
But…
Each candidate figures out how they want to campaign, what issues they want to cover, and what their overall strategy is. For people like Stabenow, Cantwell, Menendez, Ford, Cantwell, that are up for re-election, they had two choices to make. Did they want to vote no to the bill, and did they want to make their opposition to the bill the basis of their campaign. Because, voting no meant that the GOP would make the issue so front and center and that only a hard defense of their vote could act as a counter.
Ford has been running as tough anyway. Stabenow and Menendez evidently did not want to run on Rove’s terms.
For me, this is a lame excuse. But I think that is what happened.
Lautenberg? No fucking clue.
Thanks for the insight!
I don’t think Cantwell is among the Turcoat Twelve, is she?
Seems to me voting for torture, for repeal of the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus, for impunity, goes beyond politics as usual. I might swallow hard and vote for somebody that wants to increase military spending, for example, but Bush was finally right on something: this is a defining moment. It will define America’s fundamental nature far into the future, as well as it standing in the world. At some point we have to say, you’re not here just for politics. You’re here to be responsible and ethical.
People say we have to get the Dems in power because they are our only hope. And then say we have to support the likes of Stabenow, Menendez, et al, even though they poison that hope with the sulfur farts from across the aisle.
I’m glad I don’t have to choose evil this time around where I live. I really think forcing myself to vote for one of the Turncoat Twelve might kill me.
No, Cantwell is not among the shamed. No Washington Democrat in either chamber voted for this bill. I believe all of the Washington Republicans did.
I guess my point really is, we are in election mode now, and as I said we do need to get the Republicans out of power. I can’t promise that the Democrats will be any better, but it’s hard to imagine they could be any worse, and I know how bad the Republicans will be. Once this election is over, though — and even today would not be too soon — we progressives need to start doing an end run around the DLC/DxCC types, find and recruit our own candidates that support our beliefs, and start getting them ready for the 2008 elections, and tell the DLC/DxCC “the hell you say” when they try to clear the field for corporatist/Republican lite candidates. To the extent that we don’t do this, we are throwing in our lot with Business As Usual.
In 2006, kick Republican ass; in 2007, kick Democratic ass.
Display appropriate viturperative shrillness below.
I can’t think of anything shrill and virturperative enough to be appropriated for this situation.
My thoughts on this nightmare are here.
Tomorrow Tammy Duckworth, candidate for the retiring Henry Hyde’s seat (IL-06) gives the Democratic response to Bush’s weekly radio address. On Nov. 4 2004, 1 day after Kerry conceded to Bush Duckworth’s legs were blown off by an rpg as she piloted her Blackhawk helicopter in Iraq. Peter Roskam, her opponent has already been torn a new one for talking “cut and run” in her presence. Tomorrow is Bush’s turn. After the broadcast the webcast should be up on her website:
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com
Check it out and pass it on.