including with first poll on censure)
By Anonymous Liberal
Compare these two headlines:
March 15, 2006: Democrats Beat Quick Retreat on Call to Censure President
March 15, 1994: Open Season on Clinton's Veracity: What the Whitewater Fuss Is About
Here's an excerpt from the 1994 article:
Q. Is President Bill Clinton in trouble?
A. Politically, he is in big trouble. A growing number of Americans think he did something wrong or illegal in the so-called Whitewater affair, but they're not sure what. Republicans are maintaining a drumbeat of criticism and demanding hearings in Congress. Journalists are scratching for every shred of new material.
In short, it is open season on Bill Clinton's veracity, even though critics can only speculate on what he might have done. If the storm does not abate, Democrats may be hurt in the November congressional elections.
The article also notes that:
No evidence has yet emerged of unlawful acts by the president or his wife, Hillary.
So, as of March 1994, no one seemed to understand what Whitewater was about and there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the Clintons' part. Nevertheless, the Republican minority in Congress had created such a ruckus over the issue that the Clinton administration, under pressure, had appointed a special counsel to investigate (in January 1994). A few months later, Republican pressure led the Banking Committees of both the House and Senate to launch investigations into Whitewater. And, in case you're wondering, throughout this entire period the president's approval rating was never lower than 50%.
Well, the rest is history. The Republicans badly miscalculated. Their accusations of presidential wrongdoing made them appear "extreme" and alienated swing voters. The GOP was thoroughly crushed in the 1994 midterm election and has never been heard from since.
Oh wait, you mean that's not what happened?
Seriously, though, let's compare the situation in 1994 to the one the Democrats face today:
- Unlike Whitewater--which involved financial dealings that took place long before Clinton took office--the NSA scandal involves activity that occurred while President Bush was in office (indeed it's ongoing).
- Unlike Whitewater, the NSA scandal is easy to understand. Whitewater was so convoluted that even the press didn't understand it.
- Unlike Whitewater--where there was never any evidence of wrongdoing on Clinton's part--President Bush has admitted to authorizing the exact type of surveillance that FISA explicitly criminalizes.
- Unlike Whitewater, polls indicate that a majority of Americans disapprove of what the president is doing, and without any real effort by the Democrats to educate the public. Polls during the Whitewater affair were driven solely by unified Republican criticism; no one even understand Whitewater well enough to form an opinion on their own. If Democrats were to "beat the drum" on this issue, as Republicans did in 1994, the poll numbers would only improve.
- And, finally, unlike Whitewater, Democrats are faced with a president whose approval rating is only 33% according to the latest Pew poll. That's a full 17 points lower than Clinton's approval rating at this point in 1994 (and his approval rating was still in the mid to upper 40s at the time of the November 1994 midterm election).
Despite all this, Democratic strategists continue to worry about calling any attention to the President's illegal activities. They worry that supporting Feingold's resolution will unify Republicans and cause them to rally around the President. As if Republicans running for re-election are eager to associate themselves with a guy who's polling at 33%. And if they do, good. Let them tie themselves to that sinking ship. Proximity to Bush can only damage them at this point.
I'm sympathetic to the fact that many Democrats were apparently caught off guard by Feingold's announcement. But that bell cannot be un-rung at this point. The issue is out there, and it has to be addressed. The Democrats can either jump on board and find their collective voice on an issue of unparalleled importance, or they can succumb to irrational fear and play into every negative stereotype about their party. The choice is simple.
UPDATE (by Glenn): Steve Benen reports on a couple of articles from Lincoln Chafee's hometown paper in which Chafee offers some fairly strong praise for the Censure Resolution (he says he's not yet ready to say he'd vote for it, but does believe what Bush did was illegal and that some remedy is needed). Even though it's Chaffee, it's still a Republican Senator saying unequivocally that Bush broke the law and that he's open to censure - a lot more than most Democrats are saying.
Even if it's just one Senator at a time, the process gives a feel of some momentum to censure, keeps it constantly in the news, and at some point could reach a critical mass where most Democrats are required to come out and support it.
And John Cole favorably references this morning's New York Times article claiming that the NSA scandal is good for Republicans because it's supposedly energizing their base, a claim I responded to here. John Aravosis offers some good insight into the "reporting" behind that article.
UPDATE II: This is huge news. The Censure Resolution -- which is a great political boon to Republicans, massive self-destruction by Democrats, the greatest political blunder in 100 years, and the life raft that will single-handedly save George Bush's drowning presidency -- is already supported by a plurality of Americans, 46% to 44%. And that's with just one person -- Russ Feingold -- advocating it. Think of what those numbers will be if Democrats stand united, with some Republicans, and forcefully explain why we cannot allow the President to break the law with impunity.
Even better, the poll overall seems favorable to Bush, since it lists his approval rating at 38% -- higher than the 34-36% which several other polls have reported it.
It really is amazing, and depressing, if you go back and read some of the articles and documents from the 1990s. Comparing the frenzy and hysteria over the Clinton non-scandals to what is going on now is just horrifying.
ReplyDeleteI really think this is a make-or-break issue for the current Dem leadership. If they do not stand up to Bush when he breaks the law, they need to be replaced.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had this little confidence in leadership since I saw Grady Little leave Pedro Martinez on the mound one inning too many...the Sox fired him and won the World Series the next year. At some point you have to simply do that. Get rid of the people who stand in the way of progress.
Exactly right. I wish I had something substantive to contribute, but the truth is exactly as you described and I have nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteBut the Republicans had control of the House by "a few months later." Is it really accurate to suggest that the Republicans were able to push the Whitewater investigations from a position of minority status in the House? They made a stink about it during an election year, sure. But it was the Contract With America and a record low turnout in 1994 that really put them in the driver's seat. And it was after that 1994 election that Whitewater/Starr/Lewinski really took off.
ReplyDeleteEverything you wrote in this post is, forgive me, completely obvious. So it seems that the big question is why the Dems are staying so far away from Feingold's resolution.
ReplyDeleteDo we have a credible answer from any of the non-supporting Democrats?
There must be some reason, or the response would not be so nearly unanimous. Whether it's a good reason or a stupid, bad reason, I certainly want to know what it is.
"Do we have a credible answer from any of the non-supporting Democrats?"
ReplyDeleteWe have an answer, via Digby.
Whether it's credible or not is up to you.
Seem obvious, the democrat elite don't want an "outside" to get a head start for 2008.
ReplyDeleteWhat else could it be? We are talking about a preznut that has a 33% approval rating! Congress, dominated by chimpy's repug enablers is at least as unpopular.
We all should know that after 2006, if repugs remain in charge, chimpy will start up his Social Security Bamboozle Tour, proclaiming he has been given a "mandate"...
The biggest problem is that by abandoning Feingold, the dems are creating the cover for the next round of fraudulent elections. They will proclaim that their "highly energized" base will turn out in overwhelming numbers on this, essentially admitting that they don't have majority support.
Please. These assholes have had the same precise choice for six years! Do you really think 673 words on a blog is going to penetrate the consciousness of someone like Rockefeller? Dream the fuck on.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for being so harsh and dismissive. The writing, reasoning and history is excellent, and I could not agree more.
The republic was stolen right in front of all of us in 2000 and where the fuck were all you people then? Why wasn't the public and the Democratic Party roaring for justice and Democracy then, when we lost it?
Now one should expect the same incredibly incompetent dweebs to suddenly perform and do their jobs? It's not going to happen.
Please excuse me, I'm seriously beginning to wonder if closely following politics is a manifestly stupid risk to my mental health. There is no reality to anchor to and the blood, lying and mayhem is horrifying.
Not only that, I get the distinct stab of knowledge that I have been suckered. paradox the schmuck, being honest and working hard and adhering to disciplines that create a healthy family, thinking his vote counts in a sincere country.
Dumb shit. Might as well have been a lying stealing crook this whole time, cheating life and reality to get all I can.
The President does it. The Constitution is a fucking lie, every day the senate stays on it's knees for Bush that reality grows stronger. Our country is a joke and a lie, what the fuck am I working so hard at being good and honest for?
Ciao. I'm off to my corporate cog existence, where sunny optimism is fucking mandatory, can you get over that shit?
But the Republicans had control of the House by "a few months later."
ReplyDeleteActually, no. I should have made that clearer in the post, but the Congressional Whitewater investigations began in the summer of 1994, well before the Republicans took over. I guess the Democrats didn't have their own equivalent of Pat Roberts to stifle all investigations.
how do i get UNCLAIMED TERRITORY in front of every Democratic Senator and Representative this morning?
ReplyDeleteIn order for the Dems to get traction out of the NSA scandal - which they should - they need to couch in it a way that makes them appear to be more effective in combatting "terrorism".
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of real reasons to be opposed to domestic spying without a warrant but they haven't resonated with the public - like the port management. issue.
The Dems need to come up with a plan that LEGALLY increases surveillance of potential threats.
1993, the year before the Whitewater "non-scandal" became public, Janet Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. Nothing suspicious there.
ReplyDelete1996, when Al Gore was suspected of illegal campaign contributions, Janet Reno refused to name an independent counsel and instead "investigated" the matter herself. Nothing suspicious there either, move along...
When the Republicans start talking like a Democratic manuever is a gift to them (see NY TImes this am), you know they are worried about it. Only the Democrats we've actually elected seem unable or unwilling to see that.
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything good happening if the Dems continue to refuse to step up to the plate.
ReplyDeleteI will because I see the importance of getting some balance back in the Government, but hell, right now I don't even want to support them.
Right now though I am at the point voters were in Ashcrofts last re-election run. His opponent died during the campaign, the voters knew it, and still elected him over Ashcroft.
We still got him because George appointed him Attorney General but there was no ambiguity about where the voters stood.
HOW ABOUT TEST CASE LITIGATION UNDER THE FISA CIVIL LIABILITY PROVISION - 50 USC 1810 ("Civil liability"):
ReplyDeleteAn aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 101(a) or (b)(1)(A), respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 109 shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover -
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each
day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney's fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
BUSH WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR BIG MONEY AND THERE WOULD BE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION REGARDING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS.
When the Republicans start talking like a Democratic manuever is a gift to them (see NY TImes this am), you know they are worried about it. Only the Democrats we've actually elected seem unable or unwilling to see that.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Right before I read your comment, I just wrote an email to A.L. which included this: "if the Republicans are benefiting so much from this, why aren't they encouraging hearings and a long, drawn-out debate intsead of killing every hearing and trying to force an immediate vote? It's the simplest and most transparent bluff possible (it reminds me of when they kept saying how much they wanted Howard Dean to be nomianted) and yet Democrates just keep falling for it ("oh my God, they want us to pursue this issue becasue it's good for them")."
If the Republicans really wanted this issue in the spotlight, they could have had it there in about 10 different ways. Not only didn't they, they have worked feverishly to kill the scandal and to prevent any public airing of it. Shouldn't that fact alone make clear how false this bravado is that they want this scandal because it benefits them?
Hey, here's a response not to this post, but to the general thrust of this blog, which I read every day first thing. Glenn's primary motive is to defend the constitution right? Well, how about this? INCORPORATE THE CONSTITUTION.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, none of the power entities will defend the constitution, as they have amply and consistently demonstrated. But they all have just as consistently demonstrated that they will defend the rights of multinational corporations, even when those corporations are doing all they can to DESTROY AMERICA.
We all know what entities I'm talking about. The president, and all the White House staff. The House of Representatives, including, apparently, most of the Democrats therein. The Senate. The Supreme Court. The Mainstream Media. All of these will flip like a Big Mac on a hot grill once the Constitution (Inc.) has put out an IPO and been traded to investors in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. They'll be protecting it like the Religious Right protects a newly-fertilized blastocyst.
Who knows, it might even turn a profit.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"The republic was stolen right in front of all of us in 2000 and where the fuck were all you people then? Why wasn't the public and the Democratic Party roaring for justice and Democracy then, when we lost it?"
Some of us were there, screaming and yelling and setting our hair on fire trying to get peoples attention. But we were being ignored.
BTW and not to be too harsh either but where the F**k were your eyes and ears. Bush certainly made enough stupid gaffes during the campaign to wake everybody up.
One of my favorites: He was making a speech and talking about Social Security. He said: (talking about the Dems) What do they think Social Security is, some kind of government program?
Other than the fact that I have to suffer too, I really don't have a whole lot of sympathy for anyone that would vote for a man that made that statement and others like it during a campaign to become President of the United States.
It's not just the 33%. Look at the word used to discribe Bush, look at the change of words over time: 48% = incompetent, idiot, liar. 56% say he is out of touch!
ReplyDeleteYet, only 20% of men and 12% of women think corruption is important. In different order, they look at Iraq, Katrina and Port. Have they connected the dots? No!
Are they fickeled? Yes, see the responses on the free trade and foreign investment. There is a decline in those who think "free trade" and foreign investment is bad and a rise who think it is good. Yet, there is a rise in those who think outsourcing is bad and a decline in who think it is good?
Totally disconnected.
Why doesn't the broken-windows school of policing extend to keeping the Constitution safe?
ReplyDeleteJames Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, Atlantic Monthly, March 1982:
"Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."
Post from NYT outlining the Rep pushback from Limbaugh, et al that this will bring possibility of impeachment so will galvanize the Rep base to show up for midterms. Since even that base, which probably is lower than the 33%, won't alone win any elections, I say that base can show up all day long and vote, they ain't helping anyone. Of course, that particular pushback allows that even Limbaugh sees there's something to impeach Bush about and lastly, demonstrates that once again Rep's are more afraid of losing power than they are of protecting their nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Whispers...this is make-or-break issue for the Dems...and I think it'll break them.
ReplyDeleteWe have to assume now that the Dems, aside from being spinelss weaklings, REALLY ARE "just like the Republicans, only less so." Perhaps they anticipate that they will regain power one day, either through chance, through the action of the swinging pendulum, or through the finely honed rhetorical position which they will finally hit on which will win them support without their really having to do anything which might endanger them politically, like, uh, standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law or some such radical action. Thus, they will have regained power without having to take a stand which would identify their ethical positions, positions which could later be brought up to slap them in the face.
This is one of the sickening aspects of today's Dems--their unwillingness to really define their position on any issue. They want to retain an amorphousness which will allow them to pontificate piously according to which way the wind blows, rather than according to a concrete point of view.
Other possibilities: perhaps many of the Dems are fearful of the attacks which could be mounted against them--not based on their being "with the terrorists," as it were--but based on inside dope the Bush administration has on them. Perhaps there are closeted skeletons the Dems fear more than the secret NSA wiretapping program.
Another: the Dems secretly want to reserve for themselves--on the fabled day they regain power--the unchecked authority Bush claims for himself.
In any event, as Ralph says, there must be some unspoken reason for the Dems to NOT capitalize on Bush's admitted crimes during a time when his popularity is at a nadir.
One thing seems apparent: mere citizens, the voters, have been removed entirely from the equation, at least insofar as our "public servants" (sic) are concerned.
Don't these people realize that capitulating to the Rebublicans just reinforces the notion that in a pinch they'd capitulate to terrorists. You don't earn your National Security credentials by running away from a fight!
ReplyDeleteBeside, the censure proposal has the added advantage of being the RIGHT THING TO DO!
“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”
ReplyDeleteWhile Bolton bleats belligerently, Bush is restating (and I hope everyone is listening this time) his preemptive war strategy.
The White House plans to release the 49-page National Security Strategy today, starting with a speech by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the U.S. Institute of Peace. The White House gave advance copies to The Washington Post and three other newspapers.
These portents of war have been gathering like proverbial storm clouds for several years, and the convergence of abysmal poll numbers and an approaching election may require an escalation in laying the ground work for this catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions; pity the innocent souls, the living-their-lives citizens of Iran.
Another kind of “gathering” is occurring here at home; a consensus of complacency and political cowardice. Despite any number of polls that show President Bush at approval rates well below the 40 percent mark, despite this Administrations assault on civil liberties, the Constitution, and a steady creep toward martial law, the opposition party can not offer a consensus stance on any single issue. While there is nothing wrong with a diversity of viewpoints within the larger political party, i.e. the Democratic Party, cacophonous palaver is hardly a party platform. When a consistent, courageous voice expresses the anger and frustration of an electorate that is tired of prevaricating and pusillanimous Republicans, who are content to give away the bank to their corporate marionettes, and who seem intent on assisting the Bush Administration’s metamorphosis of this nation from a republic to a totalitarian regime, these same cackling Democratic hypocrites run and hide in the face of true patriotism. Thus, as Senator Russ Feinstein stands up on the floor of the Senate to offer a censure resolution that would bring some accountability to a U.S. president who has blatantly broken the law, his colleagues – his fellow Democrats; those who pretend to be progressive and , well "democratic" – act as though he is invisible. Suddenly, every Democratic Senator is Sergeant Schultz. And, speaking of giving aid to the enemy (not as the fulsome Frist implies – I am talking about the Republicans) – the collective stance, with all of the individual squirminess, of abject apathy (and we are talking about the NSA spying on American citizens without warrants, as ordered by a sitting President of the U.S.) that is as incomprehensible as it is reprehensible. Thus, the NYT offers this front page story to further dissuade readers of any hope of censure. What happened? The NYT Editorial page ran scathing attacks on Bush’s illegal spying program, but has not stepped forward to endorse a censure? What up wi’ dat?
As the Bush cabal slides irrevocably toward an attack of horrendous proportions against a sovereign nation (again) that poses no threat to the U.S. (again), has not attacked the U.S. (again), but that these neocon confabulators will ascribe referentially with 9/11 (I will not offer the numerous links extant on this very phenomenon; do some reading - they're ubiquitous.), the disjunctive Democratic Party will again be complicit in the horrors of war, and the demise of our republic, because their collective mypoeia attempts to focus selfishly on personal political ambitions at the expense of our liberties and our very existence.
Ever wonder why you get so upset over politics? Have trouble understanding how your political opponents can be like they are? Scientists have new information: “...politics is like sports and political parties are considered like sports teams: you always defend YOUR team and demonize and dump on the other team (even if the other team does exactly what your team has done minutes before) — and keep focused only on the goal (your team winning).
ReplyDeleteMany political partisans (such as the commenters on this site) get so emotionally involved in issues that taking stands on issues becomes less a process of looking at information from a variety of sources and making decisions than of protecting and defending belief systems. A conflicting fact seemingly endangers a cherished belief system and therefore must be ignored, discredited or simply denied as fact.
The article is pretty non-partisan and quite enlightening, so don’t feel it will threaten your belief system, unless you believe that you are totally rational.
I agree with Whispers...this is make-or-break issue for the Dems...and I think it'll break them.
ReplyDeleteWell, that’s certainly the conventional wisdom of the dwindling Bush supporters.
Captain Ed a prominent Bush cultist has this to say about the resolution:
Feingold has the Democrats boxed in. If they proceed with censures and impeachment talk, they lose in November, and lose big. If they back off, they will lose their activist base, which has waited for years to push them into this position. Karl Rove and the Republican team must be breathing huge sighs of relief. Who knew the cavalry would appear in the form of Feingold to rescue the Republican midterms?
It’s interesting to see the Bush Cultists like Ed Morrissey completely confident that if the Democrats don’t support Feingold’s resolution that the activist base will abandon them completely.
I think they’re in for a surprise on that one. If the resolution goes down in flames, I don’t see Glenn Greenwald and Anonymous Liberal folding up shop and going home, admitting defeat. Not at all.
Well, yes, David Shaunessy has left to pursue some sort of internet-powered third party that will save the day, but I think that the vast majority of the activist base will continue to work with both Democrats and continue to pressure Republicans like Hagel, as hopeless as it sometimes seems. This is one battle in a long war.
Rove would like nothing better than the activist base to leave the Democratic Party, splitting the vote, and giving victory to Bush base. He is relying upon defeatism setting in among those who are most actively challenging them.
Jane (Firedoglake) made a good point yesterday, “I submit that declaring them a lost cause TODAY is not only not effective in this fight, it is harmful. Before we decry the defeatism of our Democratic officials it is best that we avoid it ourselves.”
I think that point holds true even if the Feingold fails miserably. It’s exactly what Rove wants.
Please note some of the conservative blogs this morning. To a blogger, all seem to be buying into this crap about Feingold's actions rallying Bush's base and how great it all is for Republicans. How many times have we heard this "rallying" word used in connection with Bush in the past year?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting phenomenon to watch. From Rove's mouth to the entire Republican noise machine. Like many have stated, this truly is much ado about nothing. It's all BushCo has left. Well, not all obviously, they can certainly begin the carpet bombing of Iraq. No, they have already done that so they will need to ease those babies over into Iran or maybe let Cheney and Dumsfeld have a little go at "strategic" nuclear preemptive war making. And the good, conservative Christians like Pat Robertson will cheer them on.
Yesterday, I picked up a copy of Time Magazine in an office. Flipped through to the quotable quotes section. A reader had sent in a quote from a Republican activist who is working on Tom DeLay's reelection. Her comment: She wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he was a Democrat.
Kool aid anyone? This is why we continue the fight.
A.L. (the other one):
ReplyDeleteOne small nit (so far):
Unlike Whitewater, the NSA scandal is easy to understand. Whitewater was so convoluted that even the press didn't understand it.
ROFLMAO. Ha-ha-ha-...-ha-...heh...
Had me going there. You were joking. Rrrrrriiiiiggghhtt?
Cheers,
For once (in many years) I wish our party would act on conscious objection, not on individual calculation.
ReplyDeleteA.L.:
ReplyDeleteThey worry that supporting Feingold's resolution will unify Republicans and cause them to rally around the President.
What's wrong with having them "rally around the President" (like the departed Gedaliya and HWSNBN here)? Don't we want them to do the suicide kabuki en masse? It's Congress that's up for re-election, and the closer they "stick to him" (or are forced to do such), the more their reputations are sullied....
Cheers,
Hi Glenn,
ReplyDeleteYour blog is only being syndicated in abstracts and not full text.
Can you go back to full text RSS feeds? It's so much easier to read because your template is, well messed up, and the text can't be read against the brown background.
Can you go back to full text RSS feeds? It's so much easier to read because your template is, well messed up, and the text can't be read against the brown background.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why that happened or what that really even means or how to fix it (about the RSS feed). But the color problem exists only for a small percentage of Mac users- the background is light beige, not dark brown. The only solution I know if is to scroll over the screen before reading it.
The Link to the ARG poll is very interesting. 46 - 44 for censure, 49 - 42 against impeachment, but INDEPENDENTS favor impeachment 47 - 40. More INDEPENDENTS favor IMPEACHMENT than CENSURE ! More evidence that boldness is in order
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic Party is filled with mice. Abandon the Democrats, who are going down with the Republican ship of state. Join the Green or Libertarian Social Democracy parties if you want to save the US.
ReplyDeleteIn that ARG poll, interesting that more independents favor impeachment over the censure.
ReplyDelete"Other possibilities: perhaps many of the Dems are fearful of the attacks which could be mounted against them--not based on their being "with the terrorists," as it were--but based on inside dope the Bush administration has on them. Perhaps there are closeted skeletons the Dems fear more than the secret NSA wiretapping program."
ReplyDeleteHow many skeletons could there possibly be? Frankly, I think Dems fear the ridicule of the MSM more than want to respond to their voter base - those of us frustrated hangers-on who refuse to give up on them because there are no viable alternatives to Bush and Repubs in congress. I can't believe Dems don't KNOW how we feel - they read the polls, don't they?
Jon Stewart aired a clip showing Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy reacting to Feingold's censure proposal as he was speaking to the Senate on Monday, and they looked positively uncomfortable, even a little scared. Discouraging.
But until the progressive movement gains enough traction to replace the weaker reps, I will continue to call, email, and fax. Can't give up now - too much at stake.
I am in full agreement with the guy who said that following "politics" these days is not conducive to good mental health.
ReplyDeleteWhat is WRONG with the Democrats? When did we turn into such a ball-less party of bureaucrats? Lord, it makes me sick. They should be fighting for our country and our Constitution, but instead of Joe Louis, they're Jerry Lewis.
Well, at least when I get my usual 2 or 3 letters a day asking for money for Dems, I can return them checkless with a note of explanation as to what they have to do to earn my dough.
"Anonymous" at 2:29pm asked "how many skeletons could there be?" in response to my earlier speculation that the Dems may not be standing up for fear of what the Bush administration has on them.
ReplyDeleteWell...that's the question, isn't it? Perhaps there are none, but perhaps there are many. Don't think that because the Abramoff scandal has implicated only Republicans that Dems are all paragons of virtue. There may be among them persons with financial scandals hidden away, sexual secrets, histories of mental illness or substance abuse...anything that someone might be embarrassed to have made public, or which might compromise his or her political career or personal life...it's all possible.
The rumor has always been that J. Ed Hoover didn't pursue the Mafia or even admit they existed because they had photographic proof of his homosexuality/cross-dressing propensities; I don't know if that's true, but it would be one explanation for Hoover's negligence regarding the Mafia.
The point is, we have a President who has serially committed crimes and who is extremely unpopular with the public. Why would not the Democrats feel empowered to go after him? What are they afraid of? What are they being protective of?
They may simply be so hungry to stay in office they are afraid to do anything for fear of alienating the voters. (They should realize that doing NOTHING will alienate the fed-up voters.)If so, it proves the dictum that the easiest way to corrupt someone is not to offer riches to a poor person, but to threaten to take away the riches of a person become rich.
Sorry for the technical interruption and this is a great post and the poll is too. I've already called my Senators and gave their staffers the URL to see it for themselves.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, fyi, your RSS feed is set back to full text now. (However it happened I'm a happy Mac user again.) You change that under Settings > Site Feed > Descriptions where you can choose "full" or "short".
A couple of comments:
ReplyDeleteChaffee said, "At least it's accomplishing getting it into the public awareness. Because nobody, in Rhode Island anyway, is talking about the issue. And I think that's positive. The American public — if they're going to make a decision to allow illegal activity because we're in a war on terror, then I think that's an important debate we should be having."
First of all, I live in Rhode Island, and I have been talking about almost nothing else (other than the NSA and its concomitant issues), and I have been in discussions with many other Rhode Islanders who find this issue trenchant.
Second, I have seen Mr. Chaffee assume this kind of equivocal stance on issues that have crossover appeal - only to have him vote along party lines when the time came.
Finally, the poll numbers quoted are indeed significant, if not salient. It is the latter quality that needs to become extant; the public media needs to report accurately and aggressively (at least at the immediate gratification level and amount of time)to justly garner scrutinty of the contumacious issues at hand. Once this debate enlarges to something along the degree of Katrina or Iraq, then the poll numbers will tilt exponentially in our favor, i.e. against Bush.
These latest trends need to be faxed, sent, emailed, and called in to media outlets, as well as to editorial pages, congressional members, and - if you dare -friends and family.
Unfortunately, I am at work, and feel Big Brother watching me. I must cease and desist.
Happy blogging!
Look, isn't it clear by know that the Democrats as an institution exist merely as an adjunct to Republican rule, despite the intentions of most individuals within the party?
ReplyDeleteI mean, the party as an organisation is acting *precisely* as you'd expect them to act if the mission was to tame a de jure democracy into a de facto plutocracy.
Bush's numbers are up to 38% in the poll because of the censure issue, dummy.
ReplyDeleteNow stop being so extreme, you angry liberal. You're scaring Democratic Senators and making Jesus sad.
Paul Rosenberg said, "The L.A. Times did a poll after the 1994 election, which found that most people had no idea what was in the Contract. In fact, they hadn't even heard of it. Those who had heard of it, may have known one or two things that were in it, but only a small minority knew much more than that. It was simply something for the elite press to write about."
ReplyDeleteRight, turnout was at a record low. In that kind of election which party's activists are more energized will be decisive. I would bet that if you polled only Republicans who voted, many of them had heard of the Contract With America.
The Media can make something news but they can't appoint special prosecutors and the like. That requires decisions in the Congress and White House etc (depending on the particular type of investigation we're talking about).
I'm worried by the intense self loathing that many people who claim to support the Democrats have for their party. I'm curious about how many of the people expressing - often with vulgar language - their dissappointment with Demcoratic political strategy actually voted and voted for Democrats. Or did they merely shout profanities at the TV on election day telling themselves that if only the Democrats were "smarter" they would actually start voting? Or did they go out and vote but vote for the Greens or some other bunch of no-hopers thus contributing to continued Republican dominance of Congress and the White House?
I don't want to suggest that Al Gore et al are a bunch of misunderstood geniouses. But I do think that there is a tendency to dramatically over state how much they could do beyond what they have done until they get more electoral support from the voters and/or the Republican coalition of Theocrats and Robber Barons breaks down.
how pathetic that there would be US Senators that would consider such bilge. Inconceivable that such people could consider themselves Americans and that they swore to uphold the Constitution. apparently they have no idea what the Constitution is about.
ReplyDelete.