Post-post election thread
Well, what have we so far?
Two sons of the south looking to emerge as minority leaders, Mel Martinez of Florida in the house and Trent "Helmet Hair" Lott in the Senate.
The contest for Dem whip is curious, with Maryland's Steny Hoyer having the edge over patriot Jack Murtha. The D/A reports that both Braley in Iowa and Hare in Illinois are backing Hoyer. There's also some contention over whether Hoyer or California's Jane Harmon should chair the House Intelligence Committee.
Rudy Giulianni has formed an "exploratory" committee for a presidential run, as has McCain.
And another Republican had beat them to it last week by announcing his intention to run for president, and that would be wing-nut Rep. Duncan Hunter. We'll keep a close eye on this front-runner. (cough)
Chimpy McFlightsuit is winging his way to Asia and there's hopes he won't start any conflicts before he gets home. On the agenda is liberalizing trade relationships with Vietnam, therefore providing yet another southeast Asian source for literally everything sold in America, as well as adding another nation to bid in the race to the bottom as far as wages, conditions, and environmental protections go, and thus luring whatever jobs are left here overseas.
While in Vietnam, a grateful nation will be reminded of how George W. kept the coast of Alabama safe from Viet Cong invasion.
What else is going on?
This post election period is proving sillier than the campaign season, with journalists struggling to fill the 24 hour news cycle with weird speculation over the 2008 elections and how the Dem victory can benefit the Republicans. (and of course, the coming menace of radical liberal rule and where you can hide.)
Feel free to add your thoughts. I'm fresh out.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 11/14/2006
9 comments
9 Comments:
DG..
Just a little tip... there is only one "blogosphere", as that term refers to all blogs. (unless you're hanging out on blogs from another dimesion, in which case, tell us how.)
Secondly, it all boils down to who thinks they decide what the "center" is, then, doesn't it?
Obviously, opinions on that differ.
You're either one of the DLC types that are jittery and scared to death of even standing up for Democratic principles that most people support, or on the other end, you feel that Dems should stand by the outlook of the Johnson years or somewhere in the vast area in between.
Continually arguing about moving to the "center" and touting the "conservative" Dems is meaningless.
If by conservative you mean Dems who support Republican policies and cow-tow to corporate interests just as cravenly as the right, then I suggest that's not a winner.
But if you mean traditional Democrats, then fine.
But somehow your language seems to suggest that the Dems better start getting more "conservative", or Republican, in other words, or they'll become extinct.
I think that's hogwash.
You're as thick headed as they come DemGorilla.
You just won't "get it" at all. You keep arguing and arguing for this mythyical middle that you perceive, trying to spin this tale of "conservative" Dems being the salvation of us all.
What the hell about what I've said don't you get?
What is it that causes you to continueally express these mamby-pamby white-bread expressions of governing right down the middle, peace and love and all that??
What that I've said makes you think I'm arguing for some sort of radical liberalism?
Why do you insist on continually writing back as if you're arguing with me when all you're doing is trying to argue for an even MORE conservative Democratic party, but couching it in all these nice words about the "center" etc.?
What have I expressed in my replies that you disagree with?
I don't get it.
What EXACTLY are you afraid of? And why the big effort to portray traditional Dems as "conservative"?
Why not stop being ashamed of your own party for a second and instead of trying to let the right define you and running like wimps to be Republicans and call yourselves Dems, why not do this. Why not just embrace your Democratic core principles of economic opportunity, social justice, pro-choice, etc. and stand up for it?
Your supposed conservative Tester ran on all those things and won. Why not get people in conservative states to self-identify as DEMOCRATS again? After all, it's Democratic policies and ideal that they agree with.
Why not get people to become Dems, instead of being a weasel and trying to paint Dems as Conservative to make them somehow more easy to swallow?
No wonder people think Dems are spineless shify wimps. They can't even decide what the hell they are, and have to try to disguise themselves as conservatives to stand a chance of winnning... at least according to you.
Call a Dem a Dem, be proud, stand up for the basic and traditional Dem ideals which are supported by a majority of the country, and get after it?
Enough of these attempts to say, "SEE! We're conservative too!!"
It's disgusting.
DemG, you're so full of shit! haha. Really!
Now bloggers sit at home and "demand ideological purity", huh? Were'd that one come from?
I've printed Tester's positions twice now and never said a bad thing about them. Know why? Because they're 99% LIBERAL positions.
Pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Bush tax cuts, and on and on.
You can call that conservative all day long, but the fact remains that it's those very positions that people support, even in conservative states. You don't NEED to run away from them and towards some mythical "center", because that IS the center, and always has been.
It's only the distorting effect of right wing propaganda that's skewed both elections and polling that has you convinced we have to kiss conservative ass to be effective.
You run candidates who share a Democratic outlook of looking out for the middle class and those with no voice. But you DON'T run people who'll back the Republicans and pander to ideas and policies which are directly opposed to Dem positions.
If you want to do that, start a third party, because what you're doing is perverting the Democratic party until it's indistinguishable from the Republicans, and it's already too damn close as it is.
Following your position, both parties would rush for the middle until they'd both morph into one damn party, and there's plenty of people who believe that's happened already.
You've simply got to differentiate yourself somehow from the right, or you don't stand for anything.
You can be as "centrist" as you want, you can call yourself whatever label turns you on, but if you're a Republican and support more Republican policies than Dem, then don't call yourself a Dem.
I guess you're saying that the Republicans captured the center, and have held power for this long, then they went too far right, and now the Dems need to go occupy exactly the ideological spot the Republicans had and hold that center for themselves, eh?
So we should become the Republicans?
Forgive me if I don't agree with that.
Again, I have no freaking idea what you think I'm advocating. I have no idea what sort of wild crazy ideas you think I'm demanding Democrats adopt. You're operating out of some full-blown fear of imagined liberalism given you by pollsters and right wing noise.
Why do you think what I'm saying is so wrong? You never say.
You simply repeat all this junk about moving to the center.
I'm not arguing that governing from the center is a bad idea. I've never said that at all.
I'm just arguing that if you want to chase Republicans, and chase what a few hundred knuckleheads tell a damn pollster, then go ahead.
But I think we'd be better off being real. Just being the same old Democratic party that supports opportunity for everyone, supports economic growth, stands up for the middle class, children, and the elderly, and all the rest.
We don't need to "move" anywhere. Just stand up for what we've always believed in, and what the majority of Americans have always believed in, and continue to improve the country, keep priorities sane, and let people realize that not only are Dems a lot like them, that they actually ARE Dems.
We've got a big job to undo all the psycholical myths pounded into people's heads by the likes of Limbaugh et. al. And I firmly believe that there are MILLIONS of people out there who think they're conservative because they got caught up in the propaganda wave years ago, but have never stopped to think about what the Dems are really about because they already had Limbaugh and the rest telling them. And of course, it was the worst sort of distortion and 99% false.
It's time to lift that fog from people and let them see that they are very much more in line with Dems than Republicans, and that Dems represent their interests and beliefs far better than Republicans.
And you don't need to run and hide under Republicans skirts to do it.
That's all I'm saying.
I don't want to be like you. I don't want to make utterly wrong statements and then "move on".
I like to actually explain what I'm saying.
For instance, the voters of Connecticut have no relation to the voters in the entire country. So to take that example and then turn around and say it shows that the country is conservative is flat out dumb.
You know that.
It doesn't take a journalism degree to know how to spew spin with nothing to back it up.
Do you also have a masters in spin?
Did you learn how to talk about politics in easy to digest form, in a way which neither enlightens, motivates, or informs people? Did you learn how to put a rosy Disneyland gloss on everything and pretend the ugly parts don't exist and always should be swept under the rug?
I take your comment to indicate that you feel I've been really nasty and naughty on the blog.
Are you saying I've been too hard on poor George W. Bush? Too tough on Cheney or Rumsfeld?
Have I said not nice things about Dems who are part of politics as usual?
And have I committed the mortal sin of making waves?
Why do I think your term "governing responsibly" is some code word for Dems and Republicans all closing ranks to protect the status quo so it will be easier to placate and spin the public and hide the parts you'd rather not have the public know about?
I'll be "nice" the moment the right starts doing so themselves. (or politicians, for that matter. It's been my distinct experience that some are the nastiest, most "uncivil" creatures imaginable.) Why do I think that's not anytime soon?
While I share your desire for, and am actually very optimistic that the new Democratic congress will mark a change from the negative and divisive style of Republicans, I still deny that I've been unfair or nasty, and I still believe that we shouldn't artificially hobble ourselves by refusing to fight back and expose misdeeds and hypocrisy and the rest by the right or the left.
If you think I'm so nasty, what in the world could myself or any blogger do that would be remotely equal to what Republicans do as a matter of course on national mainstream media?
What am I supposed to do? Pretend what they do isn't offensive or wrong? Am I supposed to overlook and not report on their hypocrisy or blatant abuse of power? Am I supposed to pull punches against Republicans? Is that supposed to change everything?
And more importantly, how in the hell would it help the country AT ALL to ignore the truth about politics and politicians and what they're doing?
Am I supposed to pretend that Bush and Cheney and the rest are really good guys, not that bad after all?
Am I supposed to not report on or comment on right wing actions which are often repugnant and divisive?
Am I supposed to pretend that Iraq was justified, that many in the administration aren't out and out thugs, that their assault on our rights isn't much to be upset about, and on and on?
People are tired as hell of Disneyland soft-focus BS.
No one's going to be inventing lies about Republicans here, and I never have.
No one's going to twist things around until they bear no resemblance to reality. And I never have.
So I resent you even suggesting that I'm somehow as nasty as the right and calling for being "responsible", which is nothing more than saying that I shouldn't anger or upset anyone.
You can't make a political omlette without breaking a few eggs, after all.
And I'll tell you one thing, part of the reason Dems were losers for all these years is that they DIDN'T fight back with the committment and vigor of the right.
They took your advise and were punching bags for years. That worked really well, didn't it?
Now you (and the Republicans) call for everyone to lay down their arms.
Nice thought. But it ain't gonna happen.
One thing I would be willing to guarantee, is that Democrats aren't going to be the ones picking fights. It will be Republicans entire reason for being from here out to obstruct and block Democratic measures and tear down individual Dems.
If you want to sit back and refuse to respond to this inevitable assault, so be it.
I think doing so will only justify those who consider the Dems the party of wussies who won't even stand up for themselves, and I find the idea that we should stand back and let the Republicans do their thing disgusting.
You call for "responsible government" as if the Dems haven't turned the other cheek for decades. The Dems have for the most part refused to get into the ditch with the Republicans. And they lost consistently.
They finally stood up and yes, through blogs, started fighting back and giving as good as they got, and .. well, what happened?
What you refuse to realize is that this blog has not engaged in the type of irresponsible tactics often seen on the right and sometimes the left.
Every post appearing here is documented fact. If that's not "responsible" enough, then that's too bad.
As has been noted, how can you ask Americans to stand up for a party that won't stand up for itself??!!
If you want to continue to fight bazooka's with pea-shooters, I think you're on the wrong track.
You and all the other defenders of the status quo can bemoan blogs and try to mischaracterize them as being too "uncivil", and that's fine.
But the brand of politics by slick bullshit, namely the sort perpetuated and defended by those who make their living producing a stream of pablum designed to weasel around and distract the public from the truth, is frankly getting unpopular.
People want the truth, they want to know what's going on, and one thing they don't need are more pleasant slogans assuring them that everything is fine, nothing to see here.
As a matter of fact, what's more "psartisan" than blandly smoothing over every fault of a particular party or party member with slick advertising language in the aim of papering over or hiding faults or problems?
Such stuff doesn't inform, doesn't explain, protects politicians, and is designed to sidestep and distract people from the truth.
There's a call for, and a need for politics without the pleasing air-brushed image churned out by the PR professionals.
Call me radical, but I thought that's what the press was for, namely, looking beyond the press releases and words of those who, for their own selfish reasons, don't or can't tell the truth or express their real opinions.
And I don't believe that any of my thousands of posts have been "irresponsible".
If you can find an example, let me know. I'd imagine that if you did, it would turn out that the post was 100% true and accurate, but it revealed some unpleasant fact that you'd rather keep covered.
The reason blogs have rocketed in popularity, and the reason everyone is chasing them madly, from newspapers to cable news, is that people want information BEYOND the tidal wave of spin they're fed by the billion dollar political PR industry and bland newspaper editorials.
Blogs provide the antidote to that, and judging by their popularity in general (not necessarily this one) I'd say you're on the loosing side of history on this one.
And by the way DemG. I'd welcome you to write posts on any subject you desire. Then folks can see the "responsible" style you advocate.
I think it would be a great addition to the blog, don't you?
Man... I don't know where you're coming from. Evidently in your head you're seeing people whining that Democrats should attack Bush more.
Very strange.
They should attack him when he deserves to be attacked. Nothing too hard to understand there.
Unless of course, you're calling for, as the subtle unstated subtext of your posts show, a move to the right and more acceptance of right wing policies and actions.
To hell with that.
You just can't get off the phony waving of Jon Tester to try to move the Dems to the right, can you?
Despite the fact that i've shown repeatedly that Tester is no coservative whatsoever.
Apparently this "roadmap" you cling to so ardently includes being strongly pro-choice, and strongly against nearly every conservative position with the exception of guns.
Yet you can not bring yourself to admit that it was liberal Democratic values that put Tester in office.
You can try to spin your ass off otherwise, but the facts don't like, and his positions are NOT conservative.
You're simply being disingenous and using he old PR bull of repeating some goofy contention over and over while ignoring evidence to the contrary.
Rove would be proud.
Gotta hand it to you. With so many vague generalities, just about anything could fit into what you call for.
It sure sounds good though.
Not sure I do, but if you think so, I wish you would have been sharp enough to realize it way back before you started arguing with me.
Post a Comment
<< Home