Thursday, September 20, 2007
Well said
Remember when Republicans castigated any Dems who even contemplated a filibuster? Now, the filibuster is standard GOP operating procedure.
Erin Alecto at the Left Coaster has found just the right words for the situation:
A filibuster of the Webb bill (which could have offered relief to the troops, not to mention a possible "back door" end to the Iraq war) would have made for dramatic television. Most people in this nation do not even know what was in that bill.
Let the public see that the Republicans at their obstructionist worst. Otherwise, the Dems will -- quite irrationally -- bear the blame.
Erin Alecto at the Left Coaster has found just the right words for the situation:
Dear AP:What more can anyone add? Simply this: Christy Hardin Smith is right to demand that the Republicans physically filibuster. It's a tough job, and we should make the old codgers do it. Unless they do -- on television -- the public won't understand that they are blocking legislation that the public wants.
Could you please change this:
Senate rejects expanding detainee rights
to this?
REPUBLICANS Filibuster
And while you're at it, how about changing this:
Senate blocks bill on combat tours
to this:
REPUBLICANS Filibuster
Thank you.
A filibuster of the Webb bill (which could have offered relief to the troops, not to mention a possible "back door" end to the Iraq war) would have made for dramatic television. Most people in this nation do not even know what was in that bill.
Let the public see that the Republicans at their obstructionist worst. Otherwise, the Dems will -- quite irrationally -- bear the blame.
Actually, it is somewhat rational to blame Democrats if they do not force the Repugnicans to physically fillibuster - assuming they have the power to do that. I thought they did that before. They should make that change permanent. The "gentlemans agreement" fillibuster system is a tribute to the laziness and chumminess of the Hill Gang on both sides of the aisle.
"Republicans castigated any Dems who even contemplated a filibuster"
Yes, and the Democrats promptly waxed obsequious, tried to make nice, and caved in.
"Blame the Dems"?
The filibuster is there to be used. It's one of the few tools available to the minority party in a 2-party system.
Somewhere, Jesse Helms is laughing.
And you wonder why the national Democratic Party gets no respect...it isn't even about their ideological stance on the issues. It's because they persist in confusing "liberalism" with wavering stances, adopting fallback positions at the first opportunity, rhetorical posturing followed by inaction, excuse-making, and similar passive-aggressive behaviors that strongly imply that the leadership lacks the courage of its convictions.
One example, out of many: remember how the Dems rolled over for Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General- a man whose principal experience in lawyering was with Vinson & Elkins, a corporate law firm that typically doesn't handle criminal law cases (Enron being a notable exception)? A corporate lawyer with approximately zero experience in criminal law.
And, of course, Gonzalez was the author of the "torture memo"- which he claimed, with his bare face hanging out, didn't say what it deomnstrably said- and that he took it back, anyway.
And the people in charge of vetting Gonzalez for qualifications and disqualifications nodded their heads, like bobble-head dolls.
That lack of fortitude in the Democratic Party leadership in turn taints not only everyone elected as a Democrats, and not merely registered Democrats- but anyone expressing liberal or progressive political views in this country.
Consequently, that leaves liberals and progressives with the unfortunate choice of either identifying themselves with dithering losers who refuse to rise to political challenges; or muting the derision of political adversaries by making a point of disassociating themselves from the Dems.
You know, how about the Dems buying some air time to explain to TV Nation what the arcane phrase "habeus corpus" really means, and what has happened in places where that protection was abolished?
Such a defense could have been as simple as making the point that if Jose Padilla had evidence against him, then try him in court, for crying out loud...
But the most appropriate time to do that was around 2002 or 2003, when it would have required the most political courage.
Instead, we get this.
As for the Clinton legacy- where is it? The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, GATT...and, to be fair, a minimum wage increase.
I hope that I'm wrong, but it appears that George W. Bush's legacy in national and international affairs is destined to have considerably more impact.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Yes, and the Democrats promptly waxed obsequious, tried to make nice, and caved in.
"Blame the Dems"?
The filibuster is there to be used. It's one of the few tools available to the minority party in a 2-party system.
Somewhere, Jesse Helms is laughing.
And you wonder why the national Democratic Party gets no respect...it isn't even about their ideological stance on the issues. It's because they persist in confusing "liberalism" with wavering stances, adopting fallback positions at the first opportunity, rhetorical posturing followed by inaction, excuse-making, and similar passive-aggressive behaviors that strongly imply that the leadership lacks the courage of its convictions.
One example, out of many: remember how the Dems rolled over for Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General- a man whose principal experience in lawyering was with Vinson & Elkins, a corporate law firm that typically doesn't handle criminal law cases (Enron being a notable exception)? A corporate lawyer with approximately zero experience in criminal law.
And, of course, Gonzalez was the author of the "torture memo"- which he claimed, with his bare face hanging out, didn't say what it deomnstrably said- and that he took it back, anyway.
And the people in charge of vetting Gonzalez for qualifications and disqualifications nodded their heads, like bobble-head dolls.
That lack of fortitude in the Democratic Party leadership in turn taints not only everyone elected as a Democrats, and not merely registered Democrats- but anyone expressing liberal or progressive political views in this country.
Consequently, that leaves liberals and progressives with the unfortunate choice of either identifying themselves with dithering losers who refuse to rise to political challenges; or muting the derision of political adversaries by making a point of disassociating themselves from the Dems.
You know, how about the Dems buying some air time to explain to TV Nation what the arcane phrase "habeus corpus" really means, and what has happened in places where that protection was abolished?
Such a defense could have been as simple as making the point that if Jose Padilla had evidence against him, then try him in court, for crying out loud...
But the most appropriate time to do that was around 2002 or 2003, when it would have required the most political courage.
Instead, we get this.
As for the Clinton legacy- where is it? The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Telecommunications Act, NAFTA, GATT...and, to be fair, a minimum wage increase.
I hope that I'm wrong, but it appears that George W. Bush's legacy in national and international affairs is destined to have considerably more impact.
