Why are mainstream Democratic politicians so afraid to stand up to an unpopular president? Because even when on the ropes, conservatives still decide which issues will predominate. They still frame the debate.
Right now, the administration remains mired in unending scandals. The economy is in a perilous state. Global warming could destroy civilization. Gas prices continue their escalator ride. Oil may indeed be peaking. Iraq devolves into civil war. Bush has responded to the crisis he created in that country by calling for replacement puppets. Our ill-educated and ill-treated troops on the ground have concluded that all Muslims are the enemy -- an attitude which, predictably, has fathered a number of atrocities. On the pretext of preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the administration prepares for yet another unwinnable war, which will end only when we use nuclear weapons to stop the use of nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Saudis have quietly been trying to put together their own nuclear armamentarium. They may already have one.
That's what's going on, folks.
So what is the burning issue of the day in America? Immigration.
Yes, immigration is a genuinely important problem. Has been for decades. But why is it the number one topic this morning? Because the right would rather we didn't talk about all that other stuff.
6 comments:
joe, thanks so much for posting this! it really is the case that the dems are in quite the no-win situation. damned if they do and damned if they don't. it may actually be wise in the long haul for them to be taking the slow, one-step-at-a-time approach to taking back dc.
and you can add to that list the fact that, not only do the repugs set the agenda, they control the media coverage of it.
like i said, no win. and it's increasingly a question just who would want to 'win' this 'prize'!!
Democrats need to take the fight straight at this administration.
They must take on the issue of 9/11Truth.
For the Bush administration, it's always been about 9/11. It's been their whole strategy from day one. Immediately after taking office Cheney convened his energy task force to plan the pipeline in Afghanistan and the division of Iraq's oil reserves (and Iran's), which required the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not possible without a "new Pearl Harbor." They knew from the beginning that in order to govern after the stolen 2000 election, they would need a spectacular psychological operation to get the American people to fall in line. In the process they killed 3000 people.
It almost worked.
Now they scurry and hide, but it's too late.
The truth is out. The tipping point is past. It can not be stopped.
If you still doubt that 9/11 was an inside job just look at this:
http://www.9eleven.info/DemolitionComp.htm
911 seeker, I think Xymphora said it best when he observed that "controlled demolition" theories have become a religion for some people. I don't mind you defending such theories when a post directly addresses that issue, but you are rude when you keep bringing the subject up when we are trying to talk about OTHER matters. Are you so lacking in self-awareness that you cannot understand that you are making your own position look bad? You are sounding just as crankish as a 1992-vintage ufologist.
I don't want to hit the delete button, but I will if things get out of hand. Fairly warned be thee, says I.
By sounding off in favor of open borders, the Dems are not only cutting their throats politically, they are doing a disservice to the environment. How any Dem can claim to be both pro-environment and pro-immigration is simply beyond me. The biggest threat to the environment is an expanding population.
Anyway, it's too late, Joseph. Sensenbrenner put the bill out like rat poison, and the kneejerk liberals jumped out to devour it.
Out in the heartland, people want to keep their guns and reduce the rate of immigration--legal as well as illegal. The Dems better wake up.
Hi Joseph, I can certainly understand your annoyance at someone like 911Seeker hijacking your blog, but his post did raise this question, related to your initial post: That is, you ask why the Democrats are afraid to take on this unpopular, lawless administration on the proven crimes of the war and resulting chaos; but why are they also afraid to take on the administration on 9/11?
If even part of the 9/11 Truth movement's claims are true (and controlled demolition theories are not a necessary part of proving administration complicity), and can be proven to the public, then basically the Republican party's electoral strength will be comparable to that of the Democrats in the wake of the Civil War. I'm sure no politician wants to sound like a nutjob making wild allegations (from pods under planes to alien lizard overlords), but at this point, in the wake of it's breaking through to the mainstream media, 9/11 questions are no longer in the realm of tinfoil hattery. Aside from Cynthia McKinney, most mainstream politicians won't touch any of this with a ten foot pole.
Charlie Sheen's breaking the ice and CNN's several days coverage had one interesting result: CNN did an informal, obviously unscientific poll showing that 80% of the responders believe 9/11 involved complicity or a coverup. There was a post on DU from people with media connections suggesting that Ed Asner was scheduled to go on CNN to talk about this issue, but was cancelled at the last minute when an "official" 9/11 theory spokesman bowed out. There is something in the air that suggests this is about to break, and rumors that other celebrities are poised to talk about their doubts, and although celebrities know no more than the rest of us, when Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack begin to have doubts about the official story -- because Liz Taylor or Madonna said so -- won't all hell will break loose?
You've hinted in several posts that you have questions about 9/11. I'm just curious about your own personal "HOP level" as the NY Magazine article put it -- bad guys did it all, incompetence theory, LIHOP, MIHOP or alien lizard overlords?
And if your HOP level is at least at the LI level, what do you think the approach of the mainstream, DC based Democratic leadership should be?
HamdenRice from DU
sofla said:
Joe, you're thinking of this in terms of politics. How about thinking in terms of psychotic or sociopathic killer leaders, enabled by the best covert operatives money can buy?
Remember the anthrax attacks, targeting the then-Senate majority leader Daschle and then-Judiciary Committee chairman? Unsolved, and yet the answer is well in sight, as the Ames strain used came from US biowarfare stocks, and the highly aerosolized processing could only have been done by maybe 20 people with the proper expertise and facilities. Inside job.
If it is true that this criminal claque seized near-total power by LIHOP/MIHOP deaths of several thousands of people, and an ensuing war costing the deaths of some tens if not a hundred thousand or more, do you think that might make people a little wary of overtly criticizing them, in the typical political way? I sure do, and I am most sympathetic to the plight of the Democratic Party leaders. I have never had to do something in the face of threat of death, and/or the most hardball of extortion threats, using NSA-gotten intercepts of the most embarrassing kinds of activities or communications.
Post a Comment