dr. elsewhere here
[Update to this "quick update" just above the fold; scroll down]
Quick update on polls: The latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows a precipitous drop in approval of Congress, at 27% now, down from 36% in January as the Dems were about to take over.
Opinions abound as to the impact of the Iraq supplemental bill compromise on this drop, but the numbers seem to strongly suggest that folks really really expected the Dems to come in there and kick some serious Bush butt on the US occupation.
As I've suggested here previously, those numbers have been solid for upwards of three years now, with no sign they'll reverse at any point. The citizenry just does not want us in there, and they want us out, ASAP.
What we clearly need is for Democrats in Congress to be even more aggressive, perhaps even more pugnacious and belligerent, on this issue. But we have to ask ourselves the bottom-line question, which has been asked by the Dems' leadership: Just where would it get them?
With the Chimp in Chief insisting he won't pay any attention to either these long-standing polls of Americans screaming for our withdrawal, or to Congressional legislation to effect this majority opinion, he will veto whatever comes across his desk.
We are thus left with somehow convincing the Republican leadership in Congress to submit to conscience and do the right thing, not only in terms of representing their constituency (the poll numbers suggest, after all, that at least some number of Republicans are defying those they represent on these matters), but in the more important terms of what is right in the generic, for our soldiers, for the Iraqi people, for the standing of this country in the eyes of the world.
But take note that the Republicans who are voting with Dems - like they did on this week's no-confidence vote on the Gonzo - are those who are up for election in '08. A depraved and callous fact, but there it is.
[[UPDATED HERE: Ya gotta see this to believe it. Tony Snow has penned an op-ed for USAToday that slams Congressional Dems for their no-confidence vote, spewing the WH talking point that it's a "waste of time." Snow chides the low approval ratings for Congress, without so much as a hint of insight into just why this might be, when the last poll I saw on the subject of Gonzo's resignation showed 53% of Americans want Gonzo to step down. True to Repug form, Tony just can't bring himself to even entertain the possibility that the low Congressional approval ratings might be because it's really still controlled - albeit bullied - by the WH agenda. And of course he doesn't touch his boss's low approval ratings.]]
In other words, despite last November's results (which I stress again were even greater than the numbers showed because of Rovian/Repug foul play), despite all the polls exposing the extreme frustration of Americans with Iraq and Congressional (read: "Republican") corruption/business as usual, the Republican party continues to drive its party further down this same win-at-all-costs, power-mongering, scandal-ridden plummet to destruction, dragging the rest of the country with them. To hell with it all; integrity - that PR concept they rode into power on almost a decade and a half ago - be damned.
In the face of this variation of the stonewalling we're getting from the WH, this Repug leadership repugnance, mocks the very foundations of our Constitution that is supposed to shape it. It's there in spades, stone-hard and cold spades, which leads me to sympathize with the Dems on their confusion about strategy; how does one proceed with this kind of unreasonable bullying, this in-your-face, F*** you attitude? The Repugs looked at the votes of the American people, the polls of the American people, and have simply told the citizens of this country to go Cheney ourselves.
Which leads me to the following opinion, for what it's worth.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
First, the Dems need to quit cowering over the inevitable media freakout that will come if they start speaking truth to power without concern for that freakout. My suspicion at this point is that the polls will reflect the relief such candor and courage would inspire in the populace. The pundits be damned! We all know they are already damned, so do us all a favor and shove it down their throats. After all, as I have emphasized repeatedly here: The polls show American despair over the direction we're taking despite what they get from the media. I will continue to find this fact the single most inspiring element of our current situation, especially given the relentless drive of the Republican power structure to control the media completely (which, further inspiring, exposes the frightened awareness of the Repugs that they cannot win honestly).
Second, Republicans who are fed up with what has happened to their party - once honorable and principled (sometime prior to the last century and only at its inception, alas) - and take it back, and do so loudly and bravely.
The person who first drew my attention to Cannonfire, occasional commenter CD, was once a principled and active Republican herself. When I asked her about a decade ago how she was feeling about her party, her instant response was, "My God, it's been taken over by aliens." She has since done the smart, principled, and reasonable thing and investigated more deeply to discover hidden truths about what has been really happening for many decades now. What we need is to encourage more Republicans like her to do the same. Because, until the Republicans in Congress get the message, no matter how hard the Dems try to conduct proper governance, they will be thwarted by the Repug machinery.
So here is my bottom-line answer, in two stages, to my bottom-line question, at least in the short-term:
First, Dems need to hear that we support their boldest and most aggressive assertions and efforts in conducting their Congressional responsibilities, loudly and often. The biggest message is that Republicans should be ashamed of what their President is doing, of what has happened to their party, and what they are doing to the country and the principles for which it stands. Republicans should be ashamed.
Second, the Republicans out there who know this and see it and feel it need to be speaking up in a big way, insisting that their leadership respond to these points of integrity and to stop sabotaging governance. This is not a sports tournament; we are all losers when the only goal is to win. The Republicans in office need to be hearing from their constituents that they are ashamed of the lack of integrity and principle in their leadership, and point out to them the Republicans should be ashamed of what the party is doing and what it has become. Those of us who Democrats and Independents know Republicans should be actively encouraging our neighbors to speak out.
Clearly, the bottom line of the bottom line is clear and self-evident:
We each and all of us need to make our voices heard, not just in the polls (which are extremely limited - if not scientifically logical - slivers of out total numbers), not just in marches and protests (which, because of the skewed media coverage, does not carry the clout it should), but in our actual, tangible, direct impact. If more than the polls were out there, if offices were flooded on a daily basis with calls and faxes, our representatives would have to take notice.
I know this is stating the obvious, but how many of us take out the five minutes a week (preferably more, of course) to send a message to Congress? How many of us make it a point to fax those in Congress with our positions on what is before them? As far as I can tell, it will require that each of us make it a habit as regular and important as cleaning the toilet, a fitting metaphor on - sadly - way too many dimensions.
7 comments:
O Doctor, your friend CD was probably more on the money than you know with her comment, "My God, it's been taken over by aliens."
I won't bore you or other readers with any long treatise on this, but it has been convincingly shown (not proven) that many of the top dogs such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others are influenced, or should we say controlled, by a strong alien force.
I myself have seen behavior, mistakenly shown to the public, which indicates a secret, usually hidden trait common to these beings, similar to that sociopathic condition found in perhaps 3% of the population. It is most easily recognised as a total lack of compassion or empathy.
And yes, this is a trait known to be carried by one of the scariest of alien species, the one which is reportedly in the process of making our Earth its own.
I know this comment may be deleted as off-the-wall, and I think it would be pointless to refer you to my sources as they can't be confirmed by usual means; however if one takes the evidence we have seen so far, and applies the above premise to it, he will find that it makes (logical) sense. Then he may simply refuse to believe any connection, logical or not, as it flies in the face of all he has been taught during his life.
Lastly, the word is out that a benevolent alien species is coming to our aid, and that the bad guys will lose:)
The problem with Iraq votes seems to be this: the Congress has little power to direct presidential actions, except for the most blunt instrument of all, literally withholding the money. Evidently, the schizophrenic American people want out of Iraq, but oppose cutting off the money. So the only true method available to Congress polls badly, and the politicians do not want to take that risk.
Of course, doing the right thing that is unpopular is part of the definition of statesmanship and leadership (and everybody knows that those qualities are in short supply). It would require that the politicians make so good of a case that they win approval for that action on its merits, despite the undoubtedly heated attacks from the other side plus the echo chamber for such attacks that the media would supply.
After all, how far did Mondale get with his straight talk on taxes ("I'll raise your taxes, and so will he. The difference is that I'm telling you the truth, and he's not.")?
I had meant to delete rapt's comment. I think I'll let it stay, just to show that some myths die hard. And also to show why my readers make me sigh.
Okay, let's address the actual topic under discussion here. Polls indicate that the Democratic Congress has lost popularity. And yet the progressives believe that this is because of the Iraq funding bill. That accounts for part: Most Americans lack basic knowledge of civics and do not understand how a presidential veto works. They do not understand that Congress usually takes the blame for an impasse over funding. And they do not understand that Bush EXECUTES the laws. More on that later.
But the fact is that the people are listening to the Limbaugh/Murdoch daily spin on Pelosi and Reid, and that this poison is having its usual effect.
If the Dems are being punished because they won't stand up to the administration, then why are the benefits going to the Republicans? They will regain the House in 2008.
I just heard that Thompson is pulled ahead(or in dead heat) with all other Republicans.
Paul Krugman had an interesting article about Thompson before this news in which he questions the meaning of "authenticity". And John Neffinger had an article about Krugman's article in which he brings up the subject of body language in relation to "authenticity". Krugman wonders why voters buy this facade when it has clearly been a wrong indicator of leadership(Bush was precieved to be more authentic than kerry or Gore by voters and yet he has been proven to be the worst kind of leader). Neffinger argues that most voters are either influenced by limited points of views(only watching Fox or lead by their religous believes) or are too un-educated to be able to see beyond the spin(in which case they tend to judge candidates the way they judge people in their normal lives which is by their body language or level of "authenticity").
This goes to Joseph's point about the stupidity of voters.
Years ago I read that most Americans adopt their party affiliation very early in life(teens or early 20's) and tend to stick with it regardless of conterary evidence, and very few tend to change their views later in life(my personal experience verifies that). Most among that few tend to be educated or have had a major awakening due to research after some disterous event in their lives.
Which brings us back to dr. elsewhere's post and her assertion that Republicans need to be brought to see the faults of their leaders and thereby withdraw thier support for their policies.
Now I am an admirer of dr. elsewher and tend to agree with her views more often than not(I do admire Joseph as well, but tend to disagree with his predictions a lot, but that is a whole other can of worms)but in this instanse I agree with Joe.
American voters are to set in their ways, they are too greatly influenced by "authenticity", are too lazy to read, will buy anything that is packaged right, not to mention the fact that there is a very well financed, well planned, well layed, effort to lead them to slaughter by the powers that are.
Agreeing with dr. elsewhere's view of life and Joe's prediction(we'll get Thompson for Prez in 09)is giving me a great deal of mental anguish, and I look forward to anything that shakes my gut instinct of the moment between now and next election.
joe, the threat that the repugs can retake congress is all too real, as you point out, which is precisely why i suggest as i do that we all make it at least a weekly habit to contact them.
you're also correct that the media is failing us terribly on this, and i think that is also intentional agenda. but i STILL say it's pretty amazing that the polls look like they do with the media as depraved as they are. when the campaign heats up, the dems may well get more opportunity to frame these issues more loudly, especially if we actively encourage them.
regardless of what may happen, the emphasis on voicing our complaints or support to our reps, and the congressional leadership, still needs to be taken very seriously and acted on. this is, after all, the foundation of any democratic society.
anon, i agree leadership requires the fortitude to do the right thing in the face of an insane mob, but that might best apply to the executive. however, with regard to the house at least, they are fools to not listen to their constituents. especially given they're up for election every two years. smart dudes, those founders. requiring that our reps make good and reasonable arguments was probably an assumption on their parts.
beeta, i appreciate your kind, words, but i beseech you to consider the point i keep making over and over again: it is nothing short of inspiring that the polls have been showing the american people are seeing through most of the propaganda. no question, there's a disturbingly stubborn core, but still, the repugs have lost the huge evangelical masses, they've lost many of their old ranks, and they've certainly lost significant credibility. i think it's WAY too early to call this!
i mean, for cryin' out loud, we haven't had much chance yet to expose the duplicity of EVERY SINGLE republican candidate on all those 'core' issues, like abortion and gay marriage. the leaders, rudy and mitt, are mincemeat once they're exposed, and geez, thompson is a mess with his long history (decades!) of being a lobbyist.
and then there's the big shift that's likely to occur when/if gore wins the nobel peace prize.
this ain't over till it's over.
finally, rapt, i have it on good authority that CD was definitely speaking metaphorically when she referenced aliens in the repug party. in fact, she was specifically referencing the infiltration of evangelical christians. your inclination to believe that as literal simply is not necessary, given that the behaviors that so offend and disgust us in these people are simply human, alas.
it's always best to assume the simplest explanation for anything, especially when it requires us to accept those hard and painful truths about ourselves, both as individuals and as a species. that also holds for the inspiring goodnesses, though, so the hopefulness you convey at the end of your comment can find a home here, as well.
"It's there in spades, stone-hard and cold spades, which leads me to sympathize with the Dems on their confusion about strategy; how does one proceed with this kind of unreasonable bullying, this in-your-face, F*** you attitude?"
Excellent question, doc, to which you already know the answer. What do you with sociopathic systems? The same thing you do with sociopathic clients.
First: Know there really are evil men running this country. Stop insisting that evil is ignorance. It isn't.
Second: If you're a Congressperson, understand your place in history. Understand that the actions you take now will either preserve what's left of our fragile democracy or destroy it, particularly if your name happens to be Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Understand your place in history.
Third: Take no prisoners. These men have no interest in democracy or anyone's "rights." Force them into corners that they cannot retreat from. Give them no place to hide. Never let them for even one second, let them believe that they control the agenda with veto threats.
Then, when they reach up to you in "friendship" because they have nothing left to lose, punch them in the face and kick 'em while they're down, twice on Sundays.
Kim in PA
dr. elsewhere,
As said at the end of my comment, I do look forward to any argument(however under-estimated or un-popular)that rips a hole in my outlook at the moment. I do like your outlook, your passion, your optimism(as I feel like you do most of the time)but I am a realist at core(and it has served me right more times than not).
So, consider this:
"The revolt against reason, the characteristic mental attitude of our age, was not caused by a lack of modesty, caution, and self-examination on the part of the philosophers. Neither was it due to failures in the evolution of modern natural science. The amazing achievements of technology and therapeutics speak a language which nobody can ignore. It is hopeless to attack modern science, whether from the angle of intuitionism and mysticism, or from any other point of view. The revolt against reason was directed against another target. It did not aim at the natural sciences, but at economics. The attack against the natural sciences was only the logically necessary outcome of the attack against economics. It was impermissible to dethrone reason in one field only and not to question it in other branches of knowledge also."
The true fondations of our economic system undermines any effort to achieve any kind of true Democratic system.
"According to the American Heritage dictionary, imperialism is "the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Naturally, the nature of modern imperialism is closer to the second half of the proffered definition than it is to the first. However, the former was a necessary historical development for the latter to occur. Since the invasion of Afghanistan by Washington in October 2001, the use of the word imperialism has experienced a renaissance as the media and others attempt to define the nature of US foreign policy in the post-911 era. This use has risen in all quarters, not just among critics of that foreign policy. Indeed, folks like Thomas Friedman proudly trumpet the fact of US imperialism in their writings as if they have been newly freed to call a spade a spade. "
This is the prevailing fact of our times.
"However, there is one fallacy in the current usage. That fallacy is that the term is quite often only used in relation to the neocon Project for A New American Century, as if it is only the neocons who support an imperialist foreign policy in Washington. Until now, only those on the far left and far right are willing to call all those politicians, generals, corporate chiefs and mediots that support the political system in DC imperialist.
Now, however, it is time to add Condoleeza Rice to that list. In a speech given to the Economic Club in New York on June 6, 2007, Rice did everything but utter the word as she summoned forth the ghosts of Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt and Cold War architect Dean Acheson and stated that the Bush foreign policy is not a break with previous administrations, but a continuation of what she called "100 years of American realism." Or, as she put it, "We believe that our principles are the greatest source of our power, and we are led into the world as much by our moral ideas as by our material interests." Of course, when Washington can convince the US public that those material interests (Washington's true principles) and moral interests coincide, then that "American realism" works best. Looking back, if one examines the actions of Teddy Roosevelt, they will recall that he was an aggressive supporter of the US colonization of the Philippines under the guise of liberating them. This was merely a continuation of his determined campaign to go to war with Spain in the Carribean when he served as the Secretary of the Navy under President McKinley. In fact, Teddy once stated, "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." While president, Roosevelt served the needs of US international trade by garnering US control of the Panama Canal.
One name Ms. Rice failed to mention was Henry Kissinger's. That man truly understands the reality of US imperialism and has called it realist politics ever since the first day he started
started serving in Richard Nixon's White House (if not before). More important than Henry the K., however, is the fact that Dr. Rice places the Democrats' opposition to the Bush strategy squarely in its place. Her speech made it clear that there are not two foreign policies at work in the upper echelons of the Washington-Pentagon-Wall Street axis, only a few differences in the methods used to achieve the goals of a single policy. That policy is the policy that best serves the corporate capitalist need to expand and dominate. Or, as the American Heritage dictionary puts it: "a policy of extending a nation's authority... by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."
Potter's speech forty some years ago made it clear that there was a system in place that drove the US war machine and its diplomatic auxiliary. Since the invasion of Afghanistan, that system has been called by its real name by the shameless ones that currently run the country. Condoleeza Rice's attempt to include the aggressive strategy of the neocons in the tradition of what she terms American realism may be scorned by the liberal opposition, but their scorn is misdirected. Ms. Rice could not be more correct. Her tracing of a historical line from the imperial ravings of Teddy Roosevelt to the policy papers of the Bush administration (with a nod to Dean Acheson and Harry Truman) is closer to the truth than any speech by any of the current leaders in the Democratic race for the 2008 election. If she had only included Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, that line would have been nearly complete."
by Ron Jacobs
I look forward to any gap in this wall to crawl on my belly (if need be) to the other side!
Post a Comment