...a new meme seems to be quickly emerging within the chattering class: the lack of Senate progress on Iraq legislation isn't Bush's fault (he's vowed to veto any measure that undercut his authority to do what he pleases), or the GOP's fault (the party has voted to filibuster any measure that might pass), but actually Harry Reid's fault.I think those screaming for impeachment (and I am one) should keep this reaction in mind. Although the LAT and the WP are hardly voices of liberalism these days, these two journals are still considered apart from and "better" than the conservative media infrastructure. If they can demonize Reid now, what would they do to Conyers, should the Judiciary Committee decide to hold impeachment hearings?
The Post editorial obviously holds Reid responsible, as does an analysis piece in today's LA Times, which blames the Majority Leader for not "compromising" enough with Republicans.
Or consider the newly popular fantasy (I've done my part to help popularize it) of arresting members of this administration on charges of inherent contempt. How would the media react?
Can you honestly pretend that a blisteringly negative press reaction won't sway your fellow Americans?
I'm not saying "Don't do it." I still want impeachment. The country needs it, the world needs it, and the two bastards ruining this country certainly deserve it. The "inherent contempt" scenario still tickles my fancy. But what can we do to make such a scenario politically viable in the face of what will surely be a hostile propaganda blitz?
I don't ask that question in a tone of hopelessness. To the contrary: I'm looking for pragmatic suggestions.
6 comments:
The Founders did not worry about "political Viability" when they stood up to their King George. We are at a point where political courrage will have many casualties, but is necessary.
You're wrong, Anon. The Founders WERE "politically viable," and knew it, and acted on the basis of that viability.
They were supported in the cause of independence by a large section of the populace. They acted only when they understood that theirs was a popular cause. At most, about 20% of the citizens of the original thirteen colonies remained Loyalists in 1776 -- that, is loyal to King George III. The Patriots (rebels) controlled the state governments and much of the press.
Would Washington, Jefferson and the others have acted as they acted if the numbers were reversed, if four out of five favored British rule?
No.
Don't romanticize them. They were practical men. The answer is no.
Does that mean we should not show political courage now? To the contrary; we must. The lesson to be drawn from the American Revolution has little to do with the actions of a few -- the ones we now call the Founders. We should look to the actions of the many, the thousands of toilers who fertilized the fields of rebellion, the innumerable unnamed souls who made a fight for Independence possible.
I don't think we need impeachment to be favored by four out of five. But having a clear majority favor the impeachment of Bush would certainly help. Last poll I read, nearly 45% favors the idea. We are close. Bring the number up to 55%, and we may reach the point of inescapability. We also need the media to understand that we will reject or bypass them if they whine for bipartisan mushiness, or if they demand more compromise from those trying to end Bush's war.
The job is ours. What I'm looking for are further suggestions as to how best to do it.
I understand Joseph's frustration with the issue but I also get very frustrated with the double talk coming out of the Democratic Party.
It is obvious that Americans do not want war with Iraq or anyone else. So, why do Pelosi and almost all other Democrats sign a resolution that takes out congressional approval for attacking Iran?
Or...
"Not only did the Senate Democrats fail again this week to advance proposals for a pullout, they show in much broader ways that they have not changed course at all. They may want to end the war bungled by Republicans, but they refuse to end the escalation of the American war machine.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democrats would “drain the swamp” of Republican corruption and “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.” But the Globe recently reported that Kennedy slid $100 million into the 2008 defense authorization bill for a General Electric fighter engine that the Air Force said it did not need."
"It gets worse in a defense budget that is zooming to $648.8 billion. The nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense last month analyzed 309 Senate defense earmarks. Four of the top five “earmarkers” were not Republican hawks but centrist and liberal Democrats.
Levin led the way with 44 earmarks. Clinton was second with 26. Reed was fourth with 23, one behind Republican John Warner of Virginia. In fifth place was Charles Schumer of New York with 21. When asked if she saw any change in defense earmark behavior since the Democrats took back the House and the Senate, senior analyst Laura Peterson of the Taxpayers for Common Sense said over the telephone, “No.”
More proof the swamp is still full is the fact that only four of the top 10 senators in defense campaign contributions in the 2006 election cycle were Republicans. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Dianne Feinstein of California, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut collected 60 percent of the $1.4 million the industry lavished among the top 10.
Democrats say defense contracting is not about war but about jobs in their states (and of course votes). This no longer washes when bringing home the bacon fries the rest of the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute last year reported that the United States is now responsible for just under half of the entire planet’s trillion-dollar military spending. No other nation accounts for more than 5 percent of the world’s military spending."
Derrick Jackson Earmarking The War Machine
The propaganda by the MSM may not hold such power over the public if Americans felt a bit more confident that Democrats really believe their rhetoric.
Is there a difference between the two parties?....Yes, but the difference is in the basic belief system (Democrats traditionally being the advocates of the people verses the Republicans representing capital). If I call myself a Christian, what proof do you have that I adhere to the teachings of Christ? ....My actions....If Bloomberg can be a Democrat and then a Republican and then an Independent....how do you really know him?....his actions
So, although I vote Democratic and believe in the underlying philosophy of the party, I am very frustrated and suspicious of the top ranking Democratic leaders.
Pelosi, Clinton, Obama.....are just what we have...not what we want(strategy is one thing...genuine is another thing).
Take a look at this writers view of what might be the unvarnished truth about the problems after the revolution up to the Constitution
http://www.sidis.net/TSChap26.htm
Read Chapters 26 27 28.
After I'd read them you'll never see things the same IMO
The fact is that under certain conditions of public opinion, media spin no longer has much effect. Sure they'll spin it, but who exactly is listening?
Polls are already indicating about 50% in favor of impeaching Bush, a bit more in favor of impeaching Cheney.
Not saying you're wrong, but just that there comes a point where spin backfires on the spinners rather than the spinnees, if I may use that term. And we may already be rather close to that point.
As long as Bush controls the Justice Dept. and as long as the Supreme Court is likely to support him, methods that are under congressional control, like inherent contempt and impeachment, may be the only way to carry out the will of the people. If and when impeachment becomes politically viable, to hell with the media.
What about if we declare war on the corporate media as opposed to the government? It seems like a much softer target to me.
Post a Comment