Will Rogers's description of the Dems is still true.
The Democrats in Congress still don't have a clue about how to do things. Last night on "Countdown" Keith Olbermann was interviewing Dana Milbank of the Washington Post. Regarding the (now over) congressional clash over torture/interrogation/Geneva conventions legislation, Milbank noted that in the House "The Democrats actually had the votes to kill (the White House's) proposal and get the McCain version through, but two of the Democrats were next door giving a press conference on Medicare." In the overall public political PR landscape right now, Medicare is not even on the radar. Moreover, any effort to put it there is not a good move. Why? There are at least four reasons. 1) It has not been on the radar for a long time, and there is not enough time before November to put it there. 2) The Republicans have not screwed the pooch on Medicare anywhere near as badly as they have on anything and everything connected with Iraq. 3) It (Medicare) has nothing to do with any of the corruption scandals in the GOP. 4) Overall, Medicare is NOT the issue on which the Republicans are most vulnerable. And yet, when the House Democrats were presented with a chance to deal Bush a major defeat on a politically timely and relevant issue, they could not because two of them decided it was more important to have a press conference on Medicare. Would the Republicans have allowed such action by members of their party? Not just "no," but "hell, no." They would have been organized enough to make sure that their members were not off on some irrelevant errand.
Yes, I know there is a chance the legislation would not have made it to a vote. Yes, I know that now a "deal" is in place on the legislation. Both of those facts are beside the point. The point is that the Democrats have apparently learned nothing from the last two election cycles. They apparently have not learned that they cannot sit around and do nothing and expect that voters have become so disgusted with Republicans that they (the voters) will now vote for Democrats.
Yes, I know there is a chance the legislation would not have made it to a vote. Yes, I know that now a "deal" is in place on the legislation. Both of those facts are beside the point. The point is that the Democrats have apparently learned nothing from the last two election cycles. They apparently have not learned that they cannot sit around and do nothing and expect that voters have become so disgusted with Republicans that they (the voters) will now vote for Democrats.
posted by WCharles @ 9/22/2006 12:13:00 AM
4 Comments:
I'll address Kinky first. The fact that Kinky is a Jew is not having a negative impact on his campaign. Yes, there will be some people who won't vote him because he is Jewish, but those folks would likely object to him on other grounds even if he was a WASP. To reference the commentary you cited, the Democratic party has been so thoroughly out of power that it could not have the kind of anti-Semitic influence described in the commentary. Moreover, in this state, anti-Semites are more likely to be found in the Republican party.
The controversy over Kinky these days is the charge that he is a racist, based on something he said in a CNBC interview 10 months ago (which was based on a previous question about a book he wrote in the late '80s) and a comedy routine from 1980. As posted on Kinky's website, "While Rick Perry was cheerleading in college and Chris Bell was being potty trained, Kinky Friedman was picketing segregated restaurants in Austin to integrate them. Now that Kinky’s in second place and a serious threat to the two-party system, Perry and Bell have paid political assassins to dig back as far as 30 years through fictional books, comedy shows and satirical song lyrics, desperately seeking to paint Kinky as a racist."
Now on to the commentary...I have not finished the entire commentary, but I have two initial thoughts. 1) The overall tone of the commentary seems to be that Democrat=anti-Semitic, and, frankly, that pisses me off. 2) The commentary assumes that the Republican policy toward Israel is what is best for the U.S. and Israel, and that ain't necessarily so. Recall that many of the biggest supporters of the Iraq war and some of the key architects of that policy are Jewish (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, and others). They all claimed that the war was necessary because it would ultimately protect Israel. How's that worked out so far?
I believe that Israel should continue to exist as a sovereign nation and that that should be part of our policy. However, this country's ability to influence affairs globally in general and in the Middle East in particular has been greatly damaged by the Iraq war. Thus, if we are to play a significant role in protecting Israel, our task is even more difficult than before. The Republicans that are in power have been largely responsible for the current state of affairs.
The commentary is written with a Republican slant and therefore must be taken at face value - it is political. Several statements made me chuckle assuming they would irritate Democrats because of the hyperbole. I absolutely would not use this to condemn all Democrats as being anti-Semetic and I would not even go so far as to say the party is anti-Semetic. But, it does make you think about the motives of some individuals within the Democratic party. Why the attacks on Leiberman, for example?
Ironically, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of Israel and their right to exist, but politically and socially we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from most American Jews.
"I absolutely would not use this to condemn all Democrats as being anti-Semetic and I would not even go so far as to say the party is anti-Semetic."
Oh, I know YOU wouldn't, but there will be some within the GOP who will use such analysis in such a political manner.
"But, it does make you think about the motives of some individuals within the Democratic party."
I agree with you on this. No doubt there are individuals in the Democratic party that are anti-Jewish. And there should be questioning of the motives of some.
"Why the attacks on Leiberman, for example?"
Good question. I did not follow that campaign closely (which means I do not know if any of Lamont's attacks focused on Judaism or Israel), but I will say I think that the venom directed toward Leiberman had little or nothing to do with his being Jewish but was based on his closeness to Bush and the fact that Leiberman is more Republican than Democrat. Thus, in terms of a Democratic primary, such basis made sense, but in terms of a general election, it might not make sense--especially if Leiberman gets on the ballot. Just look at the Kerry campaign. Such an approach served him well in the primaries (particularly in attacking my man Wes), but not in the general election.
"Ironically, conservative Christian groups have been the strongest supporters of Israel and their right to exist, but politically and socially we are on the opposite end of the spectrum from most American Jews."
More proof of the cliche "politics makes strange bedfellows."
Post a Comment
<< Home