Saturday, June 04, 2005

Reason 6,989,495,194

Why I read Kos:

If anything, the only thing surprising about the Iraq occupation is that it has so persistently mirrored what war critics predicted; a rapid military "win", followed by a Vietnam-like insurgency that bogs down U.S. forces and destabilizes any nascent attempts at self-government. That's not horn-tooting; anyone not fully under the spell of yay! war could see it coming ten miles off. But, as Yglesias hints, there isn't much ground there for war supporters and war skeptics to pair off and dance. War supporters desperately cling to the notion that there will be, might be, could be some avenue by which this international fiasco can at least be dulled, rather than admit their support was mistaken. War skeptics like, admittedly, myself, aren't in any mood to take patronizing, self-serving crap from people whose past judgment has ranged from horrible to catastrophic. And so, there's an impasse within the party, and indeed within American politics in general. We are, in a word, stuck.

Scott comments "that the Democrats have been such a disaster as a party for the last decade or so that millions of people are willing to vote GOP rather than for them."

What a pantload. The comment, that is :-) Bush did not *win* the votes in 2000, and 2004's are questionable at best.

What did the "Democrats" do that was such a disaster? Was it the trillion$ of national surplu$? A booming economy? Jobs galore? No. It was Bill Clinton's lying under oath about getting his dick sucked by a girl who wasn't his wife. The man was impeached for lying about an affair, something every man would probably do, and indeed many of the men seeking that impeachment had done and were doing during the impeachment! And yet Bush can lie the country into an unjustified war where thousands are killed and maimed, the economy is in the toilet, the wheels are coming off the once mighty military machine, and he, and his cabal of a party are somehow better than the prosperity under Clinton's presidency?

Step away from the Koolaide, Scott.

Some conservatives hate Bill Clinton like some democrats, liberals, greens, indepenents, foreigners hate George W. Can't please everyone.

At least no one died when Clinton lied.

Oh, and before you (Scott) bring up the argument that Bush didn't 'lie' but was spoon-fed 'bad intelligence', I refer you to the Downing Street Memo.

What Bobski sez:
Can it be any clearer that the gang of fascist thugs occupying the White House lied repeatedly to get their war? (IE: "...facts were being fixed around the policy..." Imagine, if you will, what would be happening in Washington if a President Clinton did this.

Indeed.

8 Comments:

At 10:36 AM, Blogger Jeff Huber said...

I wish the Dems would stop beating themselves so badly. They have several things going for them that they can start building on now.

- the party of tolerance.
- the party of religious freedom and separation of church and state (don't think for a minute you can have one without the other).
- the party of fiscal responsibility and prosperity.
- the party of enlightened foreign policy, one that balances security requirements with diplomacy and other tools of power.

I've no idea why they can't build on that.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Musmanno said...

I personally think Bush won both elections, because I think he won FL in 2000, so he won on electoral votes, and I think he won both the popular and electoral votes in 2004.

But even if you believe that, you have to ask yourself this: why was it even close?

The answer, in part, lies in the fact that the Democrats haven't been likeable as late. The party comes across as shrill, as being more interested in personal attacks than policy, as as always being "against" things without having any good plans of their own.

Whether or not you or I agree that this is an accurate portrayal of the Democrats (I think it is, in large part, though it certainly can't apply across the board), the fact remains that it is the public perception of the Democrats in many areas and that's a reality the Democrats have to contend with.

The need to bring civility back to political discource, because people on the whole want that. Then they need to build on the areas Jeff points out. They also need to toss the extreme left element of the party into the nearest lake :)

Ask yourself why so many Americans will vote for the GOP against their own economic self-interest. It's because they look at the Dems and see Michael Moore and Howard Dean, and they can't stand those guys. Hell, I can't stand those guys - they (and those like them) are 80% of the reason I vote 3d party and not Democrat.


But we've had this discussion before :) That's my take on what the Dems need to do to win (and I hope they do win in 2008). Reasonable minds might disagree!

 
At 12:13 PM, Blogger Musmanno said...

Oh - to follow up. Good points about Clinton, Cap. Why was Clinton able to win elections? People liked him. They liked him even after the GOP got done trying to destroy him.

Why wasn't the Democratic party as a whole able to capitalize after Clinton, building on the successes you talked about? People didn't like Gore and didn't like the loudmouths in the Democratic party. Simple as that.

That's my own independent observation of things. I think there is merit to it. And like I said, since I want the Democrats to win next time, I hope someone gets the party moving in the right direction. There is no reason the GOP should win in 2008, but if the Dems don't do things differently from '00 and '04, they are likely to lose again.

 
At 5:24 PM, Blogger Drunken Proletariat said...

Kos makes some points that address the reasons why so much of America can't face the fact that this Iraq debacle was such a huge error. To admit that Bush was wrong is to admit that they were wrong. When one is totally, emotionally committed to a certain paradigm of what the world is all about, there is more at stake to them than "Was Dubya Right To Rush To War"?
What I mean is, it might lead them to conclude that their whole view of the world and of reality might need some- adjustment. I think the most difficult thing to realize about yourself is that you can be totally, dead wrong about things, to realize that we are all subject to incessant propaganda, we have all fallen victim to bullshit at some point in our lives. The good news is...more and more Americans are becoming more and more aware of what is happening to them, and minds that were once shut like a steel trap, minds that were completely blind in the Right eye, are having the fog of ideology begin to lift...
They say that bloggers are having an increasing impact and are the underground news source for many. Blogs have had an effect on me, and this one is top of my list.

Don't get all swell-headed on us now, Cap...

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger Musmanno said...

Drunken Proletariat:

I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. I'm not sure the fog will lift from those firmly in the GOP camp, but there is a certain percentage of moderates, people who could support either party, who heretofore have been going along with the Bush view of things. I think that is beginning to shift. Maybe the mid-term Congressional elections will shed some light on that.

 
At 7:03 AM, Blogger Jeff Huber said...

Scott:

These days, my definition of irony is when Ann Coulter calls Maureen Dowd a strident bitch.

Given the tone and content of rhetoric from Ann, Rush, O'Reilley, Buchannan, and the rest of the Rovewellian echo chamber, it amazes me that folks consider the Dems the "shrill" party of "personal attack."
Has everyone forgotten Darth Cheney's speech at the GOP convention?

Accusing the Dems of having no ideas glides over the reality that the GOP's ideas are all bad ones, and the Dubya's idea of "reaching across the aisle" is inviting the opposition to accept his policies in toto.

Jeff

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Musmanno said...

Ann Coulter calling anyone a bitch is ironic.

As for the GOP having bad ideas - I don't think that changes the fact that the Dems are not presenting any alternatives to most of them.

And there are plenty of "shrill" people on the left interested in personal attack. It isn't necessarily the politicians (well, there's Dean), but people like Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others who people end up associating with the Dems. Sure they're cracking up their own choir, but taking the party down in the process. There is something to be said for decorum and the Dems have none of it right now. The GOP doesn't really have it either, but they manage to distance themselves somehow.

Also, people tend to view the Dems as elites - the GOP has done a very good job of setting themselves up as this sort of underdog party composed of everyday people who are fighting the arrogant, liberal elitists who want to tell everyone how to run their lives.

Note - I don't think that the impression created is TRUE, but I think the impression exists, and the democrats need to see reality for what it is and address it.

 
At 8:15 PM, Blogger Drunken Proletariat said...

r. scott kimsey

There are indeed shrill voices on the "left" as you so describe them. M. Moore is a so-so documentary film maker. He's done some OK stuff. Al Franken correctly deduced that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

If these two examples are to be held as what is wrong and shrill with the "left," as if they could out-shrill Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Buchanan, and the many others, then the "left" could do far worse.
There are a few documentary-DVDs out there that are more informative but less well known.
How about, "Unprecedented- How Bush Stole the 2000 Election." "The Corporation", "Uncovered-the Truth About the Iraq War"; etc, etc. These kind of documentaries are being released more frequently up here. (Canada) Are you getting them down there? I get them from my local video rental igloo...

DP from
The Great Frozen Socialist North

 

Post a Comment

<< Home