A dilemma: If and as Republicans regain their senses, how do we respond?
>
I read with great interest DWT's report (see below) on the unprecedented--for a Republican congressman during this administration--efforts of Virginia's Tom Davis to pry likely-to-be-damning information out of Fortress Bush. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, doesn't this raise the question of how we respond to such behavior?
I mean, for going on five years now haven't we been saying that it's time for any Republicans who still have any sense and integrity to start showing them? How, then, do we treat them if and as they do? Let's say Tom Davis does a proverbial "heckuva job" with his investigation, pursuing all the appropriate lines of inquiry as vigorously and successfully as one might wish? Is there, then, a case for wishing him well in any efforts he makes to remain in government service? (Translation: let him hold onto his House seat?)
I think I can guess DWT's answer, and after five years it's easy enough to argue "too little, too late." There is, in addition, the relatively fresh precedent of the GOP's treatment of turncoat Democrats who--during Chimpy's first term*--sold their souls to the devil, thinking to save their sorry hides when it came time for reelection. A slew of them learned that in Karl Rove World there is no such thing as showing mercy toward an enemy (unless there is yet another angle being played).
But is there any hope for easing the debilitating polarization that so famously afflicts our current public life if we can't rise above this attitude? I don't know, I'm just asking.
- - - - - - - - - - -
*Forgive me, but it still blows my mind to think that we're talking about two terms, as president, of these United States, for such a low-grade specimen of humanity--"President George W. Two Terms Mandate Bush," as he's known to Planet Bush chief correspondent Lawton Smalls on Air America Radio's indispensable "Morning Sedition" broadcast. ("Indispensable," perhaps, but naturally about to be destroyed. Is it somehow reassuring to know that craven corporate imbecility isn't the exclusive province of the Right?)
posted by KenInNY @ 8:16 AM
2 comments
|
Reddit
2 Comments:
Well, Ken, that is an interesting question, of course. If Davis-- and other "moderate" or survivalist Republicans-- turn on BushCo then we should look at each race individually and give the Republican a fair kick in the tires. Who will Democrats nominate to take on Davis? Someone better? Someone worse? Davis, for example, opposes a woman's right to choice. You still want to look at him as a viable candidate? But let's take an even murkier case: Olympia Snowe of Maine, who is up for re-election next year. (I think she also has the highest approval ratings of any senator, by the way.) The other day she drove Grassley insane by refusing to go along with more tax cuts for millionaires. Good marks for Snowe? Yes, thank goodness she stopped the despicable bill from going further (for now; they'll insert it in a Conference and sneak it thru). However, she voted no on minimum wage and voted yes on all BushCo's other tax cuts for the wealthy and she, for all the patina of "independence" and a snap or two just before election time, she votes with them almost all the time. Even truly awful Democrats like Lieberman or either of the right-leaning Nelsons are much better, at least in terms of voting (Lieberman does damage to progressives and progressive ideas in much more subtle ways), than Snowe will ever be. And Davis has a lot of catching up to do even to get close to Snowe. But I'm glad he's starting now... sincere or not.
The long and short of it is whomever serves the interest of the people should get the vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home