Friday, August 24, 2007



Poor Nancy!

Any chance of the Democrats actually leading, at least in a meaningful way, on extricating the country from Bush's failed and catastrophic Iraq policies and agenda ended when the House Democratic caucus picked a corrupt and manipulative war supporter as Majority Leader. The choice between one of the most reactionary members of the Democratic caucus, Jack Murtha, a born-again, anti-occupation zealot, and the middle of the road hack who has supported Bush's overall Iraq policies, Hoyer, was a Hobson's choice from the moment it was presented. It was also a signal of what to expect from the Democrats: they'd be better than the Republicans, but not by all that much.

And we've had the type of Congress one could expect from one burdened with unimaginative, triangulating, Insider leaders like Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. So not much has gotten accomplished. In fact, just the facts on the ground-- the Republicans' ability to kill all initiatives in the Senate through rampant obstructionism and the back up of Bush's veto power-- guarantee that not much would get accomplished. The capper was dictated by Nancy Pelosi-- who feels she didn't have the power to do otherwise-- when she took impeachment, or even the threat of impeachment, off the table.

Instead of bold leadership we get the drip, drip, drip of a crippled society's half measures as it gropes for consensus-- a consensus among those who were responsible for the crippling policies to begin with. So the big news today? Rubber stamp Republican Senator John Warner has some kind of a cockamamie plan for some troop withdrawals to prod the make-believe Bush puppet regime of the Greed Zone-- a plan that will probably prod most of them into moving up their time of abandoning Iraq for whatever post-quisling country they plan to live in. And, at the same time, you have one of Bush's pet generals, Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advising Bush that the party's over. In an assessment that will be at odds with the one the Regime is preparing for General BetrayUs to read to Congress next month, Pace wants Bush to withdraw at least half the U.S. forces.
Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.

According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.

Is there a long range solution to these kinds of problems? Yes, and they involve more and better Democrats. Matt, Chris and Mike over at OpenLeft have launched an initiative to educate readers about Bush Dogs, Democrats who vote the Republican agenda. It's time for progressives to realize that the Democratic Party is a sometimes somewhat useful ally; that's all. And it's time for us to stop wasting our time and resources and energy on electing and re-electing "Democrats" who vote against Democratic values and with Bush and the Republicans. There are Democratic primary races coming up that pit progressives against reactionaries. You want to help make Congress better? Think about Darcy Burner (WA), Steve Cohen (TN), Donna Edwards (MD), John Laesch (IL), Rick Noriega (TX), Angie Paccione (CO), and Victoria Wulsin (OH).

This will never end, until we fix the Democratic Party:

Labels: , ,


At 10:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They don't fix the problems because so many of them are sucking at the corporate tit, just like the republicans.

I'm torn between abandoning the Dems and trying to reform them. (Forget the repubs; they are 100% rotten.) It looks like the best chance for reform comes from John Edwards.

I don't agree with everything he says, but he doesn't take corporate money and I really, really don't get the impression that he's in the race for self-aggrandizement like most of the others.

He has name recognition, no serious negatives, some good positives, and Bill O'Lielly hates his guts. What more could you ask for?

At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with your list of those to support, Howie. And Edwards is the best option for progressives/liberals. What can do he really have?

At 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about the typo. The question was, "What chance does he really have?"

At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Edwards is third among the Democrats, which isn't terrible. I like Kucinich and Gravel, but it's unlikely either will get the nomination or win the election even if they do, so maybe they'll endorse Edwards.

Biden is probably out, since he's too much like Hillary, but a much smaller name. Dodd isn't nearly as well known either.

So the anti-Hillary vote comes down to either Obama or Edwards. Edwards has more campaign experience and my guess is that Obama's support is not that strong. He's been seen as the un-Hillary, but he's losing support to her anyway (a victim of Hillary's Murdoch-supplied campaign money). It almost seems that Obama has peaked and is on the way down.

Edwards on the other hand seems to not quite have gotten his stride yet. When (if) he starts hitting on all cylinders, he could do well. It will take somewhat of a breakthrough to get the MSM to take him more seriously, so endorsements from other candidates would really help.

So yes, I think Edwards has a decent shot.

At 6:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and I forgot to mention Richardson. I like him too. He seems a smart and decent guy, if not that well known. There should be an important place for him in an Edwards administration.


Post a Comment

<< Home