So says Joe Sudbay (DC) at AMERICAblog
and ain't that the truth?
It's of course also a truth that many prominent Democrats seem to fear bar fights with bullies as much
as they fear a supposed backlash that might occur should they flat out tell Bush, "no more funding."
... or if they justifiably pursue impeachment of presidents, vice presidents and the most incompetent
attorney general in our history.
I don't know who they are afraid they will offend and why such an imagined offense might be catastrophic
to their political futures. Backbone is not birthed out of indecisiveness and courage does not emerge from timidity
and a failure to act.
Remember the videos last week of the mugger behind the open car door reaching around the door to punch
a helpless 90-year-old car-owner in the face before stealing his car? Remember all those folks standing by watching
and taking no immediate action to stop it?
That's the perception America is getting of Democrats who have been authorized and empowered to stop
a national crime family in its tracks - and can't bring themselves to do it.
Nor is it any kind of pretense to statesmanship when that pretense itself is not stopping the elephant
from farting and dropping turds in the family home.
I would rather that Congress cut off the funding, force immediate redeployment of the troops and then
suffer having its fears come home to roost politically than to continue to stand in quicksand and talk cheap talk.
Besides, with support for the President less than 30% there's very little risk of an electoral disaster
of the magnitude of the Reflublican 2006 losses. But if the cost of ending the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a future
electoral loss, then the Demo's should still do the right thing and take one for the country NOW.
We're in Iraq because liars pounced on our fear and indignation. Only after the Bushco tough talk did
we move indignation and anger ahead of fear.
Any president willing to sling guns and express it truthfully would have been adequate to the task.
For that reason political calculators like Hillary and Kerry voted to let the gunslinger unsling his
In that regard those few Democrats who back then voted against the gunslinger were absolutely correct.
They knew they were looking at Oil Can Henry and not Fearless Fosdick.
The rest of them knew the same thing but - considering themselves politically savvy and intimidated
by the raw emotion vivid in the American consciousness - voted to turn the idiot loose anyway.
Don't let those who voted to authorize the pyromaniac fool you. They knew he would unsling the guns
when they voted, regardless of the tip-toe through the wordage of diplomacy, inspections and U.N. articles.
Four years later, the bloody gunslinger still waves his weapons. The Demo's still keep trying to pretend
to a false political statesmanship and wisdom cause they are now more afraid of a new unknown.
They're afraid of the unknown where lurks an electorate whose feelings might be hurt if Congress acts
responsibly by putting the fire out. They fear that dumbed-down voters will believe it when the actual arsonists accuse Democrats
of not caring about the residents inside the burning house or the firefighters already there.
The first thing any sane person would do do is cut off the supply of flammable liquid spraying on the
inferno no matter the arsonists' predictions that the fire will get worse if we quit pouring gasoline on it.
Demos very much need to trust the electorate.
They need to forget whose poll says what and get rid of their dumbass consultants who make bloodsucking
livings with spin (did you watch Frank Luntz or John Fund on Real Time these past two weeks?)
They need to step away from the bar, kick over the gambling table and fight. They need to stop worrying
about whether or not there are any shallow Nascar and American Idol fans watching the haymakers land. They need to trust that
more of us won't buy lies about why the bar fight is happening.
You don't sustain democracy on lies nor with a lied-to electorate.
The idea that an elderly ex-president is the only one willing to take off his coat, roll up his sleeves and launch a haymaker is outrageous.
We don't need any "I'll-solve-it-all-after-I'm-elected" promises of a lady afraid to do something direct
here and now.
Nor do we need the charismatic smiling idealism of a new face afraid to do something direct here and
We need for all of those folks of influence to go join that uppity former president and start swinging
We certainly don't need any of those ten white reflublican candidates drooling over torture, expanding
Gitmo or imperialising even more an out-of-control executive branch.
But when they posture as deciders, they are on at least a particially correct track.
Why the hell would we elect anyone who sends us a message that we must be patient and let the house
continue burning for a while?
Why would we elect anyone stampeded by political declarations of reflublicans and conservatives about
chaos in the pottery barn when none of their previous predications every came to pass?
Why would we elect anyone who's afraid to hold accountable that one individual most in need of being
Why would we elect anyone afraid of impeachment as a tactic of pressure that could unleash legal and
political consequences on political failures - a president and his party?
The country needs that accountablity action before balance - even civility - ever returns to our political
discourse. Being nice to a bully in the name of civility isn't the first prescription for a return to health. Action that
will deter future bullies needs to come first before it will facilitate reasonable and civil discourse.
Otherwise we tolerate shallow posturing cause the bully might be walking softly but he's still bluffing
with his big stick.
We, the majority opinion in this country - regardless of party, have spoken through the ballot box.
We continue to speak clearly through the damn polls.
Although not a Democrat, I'm certainly not reluctant to vote against a Democrat's opponent - thereby
supporting a Democrat against my will - if there is no other choice.
But why should my choice deteriorate to something that silly?
The two most impressive candidates from the standpoint of taking a stand are Kucinich (D) and Ron Paul
(R) who are supposed lightweights with no chance, right?
Because our voting majority no longer has a civic sense, let alone an understanding of why all this
is important and significant in their own lives.
Without civic understanding and an interest in who governs wisely, our majority is content to leave
things to the candidate's managers, pollsters and spinners.
Those are the real power people who - based on fluff - spin their tales, cosmetic up their otherwise
ugly but most viable candidates and dictate to everyone else what we should think and how we should vote.
Why reward 2007 do-nothings in 2008 cause they are afraid to put on their shit-boots right now and
start mucking out the property?
Once again we're setting up a choice between the lesser of two evils.
... or maybe somebody like Unity08 may be the most valid 2008 choice.
Course Unity08'll only attract disillusioned ex choir-members like me, right?
Is that why a single political philosophy disguised as two-party wisdom is what most think is the only
Are we stuck with the worst and the dimmest?