Maybe Lieberman Is Right
No, I'm just kidding. The problem is that I had an experience today that I usually just hear about. I came upon a couple of liberals eating their young and trying to burn down the establishment all in a few comments on a post. The post was about Democrats failing to be sufficiently cynical in attacking Bush.
When I tried to intervene and remind these raging lefties that we want to take Congress from the insane right wingers, I got scorched. It turns out that any attempt to govern may well involve some form of compromise. Compromise is strictly verboten by order of the mob forming outside the window.
Regardless of whatever substantive issues may have been at hand, the overwhelming impression was that Democrats are bad. We haven't managed to find the secret key to open the path that will take us to a liberal majority without any compromise to reality or anything else. That makes us bad, bad, bad.
These bad Democrats are all taking their marching orders from Skull and Bones along with *shudder*...the DLC. If we follow them back to their secret headquarters, we might find Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa.
Anyone who didn't know better might have gone past this comment thread and thought there was no difference between those two bickering parties. What we really need is for someone to rise above it all and lead. No, wait! That's what Bush is claiming to do.
I probably would agree or sympathize with the criticism being made but the heat was turned up way too high. One must draw a distinction between those Republicans in power and those Democrats in the minority. Blaming Democrats for failing to stop Bush is blaming the victims.
Bush is what we got the last time militant liberals decided an election. Yes, the heat was turned up pretty high in this post but only out of love. We need you to take all this pent up emotion and use it constructively. Write your Democratic delegation and ask them to implement/talk about your idea. Do the same for your local Democratic candidates.
Just remember that a less than perfect Democrat beats Bush on the merits every time.
I think you are unfair regarding 2000. The stakes seemed rather lower, there was some loss of heart because of the Lewinsky affair, and there was Nader. I suppose that is the militant left you mention. Given that it was a very close thing and Gore nearly (or actually) won, militant lefties shouldn't take more than some small amount of blame.
Otherwise, I agree with your thrust. Still, when the other side is taking no prisoners it is hard to stick to the high road. I don't mind if the crowd rages as long as they don't split the vote.
I'll vote for the good over the impossible perfect.
August 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's all I'm asking of BevD and a few others who sparked this post. Please don't split the vote. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Democratic mistakes. The problem is when the criticism becomes about the Democrats and not individual mistakes. Then, we're reinforcing Republican talking points.
As for talking trash about Republicans, anything goes in my honest opinion. They have crossed the line of decency far too many times for me to care about being fair to them. I'm trying to convince people at home to toss out our relatively mild Republicans because they vote for the rabid, right wing leadership.
Always a pleasure to read your comments, Tom. The stakes did seem lower in 2000 and I thought I was exaggerating when I first wrote about how bad the Shrub would be. I learned both lessons.
John
For more go to my online journal.
August 13, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Onion had it right in 2000. You couldn't have exaggerated if you had tried to.
August 13, 2006 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink