GOP may be down, but Dems can’t seem to kick them

2005.12.12 — Government | Politics | by Tysto

An exchange between a general and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sparked a lively debate among the staff of Tysto. We're coming to grips not only with the downfall of the Republican party (Iraq quaqmire, lousy poll numbers, Delay indictment, Cunningham corruption, Rove neutering...) but also the place for Democrats in the new political climate.

Note: Rated M, for mature.

BB kicked it off, Wegal defined the topics, and Jason finished it with an inciteful analysis of John McCain.

• BB Rodriguez
• Wegal Pinsky
• Jason Botwick

Insubordination

This is so fucking awesome. You know they’re off the reservation when the military starts telling the SecDef to go to hell. —BBR
http://www.abc15.com/news/morenews/index.asp?did=23049

It's about time. I heard some hawkish former marine Vietnam vet Democrat blew his stack too. I think somebody should come out and just say the administration is flat out lying about what's going on in Iraq. —WP

I still haven't made up my mind about whether they're lying or whether they're incompetent. —JB

According to Google Fight: lying, hands down. —BBR

I still cannot understand why nobody in the press (at least that I've heard) is banging on this administration harder. I swear news organizations seem to be more worried about losing their ratings share by marginalizing whatever viewers are still supporting the president than they are about calling him an idiot liar. —WP

I thought this story was interesting in that respect: —JB
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html?pg=5

Can you believe that Jon Stewart seems to be the closest thing to insightful (if not objective) journalism that we have right now? —WP

Obviously you haven't seen the Tyra Banks Show. —JB

GWB: so bad he makes Republicans sick

Jason's prediction of some time back might actually come to pass. GWB got re-elected and he is screwing things up so horribly that Republicans everywhere might feel the bite in the next election. That is all working great except that people seem to be taking their sweet time in noticing that he is screwing things up. I am terrified that the administration's new media blitz of the last few days might actually quell the uproar that has finally started. —WP

There are two problems:

1) Nobody cares. Nobody cares that Bush/Republicans have trampled over everything they said they stood for in 2000. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with someone who still supports George Bush? It's about as interesting as having a discussion with people who defend intelligent design. There is no rational or critical thought going on there. In fact, these things are scorned, and replaced with ad hominem arguments.

2) Nobody is providing an alternative. That is, nobody from the Democrats is. Of course, there are tons of alternative ideas out there, just like there is tons of great music out there. But if you just listen to the major media outlets—which is hard to avoid—you don't know that there are better ideas than 50 Cent and Britney. —JB

Al Franken is a great source of comfort to me. He has people on who know what they’re talking about and are ready to step up and take power in 2006. And he points out that we are officially up shit creek in Iraq and nobody has any better ideas than to pull out now and let it collapse because it’s going to collapse anyway like Vietnam.

Calling Rambo

My only fear is that the Bushies will stick it out until a Dem gets in the White House; then the Reps can blame Dems for “lacking the will to win,” like they’ve bitched about Vietnam for 30 years. Seriously. Do you ever read some of that “we coulda won in Nam, if only we’d tried harder” shit? Like 10 years and 58,000 dead wasn’t trying hard enough. —BBR

The way things have gone in Iraq is similar to Vietnam in some ways, though certainly on a much smaller scale in terms of casualties. We have no stomach for something like Vietnam now, so I don't think it would ever get that bad in terms of US casualties. 

But I've read some stuff to the effect that there are some smart people finally being allowed to make some decisions on the ground in Iraq, and that some progress is being made as a result; I suspect these reports are a little premature, but I've heard the same things said about Vietnam, that near the end, some of our tactics and strategies were working, at least in the military sense—for example, the Vietcong had been largely marginalized in many regions—and that had there not been so much crazy stuff going on stateside, that we could've "won" there. —JB

I call bullshit. They didn't want us there. They didn't give a shit about democracy. We killed a couple of MILLION Vietnamese. We tried as hard as we could for longer than made any sense. World War Freaking 2 was shorter than Nam. Ten years we were there, and we couldn't even make the South strong enough to maintain a sovereign North-South split like in Korea. Ten years is not a war. Ten years is a way of life. —BBR

Get with the program or get out

Has anybody started a list of all the people (military, scientific, intelligence, regulatory, etc.) who are no longer in their jobs due to some 'friction' with this administration? It would be even more interesting to compare that list of people with the people that Bush has really supported, even in the face of incompetence (Rumsfeld, 'Brownie,' and whoever that church lady was that he nominated to be A PERMANENT FUCKING MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH!!!). —WP [wild-eyed emphasis his]

I'm sure there is. I like to read all the press that the Union of Concerned Scientists and like organizations generate when they sign petitions accusing the President and his administration of being anti-science. —JB

Indeed there is. It's quite something. And for kicks, here is a list of Bush hacks. —BBR

Who's left on the left?

GWB is almost my worst possible nightmare of a president. The only thing worse would be to get a really hard core lefty that could screw things up completely the other way. —WP

Name one hard-core lefty. Living. —JB

CASTRO! Bet your money on that bobtail nag for 2008! “The reports of my Parkinson’s are greatly exaggerated.” —BBR

OK, let's be realistic. Castro is not only a parody of his former self now, I'm not even convinced he's still alive. Therefore you are disqualified. Also, I should've stipulated that you have to name a living lefty who is eligible to become president of the US. Otherwise I would've suggested my new hero, Hugo Chavez. Or possibly LBJ, who everybody knows is still alive and living comfortably off his earnings from his string of casinos on the strip in Vegas. —JB

Neocon chapter 11

At least now I can feel comfortable in the idea that the neocons had their chance and blew it. —WP

Except not enough people understand or care about this. It's such a cliché to say this, but we are really living in the world of 1984. You guys should re-read that, it's so similar to what's going on today, it's chilling. —JB

Read it not too long ago. I stopped about 2/3 of the way, when Winston gets laid in the woods. I’m like a Hollywood producer. “Loved it! Greenlight! Get me Jude Law!” —BBR

I can't believe you stopped 2/3 of the way through 1984 [actual novel text]. You have to get to the end where they start explaining a bunch of the terms, like "doubleplusgood duckspeaker". I just love the Ministry of Peace and how there's this war going on the whole time that nobody knows anything about. What a great fucking book. —JB

Who shall lead us?

I just don't want democrats to blow it in the same way. I have to say that nobody on the democratic side impresses me right now. —WP

Because they all suck! What you're saying about the neocons blowing it? You could say that about Clinton and the "new" Democrats. They stormed into the White House with all this potential and momentum in 1992 and then fucked it all up. They were complicit in the Republican Revolution's desire to stomp out liberalism, to make it a dirty word.

The Democratic Party of FDR, LBJ and JFK is dead, and it won't be saved by Obama or Spitzer or anyone else. Any party that is so incompetent, self-important and bereft of new ideas and common sense that it can't crush a nincompoop like George Bush . . . it's time for a third party. —JB

Complicit? Come on, they overreached on gays in the military and national healthcare and got crushed by Gingrich and his Soviet hockey team. Sure, that’s blowing it, but Reagan made the L-word anathema years before when he stamped out Mondale. It’s the news media that was complicit in making liberalism dirty because they were scared to be smeared with it themselves. —BBR

Yeah, they were complicit. Complicit because Clinton et al essentially said, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", instead of standing up and saying, "Damn right I'm a liberal! And here's why. And here's why YOU should be." Clinton was very powerful. He moved the whole Democratic party out of the 40s and 60s and into the center. This was a great short term strategy: He was re-elected. But an unfortunate side effect of this cop out is that the Republicans, in order to regain the White House (and before that, the House & Senate), had to distinguish themselves from the Democrats, as Clinton had stolen their thunder. They did this by becoming even more right wing than Reagan ever dreamed (or probably wanted).

End result: Even boring ass, convictionless, gutless centrists like John Kerry are splattered with the now-pejorative label "liberal". I mean, he and Edwards were constantly portrayed as "among the most 5 liberal senators". Are you kidding? John Kerry is no liberal. Edwards is relatively liberal by today's standards, but he's hardly an LBJ-type. It's a joke. There are no liberals. There are no liberal ideas. People are too afraid to say them. Thus, the Democrats have nothing. They have nowhere to go now, they're totally trapped. And Clinton was driving that bus. —JB

Dean shall lead us! (Astray?)

I recently saw Howard Dean on some show, and the host asked him to explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats these days. Dean did a pretty good of differentiating. Philosophically, it made sense to me, in that what Dean was describing—or for that matter, what Bill Clinton described in his speech at the DNC a couple years ago—was what a Democrat or a liberal should be.

But no real Democrats are actually like that. They never get anything done. They have no new ideas. They go along with the status quo, the party line, or even the other party's line until something bad happens, and then out stomps Nancy Pelosi, who is basically Lucy from Peanuts all grown up, to bash the President or whoever. Boring. —JB

Sure, Nancy Pelosi is a hack, but wait till we regain power in Congress, and you’ll see environmental reforms, a national healthcare bill, pay-as-you-go spending, Medicare reform that makes sense, probably another fucking War Powers Act (Remember declaring war by act of Congress? Fuck, those were the days), some restructuring of Homeland Security, and—of course—fewer bribery scandals and, of course, more sex scandals. —BBR

If you think that when—come on, you mean "if", it's hardly a certainty—the Democrats regain Congress that there are going to be these great new pieces of liberal legislation sweeping through Congress, you need to clean your crack pipe. They will not have anywhere near the votes to accomplish something like a meaningful healthcare bill, or a meaningful bill of any kind.

And even if they do, Bush will veto it. And if he's out of office, the new Republican president will. And this is granting you that any of these idiots have any good ideas, which from what I can tell, they don't. And even if none of that was true, you're forgetting my main point, which is that no liberal has the balls to see these kind of fights through. Not one. There is no Democrat now that can stand up to the awesome power of both the lobbyists and the Republicans. —JB

Dean is the right guy to lead that effort, but I don’t know a Dem who is ready to put on the Big Shoes. Hillary is too polarizing. Obama is too young. Gore and Kerry are damaged goods. Lieberman is dead to me. Edwards might take another shot. That New Mexico governor—Bill Richardson—might be worth a shot. —BBR

I totally disagree about Dean. He is not as liberal as everyone thinks either. Plus, I guaran-fucking-tee he will put his foot in his big mouth at a crucial moment. Guaranteed. He is a loose cannon, even though he tries really hard not to be, and he's not charismatic enough to overcome that. —JB

Oh I completely agree. He's totally a loose cannon. But I think that's a good thing. As long as he doesn't call a former Marine a coward on TV. I think we've all learned that lesson. —BBR

Hillary is not only super polarizing, but I think she has a questionable record, and worse, she is a really, really bad liar. Even with the massive amount of money her husband could probably get into her coffers, she would get eaten alive in TV ads. She's awful.

Lieberman's the worst of all. He's a total traitor to real liberals.

I agree that Edwards and Richardson are interesting dudes. I might even vote for my homeboy, except that I feel like he is another Clinton in the sense that he could probably fire people up, get people believing that the Democrats could actually accomplish something, only to be massively disappointing as a liberal. Or worse, as you suggest, he might get stuck with Bush's mess and become like Jimmy Carter: good guy, caught by circumstances.

Richardson seems OK, but he's not white, which will be a strike against him in some minds. I'd like to hear more about his stands on stuff though.

I would more interested to see Eliot Spitzer run. He would have some big mountains to climb also, but at least the man has some balls, and he seems to usually be on the right side of some important issues, particularly the issues around corporate responsibility, which I think is a issue of huge importance and scope right now. He would lose probably, since he is literally a "New York Jew" and (worse?) a lawyer, which would be a more terrible sin than being of Mexican descent or a female to much of the country. —JB

This fucking country and its ethnic and gender hypocrisy. Shit. It's fucking heartbreaking. That piece I did on female heads of state sticks in my gut like a knife. We talk so fucking big and then shit on our boot heels like retards. —BBR

Hand-wringing is not a policy

We are lacking a party with fresh ideas. Simple ideas. Right ideas. We are lacking any kind of real leadership. And we are living under a system of government that is just corrupt enough to sustain its own momentum as it stumbles towards disaster.

And I say, the sooner we get there, the sooner things will start getting fixed, even if that means a plunge into something like the Dark Ages. —JB

The Dems are just lying low for now while the GOP devours itself in scandal and incompetence. They’ll perk up for the next election, and 2006 will bring a dozen new Dems into Congress, probably winning back the Senate and closing the gap in the House. Then we’ll seem some fresh-faced liberal Southerner/Midwesterner step forward preaching ethics and fiscal responsibility, effective security without destroying civil liberties—that kind of thing. —BBR

I don't think the Democrats are lying low by choice. Every chance they get they jump on the pedestal and start bashing and making asses of themselves. They have nothing and nobody. Watching them is like watching a really dumb, crazy dog chase it's tail over and over and over. It's the same fucking tail, and they never ever get anywhere.

Have you ever seen the two-dimensional political spectrum, or any of the other articles about alternate political continua? Every time I read one of those, I am reminded of how little diversity there is in the american political scene, and how none of the people in the federal govt represent my beliefs. Check it out. —JB

I’ve been listening to the audiobook for Don’t Know Much About History and find myself fascinated by how the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian perspectives differed from modern Dem and GOP perspectives. Hamilton was a wingnut who wanted a big, strong Federal government that was somewhat paternalistic (and a president elected for life), but he was a financial genius. Jefferson wanted small government and plenty of civil rights.

I think the Democrats could co-opt Republican issues of fiscal responsibility and smaller government and capture a lot of socially liberal Republicans but keep the civil rights lefties. That means ditching the some of the welfare-state mentality.

I don’t understand why the GOP doesn’t latch onto the civil liberties issue; they own the gun control issue and pay lip service to states' rights. I guess there’s just too much fascism inherent in the conservative view (“Leave me alone; I don’t want anybody telling me what to.... Hey! Stop what you’re doing, you pervert!”). —BBR

The McCain sanction

Honestly, as fucked up as it seems, McCain is going to be hard to beat... until he gives a speech and everyone goes, “Oh yeah, he’s a short, nasally, uninspiring wonk who wears cheap suits and needs to stay in Congress.” —BBR

I agree that McCain is not as cool as people seem to think he is. I really don't understand why people look to him as some kind of voice of reason in the frenzy of the Republican Party. He has a nice manner when he talks, but after all, he did support George Bush at every critical juncture, which in my book makes him a sheep. Yet, I would be surprised if he made it out of primaries without professing some pretty radical neo-conservatisms though.

What's going to happen when the "base" asks him why he won't support prayer in schools? Or when some guy like Rick Santorum asks him in a debate why he cares so much about the rights of terrorists not to be tortured? He's got good answers for those issues to people like us, but he's got to convince the same people that voted for George Bush that he's one of them.

Also, if the current "bring our boys home" trend continues in the electorate, he's going to have to either backpedal a long way, or completely reverse that trend and convince people that his "realistic" vision of the future over there—he believes we'll need to have a significant presence over there for at least a decade—is something we should be doing. Not convinced he's viable. —JB

f e e d b a c k

s i d e b a r