Thursday, March 23, 2006

Actually, It's Not Funny

Sometimes, I post humorous stories about Democratic spinelessness, like this telling cartoon or this, from The Onion:

"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul." "We can lose this," Reid added. "All it takes is a little lack of backbone." ***

Kennedy said that, even if the Democrats were to regain the upper hand in the midterm elections, they would still need to agree on a platform and chart a legislative agenda—an obstacle he called "insurmountable." "Universal health care, the war in Iraq, civil liberties, a living wage, gun control—we're not even close to a consensus within our own ranks," Kennedy said. "And even if we were, we wouldn't know how to implement that consensus." ***

[DNC Chair Howard Dean said]: "Over the last decade, we've found a reliably losing formula, and we're sticking with it." Dean reminded Democratic candidates to "stay on our unclear message, maintain a defensive, reactive posture, and keep an elitist distance from voters."

Funny. Really funny. And not funny at all. But you know what would make The Onion stop poking fun at Democratic infighting, lack of backbone, and continual return to a losing electoral formula? A party-line vote to censure the President.

Censure = Democratic panacea. Even if it doesn't get a majority. And I'm not joking.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The Onion has a field day whenever their satire makes for better factual reporting than anything put out by the NYTs and WaPo.

And this is one such case.

Feingold's measure was brilliant in that it exposed DLC-type Dems as Vichy Dems -- which supports the oft-repeated smear that Dems are indecisive panderers to special interests and political calculation without the backbone to stand up for even the most politically safe principle (not to mention the most politically fruitful strategy).

I won't be voting for any candidate - in 06 or 08 -- that won't stand with Feingold.

That includes Senate and Prezntial nominees -- Hillary or otherwise. If they can't see why it's worth voting for a losing measure -- then I can't see why it's worth voting for a losing candidate.