Lincoln wrote the other day ("The message sent by Milquetoast Democrats") that he has been underwhelmed by the "opposition" to President Bush provided by the other "major" party.
The reality is, the Democratic Party is mostly composed of spineless corporate stooges who would drink chicken blood if that was what the opinion polls suggested they should do. They've taken "drinking the Kool-Aid®" to a whole new dimension, although not yet to the same level as Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads, Bill O'Reilly's dildoheads, or William Donohue's anal rosary beads.
If the Democrats aren't capable of standing up to President Bush, how on earth can we expect them to stand up to Osama bin Laden (أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لاد), or Enron, or Halliburton, or Vladimir Putin (Владимир Владимирович Путин), or even those vicious ninja Girl Scouts selling their thin mints?
Step One to showing leadership is to speak out against the worst, most incompetent, most ineffective President, the worst Commander in Chief, the worst steward of our Constitution in the 217 years of its history. The Democrats must make the case that Bush is incompetent, because incredibly millions of Americans still believe not only that Bush believes in what he's doing, but that he actually knows what he's doing and is doing a good job at it. However, to stop there is to lose both the battle and the war, because tearing down our President will help us no more than merely toppling Saddam Hussein has helped the average Iraqi — a power vacuum really can be worse than a tyrant. We must show the American people that we have a real alternative to offer — not Bush, not chaos and defeat, but a third path — just as we must show the Iraqis (and they must also show us) that there is a third option to iron-fisted strongman or civil war.
It seems that asking the Democrats to stand up to Bush is almost as hopeless as asking Bushco to stand up to its corporate overlords. George Bush isn't from "the party of business," as the Republican Party used to be called; he is from the party of big business. Whatever is good for Wal-Mart® is good forHalliburton America. Senator Russ Feingold should not be a lone voice in the wilderness, he should be the leader of a growing choir.
President Bush's five years in office have been a massive "faith-based initiative," based on nothing more than Bush's "gut feelings" about what he should do. Make no mistake, there are occasions when the President must act quickly and therefore must trust his instincts. However, when the President is outlining broad policy directions, he must base those decisions not on a "gut check," but on careful consideration of the facts, including the opinions of outside experts of all political stripes. Anything less is a betrayal of the American people, but so is failing to stand up against such an abuse of power just because popular support isn't yet strong enough. If you wait until you are perceived as leaders to show some leadership, then you will never be anything but the mutt begging for table scraps.
Technorati tags: Politics, Democrats, Bush, Leadership
The reality is, the Democratic Party is mostly composed of spineless corporate stooges who would drink chicken blood if that was what the opinion polls suggested they should do. They've taken "drinking the Kool-Aid®" to a whole new dimension, although not yet to the same level as Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads, Bill O'Reilly's dildoheads, or William Donohue's anal rosary beads.
If the Democrats aren't capable of standing up to President Bush, how on earth can we expect them to stand up to Osama bin Laden (أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لاد), or Enron, or Halliburton, or Vladimir Putin (Владимир Владимирович Путин), or even those vicious ninja Girl Scouts selling their thin mints?
Step One to showing leadership is to speak out against the worst, most incompetent, most ineffective President, the worst Commander in Chief, the worst steward of our Constitution in the 217 years of its history. The Democrats must make the case that Bush is incompetent, because incredibly millions of Americans still believe not only that Bush believes in what he's doing, but that he actually knows what he's doing and is doing a good job at it. However, to stop there is to lose both the battle and the war, because tearing down our President will help us no more than merely toppling Saddam Hussein has helped the average Iraqi — a power vacuum really can be worse than a tyrant. We must show the American people that we have a real alternative to offer — not Bush, not chaos and defeat, but a third path — just as we must show the Iraqis (and they must also show us) that there is a third option to iron-fisted strongman or civil war.
It seems that asking the Democrats to stand up to Bush is almost as hopeless as asking Bushco to stand up to its corporate overlords. George Bush isn't from "the party of business," as the Republican Party used to be called; he is from the party of big business. Whatever is good for Wal-Mart® is good for
President Bush's five years in office have been a massive "faith-based initiative," based on nothing more than Bush's "gut feelings" about what he should do. Make no mistake, there are occasions when the President must act quickly and therefore must trust his instincts. However, when the President is outlining broad policy directions, he must base those decisions not on a "gut check," but on careful consideration of the facts, including the opinions of outside experts of all political stripes. Anything less is a betrayal of the American people, but so is failing to stand up against such an abuse of power just because popular support isn't yet strong enough. If you wait until you are perceived as leaders to show some leadership, then you will never be anything but the mutt begging for table scraps.
Technorati tags: Politics, Democrats, Bush, Leadership
|