« Looks like a trend | Main | I'm Not Dead »

December 09, 2007

Comments

Then why do you support Obama?

I'm increasingly convinced that he doesn't have it in him for this kind of fight, but will retreat into the "bipartisanship" so beloved of the Beltway press corps. Witness his feud with Paul Krugman this week.

Didn't some of us tell you this, rather stridently, some months back about why a strategy of playing it safe wouldn't work? :)

One thing you didn't touch on but seems a genuine concern to me about all this: faced with Republicans filled with zeal for more war, torture, and other sin and crime and seeing Democrats who continue to capitulate for every major step and most minor ones, a lot of voters could decide to stay home. It wouldn't do much good, after all, to get worked up for a candidate with a proven history of rolling over and going along on the things that matter most. And I think that there's a significant fraction of the Democratic establishment - consultants, campaign managers, and so on - who'd rather lose genteel-like than win thanks to the support of rabble-rousers and outsiders.

Good point by Tyronen above, also I don't see any real evidence that Dems making a stand could cause any change in the imperial Republicans. The Republicans might abandon their criminal leaders if they become a political liability, but they don't ever have to.

Basicly you seem to want something out of politics that you just can't get.

I suspect a lot of Senate Democrats are scared spineless of Joe Lieberman's quisling proclivities, especially on Iraq. Should Lieberman, who has demonstrated his propensity to swing both ways, formally change parties, control of the Senate would revert to the Republicans.

Publius: You take all the challenge out of bashing Democrats when you cover all the bases yourself. ;)

Frank, the Republicans have been demonstrating since 1994 that a determined minority can pull a lot of strings. There is, therefore, no innate reason why a determined majority on the Democratic side can't also pull a lot of strings. We have tangible evidence that the problem is one of bad decisions rather than lack of capability. It's not that a push back would make the Republicans be nice, only that it would deny them success.

John, as a matter of Senate rules, the chamber wouldn't realign until the start of the next term. This is, amusingly enough, a bit of Republican legacy if I'm remembering correctly, intended to reduce incentives for their own unfaithful to jump the aisle.

There is a nonzero probability that a significant fraction of the Democrats would actually prefer to be Sith lords.

The Dems are likely trapped in the fallacy of thinking that, sure enough, the Right Place to Take a Stand is going to come along ... FISA wasn't it, war funding wasn't it, but by golly, they will stand and fight ... once they find the right spot to do so. Of course, they never do, and the right spot never comes.

On the important point: "I’m not entirely sure why Luke had to fight Vader again to be Jedi. The characters are so archetypal that the fight lends itself to several interpretations. Maybe it’s Freudian – Luke had to take a stand against his father to become an adult. Maybe it’s psychological – Luke had to conquer his own inner demons (fear, hatred) before he could take the next step."

Both those were true. See also: Jungian.

"I’m sure there are many other interpretations as well."

Also, there was a crying need to kill a totalitarian, megalomaniacal, genocidally-slaughtering, Force-wielding, Jedi-annihilating, galaxy-ruling, Sith Lord, and Luke's facing Vader, whose destiny was to restore balance to the Force, was an essential part of that process if it were to happen.

Also Luke's spare-part sister was always available as a back-up, if Plan A didn't work out.

Morals: when defeating Force-wielding genocidal galaxy rulers, pay attention to old Jedi prophecies.

Also, always remember that you once had the hots for your twin sister. And be sure to have a twin sister.

And in the house-cleaning department, always mindwipe your dumber protocol driods.

These are lessons that, properly appreciated, all of us can put to use in our own lives.

"Reagan critics had a similarly short-sighted strategy. They focused more on procedure than on the merits of the underlying motivations and political ideology that led to Iran-Contra in the first place."

On these trivial, non-Force-related, issues, I'd say that this is quite true, although that went along with two things, one lesser, and one greater.

The lesser was that after President G. H. W. Bush pardoned those both indicted and convicted in Iran-Contra, Congress collectively shrugged, said 'whaddyagunnado?," and moved on, rather than trying to do anything further.

The larger was that while Reagan was still President, the most obvious and critical error was made by the Democrats, which was to be one giant pile of pudding that did nothing but quiver at the notion of an impeachment inquiry over Iran-Contra, and heave a mighty sigh of relief, followed by blessed amnesia, under the notion that it would simply be too distressing for The Republic to have two impeachment proceedings within fifteen years. Without that, there could be neither further push on process nor motivations and ideology -- which tend to be dismissed or ignored by many, unfortunately, as "boring" and "just politics" -- since there was no further push, period. Iran-Contra just vanished like Sauron after the Ring was destroyed.

Fortunately, history shows that avoiding two impeachments proceedings within fiften years, at all costs, turned out to be a bipartisan, not just Democratic notion cutting slack only for Republicans, and -- wait, I have to catch my cross-time bus now!

I find your surfeit of faith disturbing.

Bruce, I agree with you but Publius seemed to be saying the Dems could get rid of these Republicans by making a stand. I also think that we need to pay more attention to incentives. What incentive do congressional Dems have to do the right thing? Frankly I thing all their incentives go the other way.

Another way of putting the same advice is Bob McManus's old "heighten the contradictions."

Wait, that was actually Trotsky. As much as I've been yearning for a crisis and a decisive victory over evil these past few years, I don't think it's realistic to hope for one. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that the longing for decisive crises---and the impatience with being confused and surrounded by stupid viciousness---is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Anyway, I do agree that Democrats (and anyone else available) need to stand strong against, well, tyranny. I just don't think there's going to be a moment when we all get to light fireworks and sing the "jub-jub" song.

"Wait, that was actually Trotsky. As much as I've been yearning for a crisis and a decisive victory over evil these past few years, I don't think it's realistic to hope for one."

The key here is to get our Bothan Democratic spies to obtain plans to the Imperial Death Star, which may contain a hidden flaw we can used to defeat it. Many Democratic Bothans may have to die to obtain those plans.

Concentrated fire of all Rebel subpoenas might do the trick, along with a small strike team on an Imperial moon: it's so crazy, it just might work.

"I just don't think there's going to be a moment when we all get to light fireworks and sing the 'jub-jub' song."

Small blessings, although in our current Lucasian timeline, the "jub-jub" song never existed, any more than Darth ever looked like anyone other than Annakin Skywalker.

Star Wars demonstrates that restoring balance to the force was, on the whole, a very bad idea.

Likewise, seeking to govern from the mythical 'centrist' position is a loser's game. The only way to win is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

You know, a game where your side tries to win?

"Star Wars demonstrates that restoring balance to the force was, on the whole, a very bad idea."

"Restoring balance to the force" turned out to be Darth Vader turning on the Emperor, and killing him, but not, in the end, out of desire to replace him, but rather to save his son.

Thus Anakin Skywalker restored the galaxy to balance of the force, rather than overwhelming domination by the Sith and the Dark Side. Good idea or bad?: discuss. I'd suggest that in their universe, the Dark Side does, despite revisionist argument, remain a Bad Thing, if you let it dominate you. That, or perhaps you misunderstood the storyline of the films, and what the "balance of the force" referred to.

Or perhaps you'd like to argue the pro-Dark Side case, which some have made a fair job of, to be sure.

Are many ideas from the Star Wars movies applicable to our world? Also discuss. Suggestion: some ideas, yes; others? Not so much. Kinda part of my previous point.

On the bright side, the writers for our universe do better dialogue.

Nice post. A bit of devilish advocacy here, I might suggest that the Dems, especially those in the Senate, view anything other than their current talk tough, plan nice course of action as burning all the bridges and plowing salt in the fields, to mix images. Because for the Dems to start playing by the rules the Republicans made signals an acceptance of the kind of playing field that the Republicans created. I'm not very sympathetic to this, but I can see, in the insulated confines of the Senate, it may really be hard to imagine taking the kind of steps to punish the majority. I do think that the Dems are folling themselves, but the dynamic is like a couple that wants to get divorced, but stays together in the vain hope that things will eventually return to the way they were.

a virtual wave to jackmormon, who is missed.

The Dems are likely trapped in the fallacy of thinking that, sure enough, the Right Place to Take a Stand is going to come along ... FISA wasn't it, war funding wasn't it, but by golly, they will stand and fight ... once they find the right spot to do so. Of course, they never do, and the right spot never comes.

Yeah--they're thinking, with some cause, I believe, that things will get better under a Democratic President. There have been improvements in the legislation under Democratic leadership, frankly--there's precious little of this flag-burning or gay-bashing crap coming up. The important stuff isn't getting done yet, but the stupid stuff (for the most part) has stopped.

And I'm guessing that the Congressional leadership is saying to themselves that if they can only make it to 2009 with a Democratic President, then they can pass stuff without worrying about having to overturn a veto. They're also figuring on increased majorities, especially in the Senate, where they won't have to depend on Holy Joe as much as they do now. But that's a lot of hope, and in the meantime, we go deeper into the crapper.

Great post.

But the problem, publius, is one of incentives. You and I want to see the US have a rational foreign policy (although we might disagree on the margins about what exactly that means), so we want the Democrats to act in a way that maximizes the probability of a rational US foreign policy going forward.

Most Democratic elected officials would rather have a rational US foreign policy than not. But as a preference, it's on the order of choosing the egg nog latte over the peppermint cappuccino. It's certainly not what keeps them up at night. What keeps them up at night is getting re-elected, continuing to enjoy the prerogatives of their position.

Public service, helping the country, may not be something Democratic legislators balk at if it can be reconciled with the primary goal. But accepting a 2% greater chance of losing their job in return for a 25% greater chance of relegating the Cheneyite loonies to the sidelines forever is not a winning proposition for them. Given their preferences, it's a perfectly rational calculation for them -- accept significant damage to the country in return for minimizing risk to their own careers. Nothing hard to understand about that at all.

Unless Democratic voters punish Congressional Dems en masse by deserting them for opponents, either in a primary or in another party, their logic is impeccable.

"But eventually they'll be back. They always come back."

Well then, we have the wrong set of movies, don't we?

The Democrats need a Ripley to fight the Alien, with its ever-evolving viciousness. True, she (some semblance of she) became a host for the beast in the last installment, but she took care of it finally. It had its beasty innards sucked into the void, despite its Oedipal archetypicaliciosness. ... not a bad end for the Reagan revolution and its spawn.

Lieberman is the droid in each of the Alien movies. You never know whether he is for or against, but his blood looks like milk of magnesia.

Besides, the dialogue in Star Wars was ... archetypical? ... nah, banal.

I'd rather read Joseph Campbell.

Hello, Jackmormon. I wait, I do, for your supple observations and the odd recipe or two. ;)

And McManus' name came up in the thread, too.

If Hilzoy shows up, we'll have the trifecta, not that the rest of yous guys is so bad.

I'm here!

Trying to read everything I missed.

And I'm guessing that the Congressional leadership is saying to themselves that if they can only make it to 2009 with a Democratic President, then they can pass stuff without worrying about having to overturn a veto.

Right. They are assuming that they can win because they are not the Republicans, even though they pretty much act like the Republicans on things that matter.

This did not work for them in 2004. They are apparently gambling on the idea that their principal error in 2004 was simply nominating a liberal Vietnam-War protester from Massachusetts.

Given the narrowness of Kerry's defeat, that is not entirely implausible; but I have my reservations nonetheless.

(Funny how when the Dems lose, they think it's b/c they were too liberal, and when the Repubs lose, they think it's b/c they were ... too liberal.)

On national security issues, the Dems (or at least the leadership and a decent chunk of the caucus) continue to battle their own inner demons.

I like to refer to this group as the League of Frightened Democrats.

Luke confronted Vader to both rid Vader and to save Luke's father, Anakin.

In my last post, I was particularly harsh on Harry Reid, one of the two Democratic leaders the Left pinned their hopes on. You voted for 'em, and now they're your problem. Lucy. Charlie. Football. Whoosh. Reid and Pelosi got the power they wanted, and the liberal wing of the party was chumped. So what do you do now?

Charles: It's worth noting that there is an active Democratic opposition to our party establishment's continued collaboration with the lawlessness your party unleashed. There's funding for primary challenges to collaborators in the House and Senate, and for efforts to push the presidential primaries away from collaboration. (Tom Hayden pointed out some sources of money and people involved in allocating it for this purpose that I wasn't aware of until just today, in an article for The Nation.) Independent groups that have usually supported Democratic efforts remain independent and pursuing legal challenges and other efforts on their own, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. It may all not be sufficient, but it's there and a lot of people are putting time and effort into it.

Certainly the major campaigns, the DNC, and such groups are not saying of the Democratic masses what former presidential counsel Dan Barnett recently said of the major right-wing blogs: That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

In my last post, I was particularly harsh on Harry Reid

Yes: you complained that he was trying to do what he was elected to do, rather than what President Bush wants to happen.

Vader would win any popularity contest against that milkface Luke in our world. The same is probably not true for Lord Chain-Eye (btw, where is Han Solo?)

Lucy. Charlie. Football. Whoosh.
The story of bipartisanship. And yes, Reid and Pelosi have looked pretty Charlie Brownish lately. But that's our frame, Charles. I thought you were on the other side?

Vader v. Cthulhu in 2008?

The Anakin vs Luke discussion is even weirder for us Dutch folks, since the Dutch word for father is "vader".

Same deal on Mukasey and waterboarding.

Not quite the same deal as apparently some of them (including Pelosi) were well aware of waterboarding and other torture, “overseas detention sites”, etc. back in 2002. They didn’t have a problem with it then. In fact:

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Harman seems to have been the only one to protest until later 2005. The rest of them climbed on board when it became a public issue.

So I don’t see it as simply failing to stand their ground – their ground just isn’t all that different.

BTW this seems to me to be a fairly blatant blackmail attempt. You Dems pursue this tape issue and who knows what information might come out…

Charles:

"You voted for them (Reid and Pelosi) and now they're your problem. .... So what do you do now?"

Well, I, for one, will take that as a good-natured jab.

However, we (you, us, Lucy) all are in the same boat, which happens to be the Titanic, otherwise known as the Bush Administration, bow now upended, screws naked to the world.

Reid and Pelosi, while part of the crew tending to those of us in steerage, managed to secure spots on one of the few lifeboats, but they couldn't row fast enough to escape the undertow.

Meanwhile, back on the ship, those of us locked down in steerage, not to mention those who sustained traumatic head wounds manning and womanning the lifeboat winches, just learned that the Alien has a nest below decks and Glenn Close is boiling one of the last lapins for a final meal, as if we didn't have enough problems.

They wave to the rest of us on board as the orchestra plays. I'm a little disappointed in them, but they did detect the iceberg before the first-class stewards did and issued warnings, and as far as I know, they weren't the ones who decided to equip the ship with hardly any lifeboats and order full speed ahead into the fog.

Now, let me ask you. Who are you in this scenario? I have a feeling you think you are Leonard Decaprio, which doesn't seem fair to the rest of us, even though the pretty boy ended up drinking most of the North Atlantic.

Are you the unsinkable Molly Brown?

I've got it. You're the guy who put on a dress and a bonnet (not that there is anything wrong with that; a little cross-dressing in the service of avoiding drowning seems a good strategy) and snuck onto a lifeboat reserved for the women and children*, he suggested good-naturedly.

I thought Colin Powell was cast for that role.

What if the women and children get hungry? What or whom will they eat?

The designer of the vessel, the owner of the cruise company, and the skipper, not to mention all of the wags who cheered the Titanic on from their perch behind megaphones back in port and who were afraid of the water, not having any previous nautical experience, were, in this version, airlifted off by helicopter to avoid Davy Jones and the Death Tax, which is worse than death.

They'll write books from Crawford and tend to their legacy.

You don't think you were on the copter, do you, because out here in movieland, we would term that chutzpah, or at least an ironic plot twist.

My strategy for the Democratic leadership is a domestic political surge ........ more troops, carpet bombing with tactical nuclear weapons, door-to-door hand-to-hand combat under cover of night with night vision equipment, all funded by a tax hike.

* Sidebar. Early in the Beatles' career, their chartered tour plane had mechanical trouble in a storm over the U.S. After some white knuckle-moments and panicky silence (during which John Lennon reportedly ran up and down the aisle trying to find a way out at 20,000 feet, George Harrison (funnier than folks thought) cracked to their underlings: "Remember, in case of emergency, Beatles and children off the plane first."

A tortured analogy, John, and I oppose torture. Let's just say that I stepped off the Bush steamer and went aboard USS McCain.

The most accurate depiction of the USS McCain I've ever seen [about a minute in].

Since when does the Constitution label kibitzing torture? Incidentally, I hope your colleagues at Red State who favor waterboarding are listening, because the method obviously doesn't work on you.

"USS McCain"

That's a rather pompous name for a dinghy. Do you have champagne on board?

OCSteve:

".... who knows what might come out."

I'm an equal-opportunity impeacher, if it turns out Monica serviced everyone.

Thing is, I think the Dems in Congress were offered the same deal as Musharef was after 9/11, which went roughly like this, given Republican tactics: You guys are either with us or we label you defeatocrats. If you're with us, we label you defeatocrats anyway.

Hey, I don't know how, in my 10:37am comment, the screws on the Titanic ended up on the bow.

That vessel had more design flaws than even James Cameron knew.

@dutchmarbel:

You motivated me to look up the origin of Vader's name in Wikipedia.

In a 2005 interview, Lucas was asked the origins of the name "Darth Vader", and replied: "Darth is a contraction of Dark Lord of the Sith. And Vader is a variation of father. So it's basically Dark Father." (Rolling Stone, June 2, 2005). "Vader" is the Dutch word for "father", which featured in some explanatory theories of Darth Vader's (the Dutch word is instead pronounced as IPA: [ˈfɑdər]) name. However, in J.W. Rinzler's 2007 book, The Making of Star Wars, a vintage quote from Lucas states that the name came "out of thin air", and may have been a corruption of "dark water". In draft scripts for Star Wars, the name "Darth Vader" was given to a human Imperial general who assists a Sith lord named "Prince Valorum".

Let's just say that I stepped off the Bush steamer and went aboard USS McCain.

That's a nice thought, and it's good that you notice that Bush hasn't been so good for the country. But you're kind of a day late and a dollar short.

There is no USS McCain. Bush is the horse we all get to ride until he's done. Then, after he's retired to Crawford and had a couple of public buildings named after him, we'll get to try to clean up the mess he's made of this country. It'll take a generation, if it ever really happens at all.

If it seems like I'm trying to stick it to you, it might be that I am, but it's not personal. I'm just looking for somebody, somewhere, who will actually step up and own the responsibility for the mess we're in.

I do, sincerely, appreciate that you're not a knee-jerk Bushie, but "I'm on the USS McCain now" just doesn't get me all the way there. For whatever that's worth.

I'm not sure conservative folks appreciate how much damage has been done and how, frankly, disgusted the rest of us are. This nation has been sold down a rathole, and it's the "conservative movement" that did the selling.

I'm not sure the Democratic leadership gets it, either, but at least we have a lever for pointing it out to them.

Thanks -

FYI, it's the "Yub Nub" song. Jub-Jub is Selma's iguana on "The Simpsons".

"Not quite the same deal as apparently some of them (including Pelosi) were well aware of waterboarding and other torture, 'overseas detention sites', etc. back in 2002. They didn’t have a problem with it then."

Steve -- can we be less formal, and I call you "Steve"? Or should I stick with your full name of "OCSteve,"?

;-)

OCSteve, might I gently suggest that "a government official" is not apt to be a non-political/apolitical, objective, unbiased, uninterested, source of opinion and characterization on matters such as this?

This is not to say that I know anything more than you do as to what Congressional leaders were and weren't told, or that I in any way, at this moment, know that Pelosi, and other Democrats, weren't thoroughly informed, indeed, and acquiescent, and thus fully deserving of condemnation.

It's just to say that, without lecturing, I hope, one reads to read news carefully, to examine who they're quoting, and then always consider "who benefits," and who might be leaking, and why, and factor that into what one doesn't know, and can't necessarily take at face value.

Because, as it turns out, "government officials" who speak to the press, particularly anonymously, always have a reason and motive for doing so. And it's not always to speak to inform the public as truthfully and fully as possible.

I'd like to see some objective documentation before I take an anonymous government official's word, or assume that said official is completely non-political, and wouldn't dream of distorting who said what five years ago.

Because it turns out that such things aren't, always, you know, I'm sure, true. This is not necessarily any different than quoting an anonymous "government official" on Iraq's WMDs, or Vietnam's body counts, or Watergate, or, if you prefer, whatever of Bill Clinton's statements you like, beyond "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Or maybe it's the strict truth. I couldn't say right now.

But I do know that I can't say.

OCSteve: If there's more to that than a hit piece, then those Congresscritters should be gone too. Which is what we need investigations for. There's not much in the way of named sources or anything in the article, the only Congresscritter who actually talked said he didn't get any briefings like they mentioned. Has anybody asked the Republicans on the committees? Not that any of them would have protested if they were briefed about torture, sadly.

Gary: Steve is fine although we do have another Steve around from time to time. I’m sure he wouldn’t want to be mistaken for me. ;)

Because, as it turns out, "government officials" who speak to the press, particularly anonymously, always have a reason and motive for doing so. And it's not always to speak to inform the public as truthfully and fully as possible.

You’re correct of course. (I speculated that it may even be to pressure Democrats to back off.) However in this case they weren’t all anonymous. Goss is named. Certainly you can say he is partisan, but who isn’t in a story like this? Harman is on the record. I guess she could just be trying to get even with Pelosi for not letting her keep the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, but she’s never struck me as being petty. Roberts, Rockefeller, and Pelosi are declining to comment, rather than denying the claims.

You’re quite right to insist on more evidence. OTOH the article isn’t based entirely on unnamed sources.

"Certainly you can say he is partisan, but who isn’t in a story like this?"

It should nonetheless be said that it's not as if Porter Goss was some guy who made DCI by working his way up the ladder over the decades. He was a career fiercely partisan Republican Congressman, with a brief long-ago past in the CIA, and a long stint on the House Intelligence Committee, given the job with the mandate of being a G. W. Bush loyalist.

So without vouching for the honor or trustworthiness or neutrality of anyone else involved, at the moment, I'll have to say that I'm particularly apt to assume that most things Porter Goss say have only a dating relationship with the truth.

But, as I said, I'm not trying to exonerate anyone right now, either. I just can't see coming to any conclusions about this yet. And, of course, while I do judge decisions made in 2002 a little differently than those made five years later, if any Democrat didn't object to waterboarding in 2002, I'll certainly condemn for that, and look to see them replaced with a steadier officer-holder in times of great crisis.

It's not like I'm Reid and Pelosi's love-child, after all, out to defend them just because, or without decent reason.

(If I were their sekrit love-child, I'd hope at least for a cushy lobbying job, though. I'd earn my pay!)

I don't understand why Pelosi isn't outraged by this Washington Post story, unless there's some truth to it and she's afraid if she acts outraged she'll be caught in a lie. But maybe there is some reason for her behavior that doesn't involve guilt.

OCSteve wrote--

"BTW this seems to me to be a fairly blatant blackmail attempt. You Dems pursue this tape issue and who knows what information might come out…"

On a more general note, I've always half-suspected this is how Washington works. We won't go after your war criminals if you won't go after ours. Not that I'm claiming this Pelosi story as vindication--maybe it's wrong. But it's how I've always imagined things.

Rather than squarely fight abuse of executive authority and ultra-nationalist anti-communism,

So are you saying they shou;d have fought ultra-nationalism, anti-communism, or both?

"On national security issues, the Dems (or at least the leadership and a decent chunk of the caucus) continue to battle their own inner demons. Privately, I think nearly all of them disagree with Bush’s policies on the merits. And to their credit, they do at least initially criticize them. But when push comes to shove, they remain (unlike Bush) too afraid to play the game of chicken that will ultimately be required. That’s why we see the pattern noted above – early opposition followed by grudging acquiescence."

The ironic thing from my point of view is that part of the mythos about modern Democrats (and I'm not getting into what measure it is or isn't deserved) is that they can't be trusted to stand up for our interests in an international setting. And the fear of that reputation causes them to not stand up for what they believe to be our interests in a domestic setting.

Privately, I think nearly all of them disagree with Bush’s policies on the merits.

I am becoming more and more skeptical of this every day. Right now I'd estimate that about 50% of the Congressional Dems favor Bush's policies on the merits, 20% oppose them to some greater or lesser degree, and the remainder don't care one way or the other. Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer are definitely in the 50%.

And the fear of that reputation causes them to not stand up for what they believe to be our interests in a domestic setting.

Stings like a bitch, doesn't it?

And the fear of that reputation causes them to not stand up for what they believe to be our interests in a domestic setting.

Yep, I'm getting increasingly tired of this silly little game. They also live comfortable lives and don't want to do anything that will mess that up. And so the war, albeit smaller, will continue because there are just too many people making too much money off it.

Part of me just wants to let Ron Paul go ape on the whole friggin system.

This Tom Tomorrow comic is a fine illustration of publius' post, and has remained sadly relevant for the last five years. Another in the series, just after the death of Paul Wellstone.

That second comic highlights the giant chicken and egg problem we face: I'm glad that I never voted for the cryogenically preserved head of Dianne Feinstein during my years as a California voter. I'll happily support any primary challenge to her, however unlikely. But what we're dealing with is a system, one tentacle of which is the legalized bribery of the campaign finance setup. Yet we'll never get public financing or any structural change with the dynastic dinosaurs now in place...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad