March 17, 2006
The New Republic or SSDD
The New Republic, that ever edgy, always on point mouthpiece for the Democratic Leadership Council sent out their daily digest with not one but TWO articles castigating Sen. Russ Feingold for his resolution to censure the President. The first one is ostensibly a piece about the talking points the GOP will likely use this fall. The author does manage to drill down pretty quick to the real message... that Feingold's resolution hurts Democrats.
Mark me down as someone who thinks all the talk of censure and impeachment--let alone any substantive steps in that direction--is a horrible, horrible idea that could benefit no one but a Democratic presidential contender or two.
So it doesn't help anyone but Feingold? Gee, I always thought that pointing out the failures and incompetence of Republicans, personified by none other than the guy Sen. Feingold is resolving to censure, is always helpful to Democrats looking to differentiate themselves from those same Republicans. One thing that's always bugged me about DLC folks is that they don't understand a simple truth about Americans... people WANT and NEED to see a difference and calling bullshit on bad work is never a mistake. Of course, Democrats need their own positive agenda. Still, to get people to open their ears for that agenda you first have to show the other side is failing. BADLY. The great part about it is that the Republicans are making it extremely easy for us. Nevertheless, the author presses on...
If Democrats edge closer to taking back the House or Senate--and conditions on the ground suggest they're not quite there yet--this could be the thing that prevents them from getting over the hump.
Oh chicken little... get a fucking life.
The next article is more to the point on Feingold as an 'ass' for putting his own interest ahead of 'the party and the country'. Pardon me while I call BULLSHIT on this horrendous piece of commentary.
The nature of the split is obvious. Feingold is thinking about 2008. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and other Democrats are thinking about 2006. Feingold cares about wooing the anti-Bush donor base on the web and putting some of his '08 rivals--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh--in uncomfortable positions. Reid and Schumer care about winning the six seats it will take for Democrats to win control of the Senate.
Reid and Schumer have been consistently unable to swing debate to the Democratic side. Feingold, with one bold act, has people talking. Instead of joining on and following his lead, going on the offensive and keeping the R's on the path of desperation (you know, the one that leads to the constant mistakes for which they are sooo well known), they've decided to deride him as an opportunist. SURE HE IS, just like the author of this shitty piece and the Senators who didn't have the balls to file their own censure resolution first. The only reason HRC didn't file her own resolution is because it would have looked like payback for Bill's impeachment.
In 1994, against the Republican leadership, Newt Gingrich seized the initiative, rallied that base and brought a Republican majority to the House. He had faith in ideas, in the message and in the base to get out and vote. Our leadership, other than Feingold and a few others, refuses to trust the base and instead has embarked on a path that will inevitably lead to the end of the Democratic Party. With 'leadership' like this from our elected leaders in DC (and their apologists) is it any wonder that the base trusts them less and less?
Posted by mcblogger at March 17, 2006 10:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mcblogger.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/139
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
