Well, what did they expect?

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

I mean, naturally Bush is now going to select an arch conservative for the bench. And I personally don’t believe for a second that he nominated Miers in order to make his subsequent pick more palatable. More palatable to whom? The conservative base? They were going to love him anyway. The liberal base? That wasn’t going to happen no matter what. Miers or no Miers, the Democrats were still going to object.

Not that it will make any difference.

You know what the main problem the Democrats have right now is? No sense of blood lust. If a Democratic president were hemorrhaging support and mired in as many failures as Bush currently is, the GOP would be massing like sharks around a wounded dolphin, and then they would be tearing in from all directions. The Democrats still sound and feel like exactly what they are: The party out of power. The GOP is already making noises about eliminating the judicial filibuster. The Democrats should be right in their face, shouting, “Do it! C’mon, do it, you sum’bìŧçhëš. Get rid of the filibuster, I double dog dare you. Because if you do, then sooner or later–probably sooner–the balance of power will be reversed, we’ll be in charge, and we’re going to make you eat whatever changes you make now to benefit yourselves, you hypocritical, smug, power-hungry jáçkáššëš.”

‘Cause if the situation were reversed, that’s what the GOP would be doing.

Because the GOP fights fire with fire, while the Democrats fight fire with popcorn, and they’d be well-advised to get with the program and make the most of the opportunities that the sanctimonious smugness of Bush and company are handing them before it all slips away again.

PAD

290 comments on “Well, what did they expect?”

  1. Regarding Saddam and WMDs: It’s clear now that they weren’t there when we invaded in 2003 and there’s no evidence to support that he moved them to Syria (if he had, Syria would be having a fire sale on nerve agent to every terrorist from Moracco to Indonesia). And the simple fact is, any nerve agent he had prior to 1992 would have long since degraded anyway. As for the nukes, that’s a non-starter. It’s clear now that he wasn’t even close to building one.

    I’ve been convinced that Saddam did destroy his stockpiles, but he played games with the inspectors for two reasons. One was to save face. If he didn’t show at least some defiance to the inspectors, he’d look weak at home. The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops. He thought he was safe as long as he could keep us guessing.

    Anyway, that’s just my hypothesis.

  2. The essence of the straw man argument is to set up a dummy argument to tear down instead of the arguments your oponent is actually arguing.

    Over simplification is over simplification.

  3. The GOP is already making noises about eliminating the judicial filibuster. The Democrats should be right in their face, shouting, “Do it! C’mon, do it, you sum’bìŧçhëš. Get rid of the filibuster, I double dog dare you. Because if you do, then sooner or later–probably sooner–the balance of power will be reversed, we’ll be in charge, and we’re going to make you eat whatever changes you make now to benefit yourselves, you hypocritical, smug, power-hungry jáçkáššëš.”

    Why couldn’t the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don’t get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

  5. I keep hoping we’ll eventually reach the point where race will no longer be an issue in politics, but it’s clear we still have a ways to go before we get there.

    Ahh, but Den, according to the article, the blogger who posted the ‘minstrelized’ photo of Steele was African-American himself. It’s standard knowledge that one can use stereotypes to criticize a member of one’s own minority.

    Though I do dream of the day when an overwhelming majority of White voters also vote Democratic. Maybe then, race will no longer play a factor in politics.

  6. As an aside about keystrokes, they ARE a great form of exercise. And finger strength can be key in a variety of situations…

    roger: FYI, I am a cheater, because John and I share an office, and he’s a writer, so I had to ask him about it. I will admit to being guilty of oversimplification in my first argument, but maybe that’s the point. To echo Den, myself, and others, the ongoing investigation about all of this will be a wonderful display of parliamentary procedure, executive privilege, finger pointing, and most likely a token resignation at an intelligence agency or two, if they can find anyone still around from those days. In the end the only thing the Democrats have taken the lead on is avoiding issues that could get this country moving forward. All it’s going to take is a politician to figure out why, exactly, we’re in the state we’re in and then issue a report about it a year from now; it’s going to take a leader to make sure we’re not still at the same place when the politician finishes the report.

    And I don’t see a politician of note, in any party, at any level of government, that’s going to be that leader.

  7. The other is that I think he believe (mistakenly, as we now know), that the US would never invade Iraq if we believed there was a possibility that he could use chemical or biologial weapons on our troops.

    Yep. I’m unfortunately one of those poor souls who was duped by this Administration into believing Saddam had the WMD.

    I believe that as soon as our troops got to Baghdad, Saddam would release his WMD on them.

    But that never happened because Saddam didn’t have any WMD. It’s at that point I realize how much of a smegging cracker Bush is.

    So, why should I believe anything Bush has to say about the war?

    Why couldn’t the lame-duck congress just reverse the rules again before the session ends so they don’t get stuck on the dirty end of that stick?

    If that actually happened, and the Dems then retook control of the Senate, I would then not hesitate to have the rule changed (again) just to show the GOP that they can’t get away with dicking people around like that. 🙂

  8. Dang… the point I neglected to spell out in regards to oversimplification was that the issue is a huge, complex legal morass that gives anyone involved too much wiggle room to be pinned for a crime of any magnitude.

    And Den, I agree with your hypothesis as well. Iraq couldn’t look weak to its own citizens and also couldn’t look weak to its Arab neighbors. In several instances Saddam was fairly straightforward with UN inspectors about his disarmament efforts, only to immediately turn around once they left Iraq and tell the rest of the Middle East that he’d really pulled the wool over their eyes. In the end the UN (and by proxy the U.S., since we were depending on UN inspectors as our chief intelligence assets in Iraq) couldn’t trust Saddam, even when he was telling the truth. Atlantic Monthly did a huge investigation about this in its January/February 2004 issue, which also examined Rumsfield’s role in the planning of the war, particularly his willful ignoring of the Pentagon’s assessment of how big a force was necessary not only to win the war, but keep the peace the day after. I had really hoped Rumsfield would be the first person out on his ášš when the new term started.

  9. Rumsfeld was never going to be fired. He is part of the core trio with Cheney and Rove that are basically pulling Bush’s strings.

  10. My problem, Bill, is that you are attempting to get the entire Democratic party to take responsibility of a few people who threw Oreo cookies at a guy that they view as condoning whites only country clubs. You don’t even know these people are Democrats. You’re assuming they are because they don’t like this guy. You’re assuming they are because the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore (how odd that the Washington Times would frame an article that way…). Me, I find it incredibly funny and very clever.

    Yeesh, I thought I had a dark sense of humor…maybe they could chuck watermelons at him next. Would any of this be remotely funny to you if it were Republicans doing it? “Cause me, I’d want to see them ridden out of town on a rail.

    As for whether or not they were Democrats…are you serious? Look, if a bunch of thugs showed up at a Hillary Clinton rally and threw cigars at her I’d make the probably quite safe assumption that they were republicans. Especially if Republican leaders sanctioned and approved the action. Be real.

    Furthermore, how can you say “the one person in the article who was quoted happened to be a Democrat from Baltimore”. The article quoted the following:State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden; Delegate Salima Siler Marriott; Delegate Salima Siler Marriott; and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr (who at least had the class to apologize for his racial remarks).

    And nowhere did I claim that all democrats or even their leaders should take the blame or even apologize for these actions (though I think that would be classy and even politically savvy)

  11. In hindsight, I agree it was overly optimistic to think President Bush would politely accept Rumsfield’s end-of-term resignation. The only glimmer of hope I have now is thanks to term limits and VP Cheney’s assertion he’s not running, so both parties are going to have to put up or shut up. I imagine it will be a unique campaign in 2008, with neither party wanting anything to do with the last several years.

  12. “As for whether or not they were Democrats…are you serious? Look, if a bunch of thugs showed up at a Hillary Clinton rally and threw cigars at her I’d make the probably quite safe assumption that they were republicans. Especially if Republican leaders sanctioned and approved the action. Be real.”

    If that happened, I’d laugh my ášš off. That’s actually dámņ funny.

  14. Funny though it may be, as a political tactic I find it deplorable.

    In other news, the administration continues to blame their screw-ups on Clinton:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051102/ap_on_go_pr_wh/senate_iraq

    If Democrats want to talk about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed and the intelligence, they might want to start with looking at the previous administration and their own statements that they’ve made,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

    Yeah. Uh-huh. What they keep forgetting is that the previous administration didn’t conclude that they had to invade Iraq now as the only option to deal with Hussein. And, they didn’t underplan for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq and bog us down in quagmire with no realistic way for us to get out of it.

    That’s all on you, George.

  15. I bet you don’t like hecklers at ballgames either? For me, it’s the creativity that wins it points. It’s dámņ funny.

    Does it forward the debate? Not in the slightest.

    Does it make the point of the protestors clear? Actually, yes it does.

    And truthfully, the cigars should be thrown at speeches by Bill, not Hillary.

  16. This isn’t aimed at anyone in particular; I just got this as part of an email today and thought I’d share a quote:

    When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or
    any other kind of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or
    goals are in doubt. -Robert T. Pirsig, author and philosopher (1928- )

  17. In other news, the administration continues to blame their screw-ups on Clinton

    Yet, it was under Reagan that we gave Saddam those WMD.

    It was under Bush I that we were involved in the Gulf War but did not push to have Saddam removed from power.

    Twenty years from now, Republicans will still be blaming Clinton. Go figure.

  20. Hopefully, 20 years from now, the GOP will be blaming the two Democratic presidents from 2008-2016, and 2016 – 2024.

    (let me have my dreams)

  21. Personally, I’m just in a pissy mood that this administration is so incompetent, it’s so arrogant that it thinks the Law of Unintended Consequences doesn’t apply to them, that it thinks it’s OK to torture and run secret prisons and still claim the moral high ground….AND that there’s a sizable portion of the country that’s OK with that.

  22. “And your posts make you look like a moron, I mean… well, yeah, a moron.”

    You girls, I mean, gyrls, say the sweetest things.

  23. “Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren’t simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent.”

    Apparently, some of Maryland’s Democrats don;t find the place to be abhorrent.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20050708/ai_n14724780

    “The delightfully silly Groucho Marx once quipped that he wouldn’t want to belong to a club that would have him as a member.

    The bon mot came to mind this week following Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s appallingly silly response to criticism about his recent fundraiser at a private club that’s never had a black member.

    Hypocrisy, the governor retorted. Democrats have used the Elkridge Club in the past. That the club is all white wasn’t an issue then. But it immediately became one when a Republican rented the facility.

    Ehrlich continued that the press was complicit. It failed to explore the issue of race following visits by Democrats.

    He’s correct, of course. The media didn’t devote a drop of ink or a second of air time to the club’s racial composition when Democrats raised money there.”

  24. John wrote:

    “However, I am not understanding the intent of ‘lyberals’ and ‘progressyves’. This doesn’t change the pronunciation in any way, it’s just spelled wrong. And I’m unaware of any political connotations related to the i/y usage, similar to the connotations one finds with the ‘c/k’ in ‘Amerika’.

    This is purely a scholarly pursuit of understanding the intent behind the wording chosen.”

    Well, since you’re curious, and I think I know what this is about … I believe this is meant to be a play on/stab at the idea of spelling women “womyn” in order to make the word not just an expansion of the word “men”, or whatever the reasoning behind “womyn” was. Hope that helps with your scholarly pursuing 🙂

  25. 1″Bill: You are familiar, of course, with Mr. Steele? This is the elected official who happens to be black who said he saw nothing inappropriate whatsoever with a fellow Republican holding a fund-raiser at a whites only country club. The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign aren’t simply Democrats, they are African-Americans. Their status as Democrats is a side issue that detracts from the real point: white only country clubs are abhorrent.”

    Sure. They are. But aside from Bill’s point that Democrats have used the same abhorrent club, how are the criticisms against Steele NOT racist? They are using all sorts of racial slander that had he been a black democrat, we would not be standing further. The fact that there are members of the democratic party *defending* the racism just shows some of these leaders are sliding into irrelevance.

    I love the hypocrisy of politics. Can’t side with the Republicans…can’t side with the democrats…

  26. Whoops….that was not Bill who brought up that point about democrats using the same club. Sorry for misattributing the comment.

  27. Just when I’m ready to give up on the Republican Party and give the Democrats a thought they go and do something that reminds me how craven they are: the results of the Online Freedom of Speech Act:

    Republican Yes– 179 No–38
    Democratic Yes–46 No–143 Not present–13
    (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll559.xml)

    Even the far left Kos of Dailykos.com is angry with the result: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/52053/6206

    He gives credit to the Democrats who “didn’t fall prey to the fear mongering of the campaign finance groups” and “…are the Democrats who care about nurturing and protecting our nascent medium from those who’d rather destroy it.”

    He couldn’t quite bring himself to give any credit to the majority of Republicans who did the same but I wouldn’t really expect him to. Nevertheless, it reminds me once again which side I have the most fear of. In my own experience, I’ve had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression. Obviously, other’s mileage may vary.

    On this issue however, both sides should be working together. I can see why the powerful would love to strangle the internet in it’s crib but I can’t imagine why we would let them.

  28. “Sure. They are. But aside from Bill’s point that Democrats have used the same abhorrent club, how are the criticisms against Steele NOT racist? They are using all sorts of racial slander that had he been a black democrat, we would not be standing further. The fact that there are members of the democratic party *defending* the racism just shows some of these leaders are sliding into irrelevance.

    I love the hypocrisy of politics. Can’t side with the Republicans…can’t side with the democrats…”

    Here’s the long and the short of it. If blacks want to call him an Uncle Tom, that’s their right. If whites want to call him an Uncle Tom, then that’s racist. I know Jerry will give me a raft of šhìŧ for not willing to take a stand against it, but again, that’s my opinion. You don’t like it, too bad.

    And yes, I find the Democrats’ use of the same facility for fundraising to be equally abhorrent.

  29. Bill: Re-read the piece on Kos (it’s not written by Kos, it’s written by another member of the board). Key quote: Instead, what’s going on here is that there’s a certain wing of both parties (mostly ours) that believes that regulation is the way to stem campaign finance abuses.

    Also, the bill isn’t dead (fortunately). Apparently this thing was brought up under some weird rules that limited debate on the measure. My rep voted against it, and I’m going to find out why.

    Here is the link to the article in question: Daily Kos

  32. In my own experience, I’ve had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression.

    Bill, this is another of those “don’t believe the vote at face value” situations.

    The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet.

    This bill allows bloggers to be more free with their speech, but it also had a bit tacked on that creates a campaign finance loophole.

    That is what the Democrats voted against.

  33. I’d say the bigger thing to worry about, Bill, is the continued use of bill amendments.

    Many of them are little things that are quickly glossed over by the media (and then you get situations like this vote), or they have nothing to do with the bill in question, it’s just there for furthering a political agenda.

    It’s easy to say “Ðámņ those Democrats for voting against free speech”, but people are just as dámņëd for not bothering to pay attention to the fine print of WHY it was voted against.

  34. Bill: Re-read the piece on Kos (it’s not written by Kos, it’s written by another member of the board).

    Either I’m losing my mind or you’re wrong (yeah, yeah, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, ba dum bump) because http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/52053/6206, the one I wrote about, is most certainly written by Kos.

    More information about the bill at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/1/101218/680

    The arguments that because the internet may be abused so we have to suppress it may appeal to certain segments of the population but not to me. Only those who think that they will forver be a political minority should fear the net. Right now that seems to be mostly Democrats. I’m not with Kos most of the time but he’s absolutely right on this one (why wouldn’t he–it’s his neck on the line).

    The good news is, I expect this to galvanize people and those who voted against it will be hit with more emails than they will know what to do with. As with the Kelo case, we may lose the battle but it will end up being a setback that ultimately wins the war. (And that makes 2 for 2 for Nacy Pelosi, who apparently hasn’t seen a government intrusion she didn’t like, unless it involves fetuses).

  35. The arguments that because the internet may be abused so we have to suppress it may appeal to certain segments of the population but not to me.

    I fail to see how this is suppressing the internet. The campaign finance reform was, imo, an important step.

    Wanting to introduce another loophole is a blatant disregard for what was previously agreed upon by Congress.

    I also fail to see how my views on campaign financing have anything to do with supposedly being in a political minority – plain and simple, these morons spend far too much money on political campaigns, and it should be limited (up to and including spending on the internet).

  37. The idea that a bill introduced in the Senate by Democratic Leader Harry Reid is a secretattempt by the Republicans to do whatever it is you think they are doing…oh well.

  38. In my own experience, I’ve had more attempts by the left than by the right to stop freedom of thought and expression.

    In my experience, it’s about 50-50. Can’t trust any politicians, especially when they say they’re doing it for our own good.

  41. The idea that a bill introduced in the Senate by Democratic Leader Harry Reid is a secretattempt by the Republicans to do whatever it is you think they are doing…oh well.

    So, did you plan on debating the problems with this bill and the loophole for campaign finance, or are you just going to continue to disparage people without reason?

  42. What we need is a ‘journalist’ exemption to campaign finance laws, and come up with a definition of journalist that includes online press.

    Just exempting all online speech from campaign finance law is overly broad, and leaves a huge door wide open for abuse.

    It’s imaginable an ad campaign could easily be created where an ad-video was released on the internet — and the money that went into that should definitely be counted towards limits, or else, the law is worthless.

  43. Just exempting all online speech from campaign finance law is overly broad, and leaves a huge door wide open for abuse.

    This is my point as well.

    Such an exemption would leave the campaign finance reforms from a couple of years ago as toothless.

    Yet, I know that bloggers need protection for free speech.

    It’s all in how the law is crafted. And the law was fine until they got into the campaign finance exemption.

  44. “I know Jerry will give me a raft of šhìŧ for not willing to take a stand against it, but again, that’s my opinion.”

    Nah…. We had our thing over this and we know where we each stand on it. No need to do the whole thing over again on this thread. So don’t go and throw stuff out there that looks like you’re trying to call me out on the issue because then I would be forced to track you down, find your house and, when you weren’t looking, put hot sauce in all your ketchup bottles. Then where would you be?

    🙂

  46. And I didn’t mean it in an literal raft of šhìŧ kind of way, but more of an “in your head ‘there he goes again'” kind of way.

    I don’t mind hot sauce at all, but man…not in the ketchup.

  47. See, I went and made the classic comic book bad guy slip up. I told you my evil plans. But you went and made the classic comic book cocky good guy mistake. You’ve told me that my plans won’t work and why rather then just letting me fail.

    So…..

    Plan B: Putting salt in the sugar jars it is.

  48. I’m just trying to help you out. Sugar won’t work either, as we use turbinado, so the salt would kind of stick out. Now, if you put sugar in the salt shaker, that would definitely confuse us. I’m thinking that maybe switching the labels on the evaporated/condensed milk might be effective as well…

  49. Oh, sure!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Make life difficult for the evil geniuses of the world!!!!!

    You force me to go straight to the last, and ultimate, evil plan on the list!!!!

    Plan Z: I’m swapping out your toilet paper with that tortuously scratchy stuff that high schools use in their bathrooms!!!! Your pain will be exquisite and the forces of evil shall rejoice!!!!!!!!!!

    ;p

  50. “In my experience, it’s about 50-50. Can’t trust any politicians, especially when they say they’re doing it for our own good. “

    Here here! This should be everyone’s motto! It’s a shame, but voting for me has always come down to lesser of evils…

Comments are closed.