Gary Younge: Bush in ethical meltdown but all liberals can do is gloat

[EuroObserver]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1605229,00.html

Unable to present a clear agenda of how they would do things differently, Democrats are ill-placed to capitalise

Gary Younge
Monday October 31, 2005
The Guardian

<snip>

So the investigation has given us one of the clearest indications to date of how we got to this point. Given the malevolent partisanship of the Republican party it is not surprising that many liberals gloat at the prospect of a full-scale Republican implosion. But such schadenfreude is premature. The wounds of recent weeks have all been self-inflicted - the result of a mixture of hubris, malice, greed and ineptitude. There is no doubt that they have damaged Bush politically. A Washington Post-ABC poll this weekend shows his approval rating at an all-time low, with the public believing Bill Clinton ran a more ethical administration after the Monica Lewinsky scandal than Bush does now. Meanwhile, An AP-Ipsos poll released on Saturday shows support for the war at an all-time low of 37%.

But the Democrats are not faring much better, with only marginally more support than Republicans, according to a poll taken before the indictments and Miers withdrawal, but after hurricane Katrina and DeLay's arrest. Having supported the war and without coherent proposals for disengaging, they are ill-placed to take advantage of the Republican's current troubles.

Either unable or unwilling to present a clear agenda of how they would do things differently, they have been effectively mute for several months. With no opposition, popular disenchantment with the Bush Administration's ethical failings is descending into cynicism.

Indeed, the only group that has really flexed its muscles in recent weeks has been the Christian right, which derailed Mier's nomination to the supreme court. Bush is likely to nominate another candidate later this week who will be more to their liking, thereby tipping the balance of the court against abortion and affirmative action. Unless the Democrats develop the wherewithal to challenge them, conservatives will then shape both the law and the politics of the country for a generation. And Fitzmas will be little more than a lingering reminder of what the law can do when politics has failed.

</snip>

[acmavm]

1. The democrats are pathetic. They need to make their stand now. One

really has to wonder what it is that is making them hesitate. Seems like a concerted effort to sell us all up the river.

[EuroObserver]

2. There was this comment here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005G.shtml

</snip>

Clinton to Dems: Don't Fear Tough Issues
The Associated Press

Saturday 29 October 2005

Austin, Texas - Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.

...

Clinton attributed Republicans' control of Congress to Democratic candidates' inability or unwillingness to "stand up and be heard" on issues that matter to people. For example, he said, Democrats too often are unwilling to talk about abortion because they're afraid of virulent reactions from anti-abortion groups.

"So how come we can't talk about it?" he asked. "Because we basically let political ads turn every player in this drama into a two-dimensional cartoon instead of a three-dimensional person."

...

The former president did not take questions from reporters and did not talk about the possibility that his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., will run for president in 2008.

He also did not address the Friday indictment of the vice president's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements, other than to say the Republican Party has had "a few bad days here lately."

<snip>

...better add this, I guess: :sarcasm:

[Stockholm]

3. Interesting piece!

When will the democratic leadership present an alternative? Is this what Dean is doing? Maybe this should be cross published in GD Plame?

Nominated

"Either unable or unwilling to present a clear agenda of how they would do things differently, they have been effectively mute for several months. With no opposition, popular disenchantment with the Bush Administration's ethical failings is descending into cynicism."

[EuroObserver]

4. Gary Younge is the Guardian's US correspondant

More of his work linked from the left-column here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1605228,00.html

[Larkspur]

5. The Washington Beltway Dems may be hog tied, but Dems at state and local

levels can and have been offering opposition to Repukes.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the Montana Dems have been building a plan to oppose and take over power form Repukes in a "Red" state for 10 years. It paid off last year when Schweitzer took the Gov's office and Dems took 3 other top level state offices.

Howard Dean in league with Schweitzer Dems are building a brighter future for the Dem Party, but the Washington Beltway mob and the DLC are doing their darnest to attack Dean and Schweitzer Democrats. They'd rather be big fish in a little pond than really help the Dem Party regain majority status.

[EuroObserver]

6. Maybe it could be useful to put together a summary

of all these successful state and local efforts to move the liberal agenda forward (perhaps DU could do it).

This would be something to inspire others and to learn from, and could work like a grassroots foundation on which to build the kind of unified, national and international progam with which to confront and defeat this apparently very well-coordinated but fundamentally corrupt right-wing monopoly of federal power.

(Just an idea: I'm only beginning to learn how politics really works in the US of A :* ).

[Inland]

7. Well, on the process side, we wouldn't lie every fucking time.

That's a start. It's sorta precondition to decent government.

[Martin Eden]

8. Dems DO offer a better alternative ... except on Iraq

Gary Younge's observations accurately reflect public PERCEPTION of a Democratic Party that doesn't offer a viable alternative, but the fact is that Democratic policies on the economy, health care, the environment, renewable energy, and a host of other issues simply aren't getting sufficient exposure to alter public perceptions.

This may be a failure to get out the message, or it may be that the corporate media simply won't focus on Democratic domestic issues.

Ultimately, until the Democratic Party can unite behind a coherent Iraq policy that is clearly distinguishable from that of the Bush cabal, we will be perceived as mere bystanders to the train wreck reported on the nightly news.

John Kerry gave a major speech on Iraq, but did it even dent public perception, and has it gained any traction within the Democratic party? Where is the leadership? Who is going to pull us together with real solutions to the problems Bush created?

There is a tremendous opportunity here for someone in the party to step forward and present the public with an alternative that a majority of people in this country have been waiting for. Are all the prominent Democrats already too damaged by Iraq? Are they all part of the problem?

What's it gonna take?!!!

[Cults4Bush]

9. Liberal does not equal Democrat and vice versa. The left blogs should make

that clear to those paying attention. Hillary is not a Liberal, Biden is not a Liberal, Lieberman is not a Liberal...

One does not always mean the other. I think Liberals need to start drawing these distinctions if Liberals want to be well heard within the Democratic Party.

[EuroObserver]

10. Access to and fair treatment by the 'big' media

most people seem to be addicted to certainly seems to be vital in contemporary politics. Leaving the media in the hands of so-called 'free market' but in fact corrupt or corruptible large corporations appears to be extremely counterproductive. Perhaps some kind of 'watchdog', a regulatory body in terms of political content, is required there.

As for representation of the liberal or more-or-less liberal (including, of course, some independent-minded 'libertarians') majority: Is it possible, eventually, that a more diverse range of parties - such as, for example, greens and a possible black movement, could cooperate with mainstream liberal democrats in candidate selection processes - especially for president? Such a candidate would thus be required / be able to take on board a wider swathe of public opinion and therefore of the general interest. As third parties (predictably) gradually become more relevant in Congress and the Senate, a sitting president would most likely have to take their votes into account anyway - so why not begin already at the pre-election phase?

Such a shift, an 'opening-up' of political representation would encourage more grass-roots participation while at the same time helping to avoid the 'Nader 2000' problem and would represent a move towards a more European style of 'collaborative' or even 'coalition' politics, and should help to effectively isolate the rancid right and especially far-right (as they would have to compete for some of those otherwise 'non-aligned' but increasingl organised votes).

I dunno. I'm just throwing ideas out there. Be glad to listen to your responses.

[kentuck]

11. Bingo!

Let's hear some plans. Let's hear some progressive ideas. What the hell! They think we just need to change leadership and everything will be all right?