Sick of this...

[ray of light]

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113679026665320476/#214627

Here's another piece from last week's HuffPo that adds to the criticism of Dems. Apologies if you've already seen it:

###
Andrew Foster Altschul
2006: The Dems' Make-or-Break Year
Some Thoughts for Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Bob Schrum, Donna Brazile, John Podesta, Nancy Pelosi, and the Rest of the Shit-for-Brains So-Called Leaders of the Democratic Party, at the Start of 2006, a Year Which Will Either Restore the Party to Political Relevance or Witness Its Ultimate Humiliation and Extinction

My New Years resolutions are to stop smoking and finish my novel. Yours should be to cut the crap and start winning. Here are some suggestions.
- It's the Constitution, stupid. You'll never get a better Christmas gift than the NSA wiretapping scandal. What are you going to do with it? Are you going to let this one slide into the murmurs of committee hearings and "Washington Week," or are you going to stand up and insist -- loudly, repeatedly, unswervingly -- that this is a country of laws, that the President has admitted on national television that he broke the law, that he intends to continue breaking the law "so long as President," and that in order to preserve the rule of law, criminals must be punished? The public must be shown that this is a vitally important issue. If that means calling the Senate into closed session, if it means boycotting one-sided Congressional hearings, if it means shutting down the government with a party-wide walk-out, the Republicans must not be allowed to change the subject.
- Stay on topic. Republicans will want the hearings to focus on the question of whether what the President did was legal. They want the matter to appear as a "judgment call," critics as willing to sacrifice national security for an uptight and overly complicated reading of a vague statute. But this is sophistry. There is a clear, unambiguous law, and the President did not obey it. That equals illegal, whatever his reasons. The President's assertion -- that he is qualified and entitled to assess the applicability of the law and to ignore it at will -- is the only relevant question. The question of legality has already been answered. It's not a question at all.
- It's the crime and the cover-up. Here's a question no one is asking: Since Bush knew a year ago that The New York Times would eventually run the wiretapping story, was Samuel Alito chosen for the Supreme Court specifically because he had previously defended this practice? Did Alito have any conversations with the President on this topic prior to the nomination? (A follow up: As White House Counsel, Harriet Miers is implicated in the NSA orders. Was her otherwise inexplicable Supreme Court nomination an attempt to get her "out of harm's way" before the story broke?)
- It is time to start calling things by their proper names. Here are some words to add to your vocabulary: Lying: As opposed to "misleading," "finessing," "not being straight with," etc. The President has lied to the country, to the Congress, to the media, to the world. Abuse of Power: In addition to drawing useful connections to Watergate in the minds of voters, this term has the virtue of being absolutely appropriate to the President's actions. Money Laundering: c.f. Tom DeLay. Bribery, is the only word that applies to those who took money from Jack Abramoff. Insider Trading and Blind Trust: If the latter is not truly blind, then it's the former, period. Blackmail: As in a Medicare official threatened with loss of job if he tells Congress the true price of the prescription drug plan, and Political Retaliation: As in what happened to General Shinseki and Valerie Plame. Criminal Negligence: As in Mike Brown, Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, et. so many al. As long as we insist on finding polite euphemisms for these things, the public will assume they are minor infractions, not serious matters.
- Don't use the I-word. Yet. The 2006 elections need to be about whether the country will tolerate the President's abuse of power, not whether it has the stomach for another impeachment ordeal. Here's the line: "The President, by his own admission, has broken the law. We are looking into the appropriate consequences for such actions."
- If you really adopt "Together We Can Do Better" as the party slogan, you can cancel my membership. Fire whoever came up with this. We are running to lead the country, not the Student Council.
- Don't beat up on Joe Lieberman. What's to be gained? Sure, he's an unctuous, opportunistic schmuck -- just ask Bill Clinton -- but we are not the party that punishes free-thinking, nor insists on conformity at the price of integrity. Lieberman's entitled to his opinion, self-serving though it might be. Leave him alone and start talking more forcefully about what the Democratic Party wants to do in -- or out of -- Iraq.
- Filibuster Samuel Alito if necessary. Alito is avowedly anti-choice and has shown his intention to rule as such from the bench. Any pro-choice Senator, Arlen Specter included, has a moral obligation to use whatever means available to defeat his nomination. It is not a question of strategy, it is a question of conviction: Are you pro-choice, or aren't you? (And in any case, preserving from the "nuclear option" a tactic you never intend to use hardly seems a useful strategy.)
- John Kerry is a terrible standard bearer. His every appearance validates the Republican caricature of Democrats as smug, patrician, out of touch; his indignation about Iraq is not convincing. Somebody needs to sit him down and tell him he is not the 2008 nominee and get him off the television.
- No matter what Republicans want you to believe, Americans have not rejected liberalism. On the contrary: quality education, affordable health care, strong national defense, financial responsibility, checks and balances, Social Security and pension protection, equal rights, privacy, freedom of speech and religion -- these are American priorities, to be protected from Republican recklessness and greed. We should not be ashamed to be liberals who fight for these things. We should be proud.
- The Democrats are the party of financial responsibility. National debt when Reagan took office in 1980: $1 trillion. National debt when Clinton took office in 1992: $4 trillion. National debt when George W. Bush took office in 2000: $5 trillion. National debt when Bush leaves office in 2008 (projected): $10 trillion. Any questions?
- It's now or never. The 2006 elections should see massive gains for the Democrats. I say "should" -- because we "should" have won in 2004, but for the timidity and ineptitude of the Kerry campaign. This year, the party must commit itself to a vigorous, unrelenting, no-holds-barred discussion of what this country stands for: American integrity, American values, American responsibility at home and abroad. Democratic candidates must not shy away from full-contact politics, nor from pointing out the criminality, and consequences, of the Party of Bush. They must not take the high-road of compromise and complacency of the past six years. Our country is being destroyed by gangsters, bigots, and crooks. We don't invite such people for tea and polite discussion. We defeat them.
- I cannot support a party that will not stand up for what it believes in. If the Democrats in 2006 can't be bothered to make an all-out attempt to win back Congress, to hold the President accountable, to restore American values to government, I can't be bothered to vote on Election Day. I suspect that many, many frustrated Democrats are with me on this. That is my promise to you.
- Happy New Year.
###
meta | 01.09.06 - 6:10 am | #

[TayTay]

1. Self-selected experts just kill me.

Honestly, he should fire the head of the committee that selected him to be an expert in what to tell Dems. Cuz this guy is an arsehole. Half of what he says is laughably stupid and the other half is just rude. (You do know that being rude is code for 'I'm a tough guy, don't screw with me.' Actually, this is untrue. Being rude is code for, "You're a self-absorbed arsehole and need to take a course in how to deal with diverse groups and influence people."

Democrats, sigh! Pundits, even more sighs! Self-selected experts, dear Lord can't I just have root canal surgery again rather than read these blow-hards.

[ray of light]

2. I'm too tired to blockquote...

but did you see what he said about "Kerry isn't the standard bearer."

As far as I'm concerned this person has no clue WHO is the standard bearer and what he should do. All he cares about is bashing dems and bashing Kerry. And that's what I'm sick of.

Yeh, right...someone who is out there speaking the way he wants them to should "get out of the way..."

[Mass]

5. Who cares what this guy thinks.

And no, Kerry is not speaking the way this guy wants them to, thanks god.

[ProSense]

8. Yeah! It's like these "If you want my vote"

comments I keep seeing directed at Kerry. My first response is find a different party or candidate. I mean, some of them are calling on Kerry to practically change his positions. What sense does that make?

[MH1]

18. I'll admit I didn't get too far into it, but in the beginning he listed

Donna Brazile and Bob Shrum as "leaders" of the Dem party.

:wtf:

Kinda killed his credibility right there.

[Mass]

3. My philosophy on these people and my 2006 resolution

Ignore them. People have no clue whatsoever who these people are anyway. By talking about them, we are just helping them. They live on being controversial. Ignore them and they will disappear.

EDITED because I reread the thread.

Added: I dont necessarily disagree with this guy on everything (obviously I disagree on Kerry). These last two weeks, Democrats have been irritating me a lot, starting by the total silence on Bush's meeting with former Secretaries of State and Defense. This was a total political stunt with Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld staying in the room about 5 minutes, in order to take a photo and then about 20 people having a "discussion" on one of the major subjects these days for 45 mns. Why did the Democrats stay silent instead of calling this for what it was: another photo-op.

[Mass]

4. After having read the thread, it comes on the other side of what I thought

These people are not lefty, they are definitively DLC (No I-word, no beating on Lieberman, ...).

May be we should get rid of all the strategists (self-annointed or real) and let the pols be who they are. Some will do well, others not, but at least we will know where they stand on the issues and not where a bunch of people with degrees in political sciences or communications think they should stand.

On the same vein, have you read Peter Beinart's editorial presenting Kerry and Feingold close to Lieberman on Iraq and Pelosi and Murtha as the devil, all that to say that Lieberman was not that far from the rest of the Democratic Party on this issue.

[whometense]

6. I think the pain from their

2004 Lieberman endorsement has fried their collective brain cell.

They can't get over, and they can't admit, how fucking wrong they were, and how completely out of touch with the majority of democratic voters. I keep an eye out to see if they've made any adjustments since, but they just stubbornly hold on to that out of step position, and probably will until they turn blue.

At TNR, it's all-Israel all the time. They are more neocon than dem, and it's about time someone over there admitted it.

[ray of light]

7. yes, I do try to ignore. But they have the same tp's

and the GD has burned me out somewhat--as has huffpo and kos and a few other sites that just bash him for the stupid stuff. Yes, they're afraid he'll run so they're preemptively striking.

[jenndar]

9. Oh, please.

Once again, somebody with apparently no concept of how the electoral and political processes work chimes in on why the Democrats don't "deserve" his all-too-precious vote.

The sad thing is, I can I understand some of his anger, but it's misplaced. This guy needs therapy, not attention on the internet.

[ProSense]

10. And they publish it as if it's something brilliant

Look at this stupid comment:

"Here's a question no one is asking: Since Bush knew a year ago that The New York Times would eventually run the wiretapping story, was Samuel Alito chosen for the Supreme Court specifically because he had previously defended this practice?"

The writer probably learned about this the same way and time as the rest of the public did. Sure members of Congress don't know every thing that's going on under the sun, but they do have access to more information than the average person and they can draw simplistic conclusion, if that does any good. Does the author think that Bush is going to confess to this? Does the author think the only case to be made against Alito is one that requires Bush to confess?

Geez!

[Dr Ron]

11. Iraq

"his indignation about Iraq is not convincing. Somebody needs to sit him down and tell him he is not the 2008 nominee and get him off the television."

I bet this is someone who bought the line that Kerry supported the war. I bet he is unaware of how Kerry advised Bush not to rush to war (in his Georgetown speech), argued against the war in his Senate Floor Statement, and called for regime change at home at the onset of the war.

All this, along with is prior history such as on Vietnam, make Kerry a natural person to express indignation about Iraq. As a Senator with his anti-war history I'd expect him to be speaking out. The 2008 nomination is irrelevant to this.

Notice how Kerry is attacked when he does speak out, and at the same time attacked under the false belief he didn't speak out agaisnt the war early on?

[TayTay]

12. There is an agenda here

People want to take JK out. They deliverately cherry pick their points and they cherry pick their facts.

[jenndar]

14. There also seems to be a trend

of arguing, "Well, if *I* can't see a strategy, it clearly doesn't exist." And I understand why people would apply that rhetoric to JK, because they love the thought of taking away his credibility.

What I can't understand is why it keeps getting applied to the whole party. Do you think it goes beyond lazy thinking and reporting? I mean, I kind of doubt the writer in question could even pass the US citizenship test - but that might have been a deliberate choice, too.

[karynnj]

16. I love your one sentence defense

of Kerry's real anti-Iraq war record (I bet he is unaware of how Kerry advised Bush not to rush to war (in his Georgetown speech), argued against the war in his Senate Floor Statement, and called for regime change at home at the ). Is it ok to steal it in the future?

Also, Kerry's indignation about the inadequate armor, the ammo dumps not guarded and the fact that the planning was non-existant in a war where Bush determined the time frame was repeated daily during the campaign. His indignation extends to the cuts in VA support and other veteran services.

I agree with you, that he is a natural person to express indignation - as to convincing there is no one in the Senate whose indignation seems more real.

[Dr Ron]

17. Sure, "steal" it

After all, these are originally Kerry's statements.

I'm sure we can add many more examples of Kerry's indignation, such as allowing bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora. (Sure, that's Afghanistan and not Iraq, but its another example of Bush screwing up foreign policy, and they are related as we could have done a better job in Afghanistan if not for going into Iraq leaving the job unfinished).

[karynnj]

19. Thanks

I liked it because I've tried to answer and conciseness is not a strength I have - and that summed up a lot.

[Blaukraut]

13. It IS getting old

It's actually a little amusing how people seem to be able to look into the future. John Kerry is not the 2008 nominee? How does Andrew know this? Can he tell us who WILL be the nominee? I'd like to know.
AS far as criticizing JK - an interesting pattern is emerging here. The criticism is coming from both the far left, and the DLC types. This can only mean that Kerry is doing things right.

Finally;
"- I cannot support a party that will not stand up for what it believes in. If the Democrats in 2006 can't be bothered to make an all-out attempt to win back Congress, to hold the President accountable, to restore American values to government, I can't be bothered to vote on Election Day. I suspect that many, many frustrated Democrats are with me on this. That is my promise to you."

Oh please. I have heard this empty threat since election 2000. If all these disgruntled dems are staying home on election day, how come Dem voter registration and participation has gone up in every election since '96? When push comes to shove, 90 percent of these whiners will pull the lever (or push the button) for the democratic candidate, no matter who it may be.

The other 10 percent weren't going to the polls even if Jesus himself were the nominee. To that group, nobody is pure and perfect enough, and never will be. They are the armchair politicians who are glued to their computers and whose political activism begins and ends at the blogs. Useless bags of skin, all of them.

[ProSense]

15. It's all starting to sound like

a form of fatalism: the Republicans are destroying the world (true), but the Democrats will never do anything about it because they are just Republicans in disguise. They profess to seek a savior.