Rachel,
I agree with you in most cases, but mourning Mark Warner pulling out of the presidential race and bemoaning party activists for slamming his bipartisan shtick was off-base.
First, talking about bipartisanship before you are even in the primaries is like running for prosecutor and touting your plea bargain rate. You want to hear how often they go to court and win.
Bipartisanship might have been a useful approach with Jack Kemp Reagan-era Republicans, but not from Newt Gingrich on.
Given the behavior of Republicans the last few years, when Grover Norquist said bipartisanship is like date rape, I think he meant Democrats were the victims not the perpetrators. They propose the most extreme thing, and rather than compromising with Democrats, they give them the choice of voting with them or being called a traitor.
The Democrats have been bipartisan on the confirmation of war criminals Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez to cabinet level jobs, failed to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee who doesn't believe in checks and balances but does believe in giving the president dictatorial power, signed on to things like the repeal of habeas corpus, the Patriot Act, and in years earlier, NAFTA and other trade agreements that are destroying our middle class. In all these cases, the Democrats have behaved more like you would expect if they were debating raising the speed limit or naming a restroom after Eleanor Roosevelt.
This is part of why they have a reputation of cowardice. If you don't stand up for your beliefs, why should people believe you will stand up in a shooting war?
Further, if you have a reputation for compromise, extremists can get more by making more outrageous demands.
Frankly, I don't want to hear from any Democrat how quickly they will fold in the face of right wing pressure. I want them to tell me what they will stand their ground for to the death, what they would be willing to be chased out of office rather than yield on.
An additional problem with Warner, Hillary and much of the Democratic leadership is that they have divided loyalties. They are courting corporate America while they ostensibly represent us. When those two interests conflict, the people at the top too often stand with business instead of us, most obviously in things like the Iraq War, which many support long after public opinion has turned.
Someone is not an extremist just because they want someone like Paul Wellstone who said he wasn't going to Washington to represent oil companies, banks, and corporations because they are already ably represented by one party--the Republicans.
Right now, the American people have maybe one half of one party looking out for us. That is not enough. People like Mark Warner and Hillary belong on K Street, not in the White House.
CONTACT:
http://www.airamerica.com/maddow/feedback
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
