A Repub caller on CSPAN this AM went right up to the brink of truth

[BurtWorm]

and, like most Repubs, of course, she couldn't quite get herself to step over it. Thg guest was Sen. Bingaman (D-NM) and the topic was Bushist energy policy as vomited out during the SOTU address.

"Clinton was president for eight years and all he did was talk and talk and talk about energy policy, and he accomplished nothing," she said. She might have added "health policy" or "education policy" or even "foreign policy." What's true of any one area of policy is true for any other.

You could sense that she wanted to parry her point with a rhetorical counterpoint about Bush's four years of no talk, all action--but, of course, she realized there was no counterpoint of substance available to her there. So instead of talking about Bush, she went on, "The Democrats talk a good game, but they never do anything." And again, you could almost hear her brain trying to counter that with a point about how excellent the Republicans are, but I would wager that her mind went somewhere in the region of where mine went: Who has been in a position to do anything about anything for the last 12 years in Washington? Democrats? What power have the Democrats had to accomplish anything in DC in the last 5 years?

You'd think a person whose mind stepped into that line of thought would follow it to its necessary conclusion: the Republicans have been in charge of Congress for 12 years. They've been in charge of Congress and the White House for most of the last five years. They are now in charge of all three branches of the government. They have no one to blame for themselves for every jam they've gotten us into in that time. Was Clinton going to pass any plan he liked in any area with Republicans in total control of the Legislative branch dogging him for a blow job? Did Kennedy and Kerry have any power to put their policies into place?

As close as she got to the truth, she finally did turn her talking point around to being not just anti-Democratic, but anti "Democrats, the House and the Senate." As if the Bush boy would, if not for Congress and Democrats, save America.

Luckily for her she got off the phone before it dawned on her that she had the Bush boy where she'd put Clinton in her opening, as a guy who couldn't get anything at all done for all his talk. And isn't that what smart people have been saying about the Bush boy all along? All hat, no cattle.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Republicans fought us tooth and nail on "liberal" issues pre 9/11.

Technology, gas rationing, alternate energy research even nation building were all liberal issues and people like your friend did not support them. You can tell her that Clinton tried several programs and was hindered by the Republican party and assholes like her.

[papau]

2. $1 B/yr research produced Clinton 70 mpg car - that Bush killed

But who remembers that?

It was not a production car - but we'd be driving them now if Gore had been allowed to take the office that he won.

[zbdent]

3. Repukes have a way with breaking things and looking at us like

"Well, how would you fix it?"

Kinda like an incestuous father who knocked up his 12-year-old daughter. Looks at the mother and (first blames her, then) asks her what she would do about it . . .

[Toots]

4. You seem to forget that Democrats controlled the Senate for about a third

of the while Bush* has been in office. We could have done a lot more but did not....

[BurtWorm]

5. "Controlled" it by one vote.

What's your definition of "a lot more?"

[Toots]

6. How many tax cuts were passed when Democrats were the majority party

in the Senate. How many investigations were launched into the Administration and it's dirty dealings? When you are the majority you can start investigations. How many did they start. How about the "energy crisis" that raked California over the coals. How did that senatorial investigation go? How about Cheney's secret energy meetings? There are so very many unscrupulous things that took place in those first few years I couldn't possibly list them all and not one investigation. Does that seem a little odd?

[BurtWorm]

7. How many tax cuts could have been passed

with a "Democratic" majority that included Lieberman, Breaux, Miller and Jeffords (not to mention other DLCers in the band). Not to excuse them, but be real. Or do you think the Daschle Senate really had as much opportunity, desire and will to enact the Democratic platform as the Frist/Gingrich/DeLay/Hastert/Armey/Lott Congress of the 1990s and 2000s has had for the GOP platform?

[Toots]

8. All I said was we could have done more

We all know the reasons why we didn't....

[BurtWorm]

9. What Dems could have done in those two years is beside the point.

The issue is how did this mess happen and how do we get out of it? Democrats know it's a mess. Even Republicans know it's a mess. Yes, the Daschle Senate of 2001-2003 bears some responsibility, as does every member of Congress, D or R. But the point is, everyone knows it's a mess, and the Republicans want to say it's all the Dems fault, but even they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that their guys held most of the wheel for most of the decline. Would a rational person coming to that conclusion want them to keep holding the wheel? I think even a rational Republican (if there is such a thing) would have to come to a very different conclusion.


It may be that party and faction are the enemies of progress. Republicanism, though, unquestionably is.