R.I.P. Party of Lincoln
This is pretty much the last nail in the coffin so far as my efforts to defend the Republicans go. It doesn't mean that I'm an enthusiastic Democrat, but the Republican leadership has gone mad. They seem to have no regard for what's right, considering only the political implications of their actions. This Rove incident is, as the WaPo article notes, merely a "communications challenge" in their eyes. It's the triumph of the postmodern Right. Facts and principle be damned, it's all about winning and keeping power.
If this were a Democratic administration, there would be calls for impeachment by now. Hell, there'd be assassination threats. Rove might be innocent, but the Republicans' refusal to even consider the possibility that he is guilty--despite substantial evidence to that effect--their conscious decision to stonewall, their utter disregard for objectivity and questions of fact and principle are apalling. This is the same face of the Republican party that we saw during the virtual theft of the election of 2000. Why I would every give them more chances after that is beyond me, and reveals my dim-wittedness. Dumbass moderates such as myself are always at a disadvantage relative to extremists.
Those of you who have been arguing that I've been a dupe for trying to excuse them and urging compromise have been right. The truth doesn't lie in the middle here. The Republicans must be exposed for what they are and defeated. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are wonderful, it just means that they aren't beyond the pale. At least they still belong to the "reality-based community," and, as such, are--God help us--our only hope.
This is pretty much the last nail in the coffin so far as my efforts to defend the Republicans go. It doesn't mean that I'm an enthusiastic Democrat, but the Republican leadership has gone mad. They seem to have no regard for what's right, considering only the political implications of their actions. This Rove incident is, as the WaPo article notes, merely a "communications challenge" in their eyes. It's the triumph of the postmodern Right. Facts and principle be damned, it's all about winning and keeping power.
If this were a Democratic administration, there would be calls for impeachment by now. Hell, there'd be assassination threats. Rove might be innocent, but the Republicans' refusal to even consider the possibility that he is guilty--despite substantial evidence to that effect--their conscious decision to stonewall, their utter disregard for objectivity and questions of fact and principle are apalling. This is the same face of the Republican party that we saw during the virtual theft of the election of 2000. Why I would every give them more chances after that is beyond me, and reveals my dim-wittedness. Dumbass moderates such as myself are always at a disadvantage relative to extremists.
Those of you who have been arguing that I've been a dupe for trying to excuse them and urging compromise have been right. The truth doesn't lie in the middle here. The Republicans must be exposed for what they are and defeated. This doesn't mean that the Democrats are wonderful, it just means that they aren't beyond the pale. At least they still belong to the "reality-based community," and, as such, are--God help us--our only hope.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:53 AM
9 Comments:
Welcome to the dark (er, light? er, well you know what I mean I hope) side.
WS wrote: "my efforts to defend the Republicans"
Wha? I've been reading this blog for over a year, and have yet to see you defend R's, ever. What are you talking about here?
(I'm not saying you *should* defend them. I gave up defending them in the summer of '03.)
"virtual theft of the election of 2000"
I am *so* sick of hearing lefties harp on that. Bush won the initial vote count in Florida, and he won every subsequent recount.
Having watched Jeb Bush's loud and hamfisted attempts to intervene with Terry Schiavo, I am also not willing to listen to arguments about election-fixing in Florida. Jeb is clearly neither intelligent enough nor subtle enough to orchestrate such a thing.
If you really want to argue about the 2000 election, you should do so based on the obvious anti-democratic issues raised by the electoral college. Gore won the popular vote nationwide by more than 400,000 votes, yet lost the election because our constitution specifies that small red states get overrepresented, and large blue states get underrepresented. I presume you have written your congressman about amending the constitution so as to abolish the electoral college, and thereby prevent such a travesty in the future.
First Anonymous: I'll dig up references. Sometimes my efforts were pretty half-hearted, I'll admit...
Second Anonymous: You are wrong. By most reasonable standards, Gore won the Florida vote. It's a matter of public record.
You are correct only if you define "reasonable standards" as not including actual vote counts. The initial Florida count showed a Bush lead; every recount also showed Bush leads, albeit by varying margins. And after the fact, the unofficial vote count by a consortium of media organizations led by the NYT also showed a Bush lead.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA071FFA385C0C718DDDA80994D9404482&incamp=archive:search
If you can site public record that says otherwise, I will listen. Until then, I am saying that you are letting wishful thinking interfere with your memory. Under the rules of the Electoral College - an undemocratic set of rules, but nonetheless the rules that we have to live by for now - Bush won the 2000 election.
The media recounts were more careful and accurate than the official counts. Of course we all know who won the official, less accurate counts--that's not at issue. The question is: who really had the most votes.
See also my earlier post about the effect of illegal overseas absentee ballots.
I know I should link to all this stuff, but I'm weary of that debate. Lame excuse I know, but them's the facts. Without links I admit I'm not providing you with appropriate evidence. My bad.
Who should have won, based on the intentions of the voters?
The Miami Herald says Gore.
Of course, that's not the question at issue. It's just the larger context of a system that's slightly but significantly biased against Democrats.
That context includes persistent Republican efforts to suppress Democratic constituencies.
In any case, leaving open the question whether he could have won the third-world election he was competing in in Florida, don't forget that Gore would have won an accurate and honest count.
Never forget that the Bushists had a count they liked, and they did not care a whit whether it was accurate. Instead of counting all the ballots in all the counties, which Gore proposed (better late than never), they sued to stop the most critical process of a democracy. For the Republicans, Joseph Stalin was right: The voters decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
Remember who stood for the voters and who stood against them in the Supreme Court.
Sorry, meant to find the next dose last night in a book I have at home (what, no link?!), but only have so much time to spend on this tiresome history. Definitely won't get to it this week. No promises...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home