Democrats Continue to Self-Destruct

Remove all ads!

Regardless of how one feels about the current abysmal lot running things in Washington, the oppostition looks not only pitiful, but at times quite bizarre. The recent Alito confirmation hearings provided us with an up-close view of just how inept the opposition really is. They even made the guy's wife cry in public. Of course, George II could not have asked for more and the theatrics helped to take the attention away from if Alito really would be a good justice, but rather what a great loving husband/family man he really was.

That's great. I think that maybe I could qualify as well. I'm sure my wife could boo-hoo just as well as Alito's wife did on TV and I could have some great photo-ops with my young girls. I could also say: "I think the rule of law is just peachy" just as well as Alito could also. But the Dems would probably not "bully" me very much, since I share many of their views regarding individual rights and a woman's right to choose. I also feel, as the Founding brothers felt, that the best representation of the People resides with the Congress.

The only thing the Dems would trip me up on is that I still say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." And that is my point in all this: Just what has to happen to get these guys to focus on what's important to the people whom they represent? or wish to? If the American people are anything, they are a practical lot. During the Alito hearings the Dems looked like a bunch of blowhards, attempting to "get the goods" on a guy who was hard, somewhat cold, and appeared quite cunning and calculating in his attitude towards the entire proceedings.

All they had to do was get the guy to open up a bit and he probably would have hung himself with his own words. But instead the Dems rambled on about their own "thoughts on the law" and what it should be. Alito looked amused and looked as if he could have cared less about what these fools thought about what was on the menu for lunch, let alone the law. It all played well for the administration and their guy.

The tragedy is that there are real issues here that the rest of us will have to live with for a long time to come. And there is no real opposition worth a flip to counter the abysmal men and women who are destroying everything that America is supposed to represent. It's indeed time for a third party. The time has come.

 

Perhaps. Or perhaps the out of touch old men making decisions for the democrats should step aside and let some fresh minds take the reigns. I think it's hilarious that the democrats still try to cater to the moderate voter in elections. Moderates vote less often, and when they do vote, they can go either way. (That's why we call them moderate). Moderates often don't see a large enough difference between one guy and the other to be concerned either way.

President Bush has taken grassroot politics, at one time the domocrat's greatest weapon, and turned it against them. He galvanised his conservative grass roots in one direction and, when added to the fact that a good 9% of voters vote exclusively for the incumbent Kerry had no chance when he tried to cater to moderates instead of his grassroots. He downplayed his liberal stances on so many issues. Why? He isn't going to get the votes of the conservatives he's trying so hard not to offend, anyway. These groups will never vote democrat. On top of that he is disenfranchising the army of progressives aching for change out there just waiting for someone worth voting for. The democrats need to go back to their grass roots. Then, they might actually have a shot at winning an election once in a while.

[ January 31, 2006, 02:47: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

One of the real problems with US politics today is the exclusion of 'risk takers' from politics. Our current election process makes it extremely difficult for true leaders (who are risk takers) to enter public office. Instead we rely on the press telling us who has had the squeeky-clean life -- anyone with skeletons in their closet is quickly eliminated.

If you really think about it, very few of the founding fathers would have made it through the press scrutiny of today. It's really sad that we're only led by those who lack the courage to go against popular opinion and do what's right.

Since appearance is most important to today's politicians; appearance becomes the focus in confirmation hearings.

 

We are into "TV politics" now. I could care less who some guy/gal flirted with in the past. Harrasment yes but other wise no. I have no idea what the answer is but agree that a third party is needed.

I am one of those who looks at the candidates and tosses a coin. Sound bites and looks seem to be the criteria now.

 

I don't blame the press for this, though. I think politicians want it this way and were complicit in the shift of attention away from the issues. Educated voters are kind of a wild card. It would be difficult to know who would win if the voters actually knew what was going on. And think about how much more senate turnover we'd have. One other thing.....name calling and character assassination has actually been part of American politics since the very beginning. There are some rather interesting transcripts available of early politicians getting very personal in their attacks on each other. I remember reading about one politician who actually called his opponents mother a "sex worker" (edited to be less offensive). Unfortunately, I can't remember which politicians were involved though I think Adams was one of them.

 

Yes, it started at the beginnig. Both Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were "slandered" or slimed pretty heavily. Back then there were partisan presses, which rivaled each other. Hamilton was caught in an affair, much like the Clinton scandal; Jefferson and Sally Hemings were already an issue during his elections. Of course both were true, although the Jefferson scandal is not quite so open and shut as is Hamilton's. Hamilton was not an elected official. Nevertheless, during Wahington's first administration he functioned much as a prime minister, overseeing much of the machinery of government.

It should also be noted that the famous duel between Burr and Hamilton arose out of the personal attacks, which they mounted against each other, and in the end, proved fatal. Hamilton mounted personal attacks against many of the Founders, including John Adams, accusing him of being "unstable" and given to "fits of madness." The interesting point here is that they were members of the same "party" - the Federalists. All of these men were brilliant, enlightened, but personally ambitious to a fault.

 

There are several differences between then and now though.

1) Is instant communication.

2) Is universal sufferage (I think that is the correct term)

 

You want to talk about dirt, scandal and intrigue...can't do much better than Andrew Jackson...still don't know why they've never made a movie about his life.

...refusing to clean the boots of a British Officer while a captive teenager, and having his face slashed and scarred as a result.

...stunning "upset" defeat of the British at the Battle of New Orleans using strategy and tactics that nobody expected.

...being denied the Presidency in his first run due to machinations in the House of Representatives, even though he rec'd a plurality of votes.

...scandal over the illegitimacy of his wife's divorce prior to marrying Andrew.

...killing a man in a duel after he insulted said wife.

...after the death of his wife, rumors about affairs with the wife of a friend who served him as "White House Hostess".

...forced removal of the Cherokee Indians, in spite of a Supreme Court order to not do so.


makes todays Democratic Party look lame in comparison.

 

What doesn't?

 

The Republicans...since you asked.

 

Cheap shot. And one that only applies to a small portion of the populace.

I'm more disappointed in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party -- The Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page. I like Obama and -- it will suprise you -- even voted for him (granted there really wasn't a choice), he actually seems to have vision the party is currently lacking. The Republicans at least have a vision -- even a mediocre vision is better than no vision.

The Democrats need new party leadership -- oust Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, and Dean. They are liabilities (I'm not a fan of Hilary either).

 

I remember thinking that Obama seemed like the future hope for the Democratic party...the right mix of Liberalism, Moderation and even some Conservatism to breathe life back into the party...but since the elections he doesn't seem to capture the National stage as much.

I'd be curious to hear where his alignment has fallen in practice, rather than in theory. Is he a true "Democrat", or some kind of hybrid who could potentially represent a third party?

@Chandos...even the most scandalous Republican scandal can't hold water to the Democrats. So what if Tom DeLay is crooked and used ill-gotten funds for his campaign..."Dirty" Republicans usually steal, bribe or extort..."Dirty" Democrats drown their pregnant mistress, then cover it all up because the family name equals local royalty.

 

Nixon.

 

That's the best you can do? Some forty year old case, which, btw, you completely misrepresent? And at the same time that a number of Republicans are shaking to their toes in their country club meeting rooms, because some dishonest lobbyist might spill the beans on them. Talk about cheap shots....

 

Yeah, I did misrepresent it...I forgot to add that he was DUI. Seriously Chandos...you don't think Kennedy got away with murder?

Anyway, it's pointless to try to determine which Party has had the biggest crooks...they're all crooks in a way...you just need to pick the one who's going to pork barrel the programs that you support.

 

/me screws up courage and prepares to do something very stupid

Can you two cut it out, please? I thought this was about people who wanted to lament over their own party's stupidity, not harpoon the others'. The debates get pretty boring at that point because it's pretty clear that both sides suck a$$ and have done so for some time (a hazard of the profession, IMO). I was also under the impression that this was about current problems, though I suppose arguing about recurring ones might fit the bill.

/me slinks off

EDIT:
Damn Hack and his quick edits.

 

Excerpted from a little bit of online research so everyone will know what is being talked about:

No. Kenndedy did not drown Mary Jo Kopechne. He had a DUI. The absolute worse crime he is guilty of is manslaughter and, yes, he did get away with it. Just keep in mind that drunk driving didn't carry the bite it carries now in the late 60's. This is also not an example of government corruption. It's an example of why you shouldn't get behind a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. This could have happened to anyone who has ever driven drunk with a passenger. The american people at large were not "victims" in this matter. Mary Jo Kopechne was the victim. The american people were, however, victims of Nixon's corruption. They were victimized again when we prosecuted a war on Iraq based on data we knew was false. I guess you can throw Clinton's sexual shenanigans on the list as well, but don't forget that this backfired as several of the republicans gunning for his head had to step down as their own infidelities were revealed.

Issues like infidelity or manslaughter, DuI, or murder do not exist any more in Republicans than Democrats. Nor are they indicators of "corruption". They are human failings. When you want to look at corruption it is going to be more common to see certain types of it in Republicans than Democrats. A republican is more likely to be the recipient of illegal donations from big business, for example, since republicans actually like big business and big business likes them back. The special interests that democrats cater to have less money to misappropriate. Were it not for that fact, I'm certain that we would see this kind of corruption in equal ammounts between Democrats and Republicans. As it stands now, we do not.

[ January 20, 2006, 16:54: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Back on topic: I kind of agree that the democratic party is in a pretty bad shape. At least when it comes to Congress and the House: bunch of old guys, no real ideas. And the Alito hearings showcased the "dilapidation" of the party pretty clearly. Our senator (Schumer) was the only one who showed some spark.

The Republicans are not much better, though. They might have been at a time, but now the leadership is full of crooks (it reminds me of mafia, pretty much). And the decent guys in the party (there must be some ) have no voice. Pretty much the only decent R with political clout is McCain.

Too bad that the Democrats don't have somebody like him, though. I had some hopes for Dean, but... He ran a resonable campaign, and I don't hold the famous yell against him. Since he became head of the DNC, he went downhill, though.

Maybe the Wisconsin senator, Feingold, shows some promise. He seems to be quite unafraid to speak his mind (the only one who voted agains the Patriot Act and the war, IIRC. Not that I did not support the war at the time, but I did not expect the administration to be so incompetent.)

 

A lot of (most) house democrats voted against the war. I think a lot of the problems that the democrats are having with their direction would be solved by reinstating term limits on the senate. (Like that'll ever happen.....)

 

How can they be so relentlessly spineless and trivial? Their reply to Bush's domestic spying--the "Covenant for Honesty" or whatever the hell they called it--was as embarrassing as a primary school show-and-tell, but without the charm.