Monday, November 5, 2007

This Disgusts Me So Much I Want to Give Up


I posted as a comment to this blog posting the following:

If this is the kind of "opposition" the Democratic Party is going to give us, caving in on TORTURE. Caving in on EVERYTHING, then screw them. We're all doomed and I'm not going to enable a party that does this. Any Senator that does not vote to FILIBUSTER this AG nominee loses my vote from now on. And if they vote to filibuster and fail, I still may not vote for them, so Senators - better get on the phone to make sure that the filibuster is successful or your days in office are numbered. At least when the Republicans were in charge, it was clear who was to blame. Spineless Dems give the GOP cover while still allowing pretty much the whole GOP agenda to proceed unimpeded. UGH!!!!

And I feel the same way now. If the Dems won't grow a spine and actually act as an opposition party, why pretend they are one? To tell the truth, I'd rather have the GOP in charge and taking the blame for everything as it falls apart than the spineless Dems in there as the GOP still is in charge because the Dems are afraid to oppose the GOP on anything. At least then it is clear what is going on. Right now, a Dem majority just provides cover to the GOP even as the GOP agenda is enacted full-force, the same as it was when the Dems were in the minority.

Until I see real opposition, I'm going to vote Republican, because I want to be honest about who is really in charge. Real opposition can be shown by a filibuster right now of the AG nominee. If he gets in, despite showing he will be a torture apologist, just like Gonzales, then we might as well just give up right now. Our civil rights are dead, or nation is dead, and it is no use pretending otherwise.

UPDATE: I really don't want to vote GOP, but as I said in the comments, just what the hell else will get the Democrats' attention? Truly, tell me what course of action I could take that would get the spineless losers that run the Dem party to stand up and block the gutting of FISA, block torture, block this AG? Because frankly, I don't see anything else that seems to work except threatening their precious little seats in Congress (that they don't seem to do much with). I'm open to suggestions.

UPDATE II: I think what I'm getting at here is that the Democrats seem to be driven in their spineless activities solely by a fear that somehow they'll lose their seats to the GOP by virtue of doing something that doesn't match the GOP agenda. So I figured if that is what is driving them, then I'd offer stimulus in the OTHER direction - either you oppose the GOP agenda with every fiber of power you have, or THEN you'll lose your seat to the GOP.

The truly sad thing is that the Dems act like they are afraid of losing for doing things that the majority of the public agrees with them on. Like when 70% oppose the war, the Dems act like they still have to be for it or those other 30% will vote them out. It is psychotic crazy. I think it is in part due to the whole Washington press corps buying into that and reinforcing it - they continue to treat opposition to the war as if it was a "fringe" thing, and as if those who oppose it aren't "serious" when the reality is, the "fringe" is made up of war SUPPORTERS. It is maddening.


ballgame said...

dbb: Before I respond, I just want to be sure that you know I hold you in high regard as a blogger, right? I know we have some fundamental differences regarding the validity of libertarianism, but I've always admired the clarity of your posts and agreed with a lot of what you've written (particularly regarding gender issues).

BUT the notion that one would express one's frustration at Democrats for failing to impede Republican tyranny by voting for Republicans is beyond ... OK, I can't say what I want to say here because it would be personally insulting. Let's just say it would be ... uh ... uh ... extremely counterintuitive. (Being diplomatic is so ungratifying.)

The sensible way to express displeasure with the Dems under these circumstances is to vote Green ... or Libertarian ... or something. Voting FOR Republicans under the circumstances is just a colossally ... *sigh* ... counterintuitive thing to do.

ballgame said...



sorry ... feel so much better now ...

DBB said...

Voting third party is throwing away a vote. I really don't want to vote Repug. But what the hell else will get through to these fucking moronic Democrats?

The only thing they care about is losing their seats, and so the only thing they respond to is anything that they think will cause them to lose their seats.

How the hell else do you get through the thick skulls to the non-existent spines? The quickest way to vote a Dem out of office is to vote GOP. And truly, while I despise the modern GOP to the core, the GOP apparently gets its agenda through whether they are in power or not.

The Dems don't seem to care how much people are SCREAMING at them to stop Bush and the GOP. They have the freaking MAJORITY in the Senate and STILL can't stop the GOP in the Senate. They are going to confirm this torture AG. If it were reversed, the GOP would be filibustering until the end of time and stopping the Dems. In fact, that is what they have been doing. The Dems are useless. Unless you have some better idea about how to get through to them? What else do they care about other than losing their seats?

I'm frustrated and terribly pissed off.

Mike said...

The GOP needs to be spanked.

Even if the other party were a shadow GOP with an exact duplicate agenda, we would need to vote for them, because the GOP needs some team pain.

DBB said...

Yes, the GOP needs to be spanked - but right now, it is the Dem Senate that needs to do the spanking, and they just refuse to do it, again and again and again they cave. They cave on the AG. They cave on torture. They cave on FISA. They cave on EVERYTHING.

The GOP got spanked in the 2006 election, and what did it change? Nothing, ultimately. The GOP controls the agenda. They control the media message. They are the PR masters. They filibuster and control in the Senate. And the Dems go along with everything they want.

The truly sad thing is that it really doesn't seem to matter which party is in control "officially" - the GOP agenda is all that gets through.

Like I said, tell me what I could do beyond voting GOP to get the attention of the Democrats so they actually stand up and DO something?

Bing said...

There's a method to the madness, and it is madness. And it a "lesser of two evils" game. If they give Bush's nominee the cock block, he appoints someone worse during while Congress is out of session. (Remember Bolton?) I'm frustrated too, but we have a sadly predictable loon in the White House.

I do think that they are looking out for us, but it's just hard to appreciate.

God I hate Bush.


Revenant said...

I can't vote for either major party. The right because of relgiion, and the left because of Global Warming propaganda and what legislation will do to everyone without affecting global temperature one iota.

Mike said...

I've felt similarly in the past, Revenant, but then I noticed the message of almost every political ad: The Other Guy Is Out To get You.

So, just to piss the bastards off, I refuse to buy into it, and subscribe to the best possible interpretation of their positions. It took the Republicans until well into 2002 to convince me that George W. Bush isn't just a patriotic American with a different set of ideas of what is best for the country than mine. I still think that of his father.

Do you actually think the Democrats will do anything serious about global warming while there is snow in Alaska?

Revenant said...

Mike, I don't think democrats, or anyone else CAN do anything about so-called global warming, because they have no idea what's happening. Stopping all human industry tomorrow won't change the global temp one bit, but a lot of people will certainly die. That's what a lot of the activists want, the de-industrialization of the "west", and the developing world to stay in poverty. They see Malaria as a great population control method, which is why they're so against DDT. The problem is no one they know is dying of Malaria, because we used DDT to get rid of it.

Mike said...

That DDT ban as population control myth is entirely bogus.

The DDT ban is on general use - it is legal to use DDT in anti-malarial campaigns. It tends not to be used that way very often because it doesn't work very well. Mosquito populations become DDT resistant rather quickly.

And I'm not saying that because malaria doesn't personally affect me - it just about killed me, and I probably still carry a few of the bugs.

In the areas where malaria has disappeared, nobody knows why. But it wasn't DDT because it happened before DDT was invented.

I didn't mean that the Democrats wouldn't do anything effective against global warming, I meant they won't even try anything that might have a noticeable impact on economic interests. They aren't going to try to de-industrialize anybody, because that would cut into campaign contributions.

Revenant said...

That DDT ban as population control myth is entirely bogus.

Really? Don't tell that to the activists who stated just that, on record.

As for it not working very well, I'd like to see your data, because the evidence shows it's THE best agent against malarial mosquitoes. And you still have activist agencies fighting its use in Africa where it's most needed.

In some places Malaria has been eradicated due to DDT, such as some places in South America since the 40's and up to the 80s. In other places it's because the mosquito breeding grounds were largely cleared. The fact of the matter is it's being withheld for no good reason from those who need it most.

And I'm saying Democrats CAN'T do anything about it, because there's nothing to do anything about.

hedera said...

dbb - The comment thread seems to have become derailed onto DDT and global warming, I'd like to come back to the incident that began this, the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as AG. I honestly think you're overreacting here. I agree that he's waffling on the waterboarding issue. However, everything else I've read about him indicates that he is a very strong rule-of-law guy, and that he's tough enough to stand up to the White House if he feels he has to. As bing said, the alternative to Mukasey is a recess appointment of some absolute neocon wingnut; I believe we're better off with Mukasey.

Now, on the telecom amnesty issue, I'm with you 100%; and I fully agree that the Dems have completely blown off their chance to show that they can make a difference. However, do keep in mind that their "majority" in the Senate is a single vote, which is a pretty fragile reed to lean on. I realize it will horrify you but I think the answer is to keep voting Dem until the Senate majority is, say 10 or 15 votes. Unfortunately this is something a single voter in a single state has relatively little impact on.

DBB said...

Hedra - with regard to the slim Senate majority, I agree with you - which is why I did not say that anyone should be mad at Democrats for not, for instance, getting certain legislation passed. You really need 60 votes for that in the Senate, so it would be crazy to get mad at the Dems about that.

Of course, related to that, one CAN be mad at them for failing utterly to publisize just how many GOP fillibusters there are - that should be Dem talking point number one every time you see a Dem talking head on TV. Instead, they seem to never mention it at all, dismissing it as a 'process' issue that somehow they think no one is interested in (and apparently forgetting that the GOP made huge hay out of process issues in the past, such as with judicial nominees).

Which brings us to my main point of disgust - fillibusters. By the same token, the GOP, with only 49 votes in the Senate, should NOT be getting through its agenda. And yet they are.

Apparently only one party knows how to hang together and filibuster.

I have seen many say that this AG will be different, that he will be independent, etc. But I'm sorry, if he can't even say that something that is OBVIOUSLY torture and has been legally recognized to BE torture for the past 100 years (or more) actually IS torture, then that to me means he drank the cool aid. I mean, really, what other reason is for there for him to say that? What is Bush going to do if he answers, 'yes, that is torture, it is against the law, and I'll prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has done it' - what can Bush do? Withdraw his nomination? I don't think so. So Bush is stuck with him, no matter what he answers. So the fact that he has answered in that way must mean he means it. He drank the cool aid. Trying to read the tea leaves and say he will be independent when on something so obvious and basic he already is saying the Bush line, a line that is clearly legally WRONG (as well as morally wrong) just to me means that any wishful thinking about independence is just that - wishful thinking. At least with a recess appointment, there is no political cover for Bush.

As far as I'm concerned, an AG who can't clearly say that torture is torture is unfit to hold the office, and frankly, unfit to even be licensed to practice law. This is not some gray area legally, with room for interpretation.

The Dems do have power right now, and they refuse to use it. It is so infuriating. And given that they could filibuster right now, yet don't, doesn't make me particularly confident about how they'd wield power even with 60+ votes in the Senate. They simply do not know how to ruthlessly exploit power like the GOP. Which makes for a rather nasty power imbalance in our two-party system.