MA election: the Democratic problem
living in MA, i welcomed the considerably more liberal --borderline pansy-- atmosphere as opposed to the oppressive retardation of MO. however, we are embarking on a new MA, i think. Sen. Ted Kennedy died in August and they just ran an election to fill his seat...and a republican won it. they whole world is in an upset. how is it that one of the most liberal states and a once safe Dem state elect a republican?
now, i was listening to NPR one morning when a political analyst explained that the reason the race was so close was because Brown (R) was running an incredibly smart campaign and Coakley (D) simply was not a good candidate. i, to be honest, don't know either of their platforms... i mean, can pretty much guess, but i have no idea how accurate that assessment is. apparently it was pretty spot on since Brown won and is the successor to Ted "the Lion of the Senate" Kennedy's wildly liberal seat. seriously, how does that happen?
i was thinking about the health care situation and how we got here and i blame the High Road. i completely respect Obama's diplomacy and that was one of the biggest reasons i voted for him. i loved the idea of the return to political discourse and thinking before reacting. it was such a welcome departure from the bullheaded, staunch, stubborn will of W...or, rather, Rove and Cheney. i think his calm, rational disposition is an asset that has yet to come to fruition and repair our country's psyche and international relations.
i am a fan of thinking and compromise. however, i am also a fan of decisive action on important issues. i understood, in the beginning, when Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and reach across the isle to bridge the partisan gap. it was important to reestablish the spirit of cooperation and to make good on a promise to try to unify. mostly, i think it's important to do initially, because if they do not respond in kind, it leaves you free to make unilateral decisions and not be accused of being a tyrant, because you tried. however, once it became clear that Repubs were playing grade school, temperamental, obstructionist games, compromise should've been a wrap. the definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result. if you constantly try to compromise with a body of people who routinely reject your efforts, continuing to do so makes you look insane, at best, and moronic, at worst.
the reason Bush had so much support...even until the bitter end...was because he was decisive and focused. now, it was not on the right things, but that's because we assumed our president to work in our national interest. that was not the case with Bush. he wasn't working for us. he pandered to us and tried, with his infuriating "good ol boy" shtick, to make us believe he was one of us and, therefore, could be trusted, but that simply wasn't true. none of it, actually. he's from CT and not a TX cowboy, but more importantly he was not one of us. well, he sure as shit wasn't me with his tenuous grasp of the English language. he is a son of incredible privilege and, consequently, had no idea what it means to be one of us. he was selling a story and we listened, hands propping up our eager chins, with our foolish legs swaying in the air.
Bush was not our servant; he had a different master. he had oil, insurance, and drug company friends to please. he had old vendettas to settle. he had Saudi Arabian friends to maintain. how else do you, logically, reason that, though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, that Iraq is where you should fight? it, actually doesn't make any sense. and WMD wasn't even the point. a shit ton of countries have WMD. Iraq would, or would not as it turned out, have still be aiming for WMD after we caught Bin Laden and neutralized Al Queda. but we, as a people, bought it because he sold it. he seemed sure, sold it as an imminent threat, and went after it. he took deliberate action on a issue vital to our freedom. of course, we all know it was complete bullshit now...and many of us knew it then... but the bulk of the people bought it. that also endeared him to a lot of very scared people. even if he was wrong, he was willing to go balls to the wall to try to protect us.
this brings me to the problem with the Dems. the natural and strategically beneficial response to a blindly stubborn, unpopular president is to be the exact opposite; be reasonable and refreshing. that was Obama and it worked. the Dems were energized, the GOP was floundering, and it seemed like the dawn of the Age of Reason after the Dark Ages of Bush. however, in their efforts to distinguish and distance themselves from everything Bush, Dems somehow missed the biggest lesson: decisive action yield respect. once Obama tried to reach out to Repubs the first 5 times, the Dems should've --with their complete control of the congress and the presidency-- pushed through their original health care legislation. what they allowed to happen was a negotiation process that allowed Repubs to muddy up just enough of it to make enough Dems sour on it that it was at risk. they allowed themselves to be in a position where so much time was spent negotiating that it gave the GOP time to regroup and work their fear mongering magic. they put themselves in a position where they could be controlled by the likes of Joe Lieberman.
they should've decided that health care was too important to monkey around with and was vital to our nation and pushed it through. they would've been accused to being like Bush. the GOP would've railed that they were no better than the last administration and they may have been right, but they would've yelled anyway. if you're gonna be the bad guy, be it on something that ultimately helps the people.
i recognize that is not the way to run a democracy or a presidency and is not conducive to bipartisanship, but it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. especially since universal health care is such a good idea. Dems aren't trying to pass, oh i don't know, illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs. they are trying to give everybody health coverage. they're trying to stop medical bills from being the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy.
i know that being a Democrat inherently means you are compassionate, mindful, and a firm believer of the High Road. the High Road is all well and good, but it's lonely and you'll go bankrupt if you break your leg from such heights.
now, i was listening to NPR one morning when a political analyst explained that the reason the race was so close was because Brown (R) was running an incredibly smart campaign and Coakley (D) simply was not a good candidate. i, to be honest, don't know either of their platforms... i mean, can pretty much guess, but i have no idea how accurate that assessment is. apparently it was pretty spot on since Brown won and is the successor to Ted "the Lion of the Senate" Kennedy's wildly liberal seat. seriously, how does that happen?
i was thinking about the health care situation and how we got here and i blame the High Road. i completely respect Obama's diplomacy and that was one of the biggest reasons i voted for him. i loved the idea of the return to political discourse and thinking before reacting. it was such a welcome departure from the bullheaded, staunch, stubborn will of W...or, rather, Rove and Cheney. i think his calm, rational disposition is an asset that has yet to come to fruition and repair our country's psyche and international relations.
i am a fan of thinking and compromise. however, i am also a fan of decisive action on important issues. i understood, in the beginning, when Obama tried to compromise with Republicans and reach across the isle to bridge the partisan gap. it was important to reestablish the spirit of cooperation and to make good on a promise to try to unify. mostly, i think it's important to do initially, because if they do not respond in kind, it leaves you free to make unilateral decisions and not be accused of being a tyrant, because you tried. however, once it became clear that Repubs were playing grade school, temperamental, obstructionist games, compromise should've been a wrap. the definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result. if you constantly try to compromise with a body of people who routinely reject your efforts, continuing to do so makes you look insane, at best, and moronic, at worst.
the reason Bush had so much support...even until the bitter end...was because he was decisive and focused. now, it was not on the right things, but that's because we assumed our president to work in our national interest. that was not the case with Bush. he wasn't working for us. he pandered to us and tried, with his infuriating "good ol boy" shtick, to make us believe he was one of us and, therefore, could be trusted, but that simply wasn't true. none of it, actually. he's from CT and not a TX cowboy, but more importantly he was not one of us. well, he sure as shit wasn't me with his tenuous grasp of the English language. he is a son of incredible privilege and, consequently, had no idea what it means to be one of us. he was selling a story and we listened, hands propping up our eager chins, with our foolish legs swaying in the air.
Bush was not our servant; he had a different master. he had oil, insurance, and drug company friends to please. he had old vendettas to settle. he had Saudi Arabian friends to maintain. how else do you, logically, reason that, though 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, that Iraq is where you should fight? it, actually doesn't make any sense. and WMD wasn't even the point. a shit ton of countries have WMD. Iraq would, or would not as it turned out, have still be aiming for WMD after we caught Bin Laden and neutralized Al Queda. but we, as a people, bought it because he sold it. he seemed sure, sold it as an imminent threat, and went after it. he took deliberate action on a issue vital to our freedom. of course, we all know it was complete bullshit now...and many of us knew it then... but the bulk of the people bought it. that also endeared him to a lot of very scared people. even if he was wrong, he was willing to go balls to the wall to try to protect us.
this brings me to the problem with the Dems. the natural and strategically beneficial response to a blindly stubborn, unpopular president is to be the exact opposite; be reasonable and refreshing. that was Obama and it worked. the Dems were energized, the GOP was floundering, and it seemed like the dawn of the Age of Reason after the Dark Ages of Bush. however, in their efforts to distinguish and distance themselves from everything Bush, Dems somehow missed the biggest lesson: decisive action yield respect. once Obama tried to reach out to Repubs the first 5 times, the Dems should've --with their complete control of the congress and the presidency-- pushed through their original health care legislation. what they allowed to happen was a negotiation process that allowed Repubs to muddy up just enough of it to make enough Dems sour on it that it was at risk. they allowed themselves to be in a position where so much time was spent negotiating that it gave the GOP time to regroup and work their fear mongering magic. they put themselves in a position where they could be controlled by the likes of Joe Lieberman.
they should've decided that health care was too important to monkey around with and was vital to our nation and pushed it through. they would've been accused to being like Bush. the GOP would've railed that they were no better than the last administration and they may have been right, but they would've yelled anyway. if you're gonna be the bad guy, be it on something that ultimately helps the people.
i recognize that is not the way to run a democracy or a presidency and is not conducive to bipartisanship, but it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. especially since universal health care is such a good idea. Dems aren't trying to pass, oh i don't know, illegal wiretapping and surveillance programs. they are trying to give everybody health coverage. they're trying to stop medical bills from being the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy.
i know that being a Democrat inherently means you are compassionate, mindful, and a firm believer of the High Road. the High Road is all well and good, but it's lonely and you'll go bankrupt if you break your leg from such heights.
posted by badassed at
2:25 AM
|
0 comments
