The Republican Party has been leading the Christian Right, members of the Catholic Church and members of groups like Right to Life around by the nose for years--decades even--promising them that if the GOP can just get the White House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and control of enough state governments, then they can stack the courts to overturn Roe V. Wade
and get a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion. The Republican Party never delivers on this promise, for two reasons. One, if abortion rights were
really threatened (for anyone except underage women) the political backlash would be so extreme that the GOP would be voted out of office. The majority of Americans favor abortion rights for adult women. Two, if the carrot was every removed from in front of these anti-abortion voting blocks, they might stop turning out to vote for Republican candidates. Many of them care about one thing only, ending abortion. Once that is done, they will go back to Church and become apolitical again.
The Republican Party has scored a lot of political brownie points by making promises which it has no intention of keeping. W.'s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, proved how little he and his party care about abortion. Miers could be counted upon to favor Bush, Cheney and special business interests, but socially, she was hardly a conservative. The religious right was outraged. The nomination was withdrawn. And the social conservatives have returned to the GOP fold, responding the the promises "Just give us time." Some people never learn, right?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The Democrats did very well in 2006. Extremely well, thanks to the Bush-Cheney war for oil in Iraq and their profiteering off Katrina and their privatization of social services in the US and the blatant election theft in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and the more than blatant abuses committed by Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice. America's Democrats and Independents were rip roaring mad at Bush and his kiss ass Republican Congress, and nothing motivates Democrats to get out and vote like anger. Anger is to Democrats what fear is to Republicans. And Democrats across the land promised "Elect us and we will stop the abuses by the White House. We will end the war in Iraq. We will restore government by the people."
Yeah. Right. Now, the Democrats are telling us "So sorry. We need the White House and a filibuster proof Senate before we can end the war in Iraq and stop the abuses and restore your democracy." Where have we heard that one before? From the mouths of RNC leaders, every election cycle for the past umpteen years.
What have Democrats got to gain from doing nothing? They go into 2008 with George Bush as the most hated president in modern times. No matter what your political differences of opinion, everyone can agree that W. is bad for the country. Everyone sounds informed when they are criticizing Bush-Cheney. The Democrats have the never-ending war in Iraq, which the American electorate knows will only be drawn to a close by either a veto proof/filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress or a Democratic president---why not try for both, just to be sure?
What have the Democrats got to gain from using one of the Constitutional options which they possess to rein in Bush-Cheney and end the war---such as impeachment of both men and defunding the war? Besides ending the loss of American and Iraqi lives and the money sink which makes it impossible for us to rebuild NOLA or fix our health care crisis or repair our roads and bridges or restore the rule of law? They have to worry that voters will say to themselves "Hmmm, looks like our present system of government works just fine. The United States is on the right track. I guess I can re-elect Senator X and continue to vote for Party Y" even if X and Y are Republican.
Bush is playing right into the hands of the Democrats. His stupid, dumb stubborn streak combined with Cheney's desire to keep troops in position for a war with Iran will keep him from doing the politically sensible thing, which is to declare victory and get the US out of Iraq during his presidency, so that the war will be a non-issue next year. And here is one of the dangers in the Democrats' political schemes. As long as Bush-Cheney are allowed to do whatever they want, without fear of repercussions, and as long as the troops are in Iraq for no particularly good reason except to incite violence and to die, this allows Dick Cheney to dream and scheme of starting that war with Iran that he and his Saudi masters so desperately want in order to achieve a Sunni dominated Middle East.
So far, the Pentagon has checked Cheney's Iran War ambitions. However, Dick will soon start getting desperate. The New York Times' Michael Gordon has taken the place of Judy Miller, sounding the drum beat for a new war. The troops are poised. So is the fleet. And Democrats in Congress bitch and moan about how they need sixty Senate seats in order to do anything. Check out this page, and you will see that the Democrats did not have 60 seats in the Senate back in the early 1970s when they called Nixon to account for Watergate and the War in Viet Nam.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htmWhat did Democrats have in the early 1970s that they do not have now? Spines? Or maybe souls? It sure must be tempting to ape the RNC, telling all those voters that want to see peace in the Middle East and a return to prosperity and the rule of law "Turn out in record numbers next fall and vote for
our party and we will make it all happen."
I am a lifelong Democrat, but I am not willing to see this nation suffer through the end game of the Bush-Cheney presidency, knowing how bad it is going to be, just to see my party score extra political points in the next election. That is fascist politics. It goes beyond the politics of anger to the politics of hopelessness, fear and desperation. And it just might backfire. Americans are not stupid. They can tell the difference between
unable and
unwilling . If they see what the Democrats are up to, they will become apathetic, believing "All politicians are equally unreliable", and they will end up staying home from the polls---which will favor the Republicans, since their base always turns out in elections. Or, disaffected voters will cast their votes for third party candidates, which will accomplish the same thing.
Seldom is there a "right" thing to do in politics, but at this moment the choice is absolutely clear. Go back in time to 1973. Apply the thumbscrews to Cheney first. There is plenty of dirt in Halliburton's no-bid contracts and Cheney's stocks which have risen in value and the energy task force meetings with Enron and the Taliban pre 9/11. Begin defunding the war, if necessary. However, with Cheney under attack and W. afraid for his own political skin, I suspect the war will suddenly become open for negotiation. Never mind that if Cheney is removed from office, this will give W. a chance to anoint Rudi or one of the other Republicans as the heir apparent to the throne. That is political thinking, not right minded thinking. And anyway, being Dumbya's VP for six months might
hurt the Republican nominee rather than help him.
Come on Congress. Do what you were elected to do. It isn't as if your poll numbers can sink any lower than they already are.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
