|
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 11:07 PM by jpgray
The DU attitude towards the Democratic Congressional caucus reminds me of a boxing match. One boxer is beating the shit out of the other, who can barely put up any defense or mount any successful attacks. One person will watch that and decide that the losing boxer lacks the coordination or ability to succeed. Another will conclude that the losing boxer is complicit, and is intentionally throwing the fight. Without knowing what's going on behind the scenes (and we don't), it's impossible to conclude if the one-sided fight is due to corruption or a lack of capability. But people will still guess and decide without evidence. And then fight about it.
Now, given some behind-the-scenes info, one point of view can be more valid than the other. So which is it, in your view? A lack of unity and strong leadership for the Democrats could produce the results (or lack thereof) we see, especially when faced with the lockstep unity of the GOP caucus and the power of veto. But at the same time, complicity/corruption could also produce similar results. Which do you think it is, and what's your evidence? If you don't have enough evidence, what's your opinion?
|