Exile-Loving Democrats

Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of commentators like Noah pontificating on how Democrats need to be "reasonable" and act like adults. They seem to think this is a fucking tea party.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2119046/

Exile-Loving Democrats
The Democratic Party is starting to enjoy its wilderness years.
By Timothy Noah

< snip >

But lately, it seems to me, Democrats have done a little more than reconcile themselves or get used to minority status. They've started to groove on it. Signs of this transformation are everywhere:

Late last month Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the highest-ranking Democrat in that body, pronounced that it would be a "miracle" if the Democrats won back the Senate next year. Such prophesies tend to be self-fulfilling, and surely Reid knows that. Can it be that Reid doesn't care? Might it be that Reid prefers it that way? After all, when you're in the minority, you don't have to behave responsibly—you can just be a blowhard.

< snip >

The Democrats are going to the mattresses over the Republican plan to disallow filibusters against judicial nominees. The intransigence seems to be mainly on the Republican side, but as I've noted before, the interests of the Democratic Party (not to mention little-d democracy) would be best served if the filibuster were disallowed for all legislation. That's because someday the Democrats will be in power again, and they will want to pass legislation enabling a muscular federal government to solve, or at least address, the country's problems. In grooving on the filibuster, Democrats show that they are unwilling to consider any such future.

< snip >

What's shocking about this new Democratic enthusiasm for retreat is that it is being expressed not on narrow special-interest issues, but on broad issues affecting the entire Democratic constituency: regaining a Senate majority, redistributing Social Security benefits, democratizing Senate procedures. It might be argued that the Democrats are merely imitating the winning strategy the Republicans used to regain the House in 1994: Spurn the glad-handing incremental victories favored by Newt Gingrich's predecessor as House Republican leader, Bob Michel, and instead propagandize your way to political victory. But congressional Democrats differ from congressional Republicans in three crucial ways. First, the Republicans, in becoming obstructionists, didn't change their positions on the issues, as Democrats are doing. Second, the Democrats haven't been shut out for many decades, as the House Republicans had been when they announced they were fed up with accommodation. The Democrats' obstructionism comes off seeming petulant and unearned. Third, Democrats, unlike Republicans, actually want to achieve something. Governmental paralysis, practically by definition, is agreeable to conservatives, but it's anathema to liberals, at least in the long run. Or rather, it should be.

does that idiot want the Dems to do? The Repugs are in control and they aren't going to agree to remove the filibuster for everything. I don't like Dems voting for disgusting legislation, but the fight on the filibuster is critical (or we've lost the SCOTUS) and the Dems are doing a good job on it.

The bottom line is to try to induce defections on the filibuster,
of course. This is the big one, and they are pulling out all the
stops. Every "journalist" they own will be on it.

someday the Democrats will be in power again

If the nuclear option goes through, they can make sure that the
Democrats never regain power. They can use their control
of the media, the voting machinez, the pulpits, and a Supreme Court
freshly packed with Fundies to establish a permanent one-party state.

Iraq had "elections" under Saddam Hussein, and the Soviet Union had
"elections". Lots of countries have elections, but with only one
political party in the government, how democratic can they be?

Secondly, "redistributing" or othewise messing with Social Security
has never been a Democratic position, nor should it be. How
can he say we are "changing our position" by opposing Bush**'s plans
to slash Social Security for all but the poorest recipients?

note particularly how he was fooled into believing that Bush's plan for massive Social Security benefits to the middle class are in some way 'progressive' -- kinda like the logging you see nowadays that leaves a tree here or there -- 'at least it's not a clearcut' :eyes:

with and do the bidding of the really mean and abusive parent.

hell we should enjoy our Wilderness Years.

Perfect opportunity to enjoy pulling the other party's pants down.


it's also a helluva sales tactic. (act like you don't need the sale, and people miraculaously want to give it to you)