Monday, June 26, 2006

Russ Feingold...

Russ Feingold, Markos Moulitsas, and the Myth of the Leaderless Democrats

One of the more successful strategies of your vast right wing conspiracy, Bush--and let's admit it, Hillary was right on this one--has been to promulgate the myth of the leaderless Democrats. Not only do they lack leaders, they lack ideas, according to this myth. You have been so successful, indeed, in achieving this dual goal that it's now almost axiomatic in American manstream thought: oh, the Democrats? They have no strong leaders. And they're clueless when it comes to generating an idea.

The strategy has been to identify any emerging leader with sensible ideas and to marginalize him or her by whatever means necessary: you smear, you sneer, you vilify, you emasculate, you ridicule, you minimalize or otherwise sideline any person who gives so mush the appearance of challenging your myth. Look what happened to Bill Clinton, despite the success of his policies. Look what happened to Hillary... So many good Democrats with so many good ideas.

Or look what happened to Howard Dean, a powerful Democrat who emerged as a leader in the early stages of the 2004 presidential election. He had the excellent idea that a return to liberal goals would serve to change the direction of this country in a positive way, and that the electronic medium of the Internet could provide an important new way to communicate this idea to the electorate. One little crack in the surface of his growing reputation was enough to allow you to destroy him--not the man, of course, because he continues to give leadership to the Democrats to this day, but his chances at the election.

Consider, very recently, the case of Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, who had another excellent idea: that the power of the blog could be harnassed to the service of progressive ideas and challenge the hegemony of a mainstream media that had done little, during your increasingly imperial administration, Bush, but roll over and feed your pablum back to the credulous American public. The attempt to minimalize and marginalize him found its spearhead in the New York Times column, yesterday, by David Brooks--an inspired choice, perhaps, because Brooks embodies the image of the serious, thoughtful, fair-minded intellectual conservative. His gravitas could provide a serious counterweight to the young and bouncy Markos. A nice strategy: to accuse the man of precisely the tyranny he has set himself up to oppose. Hoist him, as that old chestnut goes, his own petard.

I'm sure that Russ Feingold's turn will be coming soon, especially after putting in such a strong appearance yesterday on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." The senator came across strong, confident, in command of the language and the ideas he was articulating, and possessed of the kind of good looks and charisma that seem to be demanded by the American voter. He showed himself to be a straight-talking, no bullshit Democrat, whose ideas on the progress of your Iraqi war and other matters vital to the national interest were well-formed, well thought-out, and well expressed. I'm sorry to have to say this, Bush, but in terms of the authority and the personal power he projected, this man made you look like a midget.

The question will be, of course, what kind of venom your political hacks will find to spew at him. "Defeatism" is already in the air, because he favors a plan to haul our troops out of the morass you, your Cheney and your Rumsfeld have created for them. Feingold, who opposed the war from the start, is clear that your invasion of Iraq was "one of the worst mistakes in American foreign policy"; that it deflected attention from the important purpose of dealing with the terrorists who attacked us and instead created the ideal recruitment tool and training ground for Al Qaeda; and that you, Bush, have committed "a more impeachable offense than Nixon" by your imperial power grab in the wake of 9/11.

Strong stuff. I was impressed. And I'm quite sure, as I say, that your ruthless political machine will sooner or later go into high gear to disempower this powerful opponent. The question is whether it can repeat the successes of the part, or whether the American people are now, finally, wise to its chicanery and deceit. I guess we'll find that out as the 2006 election approaches.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

To say, "well yes I do believe the President has committed impeachable offenses but it may not be good for America to impeach him" is to say either that you really don't believe the President committed any impeachable offenses or it is to say it is not politically expedient to impeach him at this time. And the only reason it is not expedient to impeach the President at this time is because you don't have the votes to do it. You don't have the votes to do it because the American people disagree with you Senator Feingold.

It is not politically expedient because it is only you and the radical left wing of your party who would love to impeach the President. You, however, are smart enough to know that you do not have the backing of the American people so it is you Senator and your radical, leftist friends who are out of step with the American people. You want to sound tough and macho by talking up impeachment but you dare not cross the line into action because you know you would loose--you wouldn't even carry a majority of your party given how overwhelmingly they vote to support the war.

You are hustling Feingold, you are hustling but you simply are not skillful enough to pull it off .

GringoWithoutBorders said...

As a citizen who voted for this Idiot in 2000, I would vote to not only impeach but arrest, try and hopefully convict for war crimes. Not only is an invasion of a sovereign country illegal (unless granted by the UN Security Council) but the failure to abide by US Constitutional Law, failure to abide by Geneva Conventions and finally the disclosure of a CIA agent should be enough to convince any educated citizen that the Bush Admin. is criminal and ignorant of this countries values and laws.

I am definitely not Radical Left as I have voted more times for Republicans then any other. I, however; am an Independent thinker who judges based on actions not rhetoric from an administration that would be the envy of any Fascist type movement.

Dave said...

Well, impeaching Bush would be an amusing circus, like impeaching Clinton, but of course it wouldn't do any practical good, except to make the dissatisfied like us feel good. When we got rid of Nixon we got not only Ford but Cheney and Rumsfeld to run the whitehouse, using him as they are using Bush. Bush is a weenie, a front man.

In fact, if we kicked him out of office, we'd get Cheney himself, Darth Vader a front man in the Empire's Council. I've learned from the movies. So, why bother with more fruitless posturing--a pyrrhic victory to impeach Bush? We'd have to take lots of people with him like his fuckin preseidential successors, Cheney, Rice, Frist, the whle damn cabinet down to the Postmaster General, whoever the hell he is. Better to take over the 2006 election (getting with Moveon, etc.) than play impeachment parlor games.

Anonymous said...

lots of people are dying everyday because of Bush's lies and deceits. All the key players can be named in the impeachment. The fucker has no clue about how our democracy is supposed to work. Most everybody realizes what a sleazeball the whole lot are, with their bullshit about how they are making us safer. These guys need to go down in flames, it would be very good for America. The guy is a criminal acting as a dictator, these are high crimes and misdemeanors and the very reason the framers put the impeachment clause into the constitution. http://www.impeachbush.org has a very interesting strategy for raising awareness on the issue and mobilizing the populace. Some may say it is a stupid strategy or divisive. we have been divided enough by Bushco. I say remove him from office and let him stand trial for his crimes. Just like all the porfux in this country.