Belaboring the Obvious

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Your Order, Please? I'd Like a Dozen Bitchslaps To Go, Thank You... And Hold the Bipartisanship....

Word is that Joe Lieberman is campaigning with Connecticut Republican candidates for governor and House of Representatives today in Groton. And yet, his campaign guru, Dan Gerstein, assures us all that Harry Reid has affirmed that Joe will keep all his committee positions if he wins in November. What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing that a nice firm bitchslap wouldn't address. A couple for you, Joe.

At this moment, any Democratic attempt at "bipartisanship" is wasted effort, and the average nine-year-old can figure that out. Republicans, ever since the so-called Reagan Revolution, have been playing for blood and treasure, and in the last five years, the average kindergartener knows that they don't work and play well with others. The Repugs are counting on Democrats giving in, offering as little resistance as possible to that date rape they know is coming. Predictably, the DLC types have been spreading their legs, feigning horror and whispering in mock alarm, "oh, please, don't do that."

Maybe Al From has some unfulfilled rape fantasies slithering around in his psyche, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to entertain them, too. Bitchslap for you, too, Al dear.

When Rahm Emanuel was interviewed recently by New York magazine and was asked if bloggers were "too powerful," he answered: "Do I think the [bloggers] and Al Sharpton alone are the future of the Democratic Party? No! Welcome in, contribute, but it's about winning in November and moving the country forward, not about a firing squad in a circle."

What chutzpah--translated, that means "give us your money, vote for who we tell you to and get out of our fucking way, peons."

Pretty cute, Rahm. Nobody fucking asked you about Al Sharpton. Nice underhanded jab at Lamont, there, as if no one would notice. Maybe you've forgotten, but Lamont won the Democratic primary, and Lieberman didn't. Bitchslap you until your DLC/corporate money-stuffed cheeks burn, Rahm.

It annoys the living shit out of me that big money controls the governmental processes of this country, top to bottom. It irks me no end that the people controlling the government are the ones that want it that way. And I go absolutely bugfuck at the realization that Democrats (as epitomized by DLC members) think they have to grease themselves up and bend over for the likes of the Koch brothers to keep their jobs. That's not bipartisanship. That's the height of self-interest.

From the most podunk town council to the national seat of government, there ought to be one standard for legislation: does this help or hurt ordinary people? Instead, the standard is: will this be perceived as a favor to XXXX corporation and will they keep on donating to my campaign chest? Can I use this to get more money?

Virtually every politician will tell you that those huge chunks of money don't influence them. It's about time to stop believing in the tooth fairy, fellow voters. It does, and anyone who says it doesn't is a liar. If it doesn't, why are they working so hard for it? Most politicians spend 50-80% of their time on getting contributions for reelection. That may be one of the reasons why they never seem to have time to actually fucking read the legislation on which they vote.

The truth is that people like Lieberman, From, Emanuel and their ilk aren't interested in moving the country forward. They're interested in themselves and the corporate interests they represent. Sure, big egos go with big political office. However, that's not a reason (hell, it's not even a convincing excuse) to turn the public treasury into an ATM for the Fortune 500.

The reason why all that's true is simple--if they really did believe in the Constitutional mandate to "promote the general welfare," then they would write Constitutionally bulletproof legislation for public financing of all campaigns. And they won't, because that might mean they'd lose their jobs to someone who wasn't part of that corporate money merry-go-round. So might all those DLC types lose their campaign consulting jobs--the same people that have been costing Democrats national elections lo these many years, the same people who have been lobbying for judges that will do the corporate world favors. (Let's not forget that some prominent Democrats--including Lieberman--handed over the right to filibuster to the Republicans, when the filibuster is the only emergency tool left to a minority party. They said they would only use it in extreme circumstances, and left about three-quarters of Democrats whomper-jawed when they opted not to use it to prevent either Roberts' or Alito's nomination for the Supreme Court from leaving committee--extreme circumstances, by definition. That wasn't bipartisanship--it was a gross capitulation.)

Now, lest one think this is just another rambling, undifferentiated rant, this business of bipartisanship (as espoused by all of the above-mentioned twits) only works when both sides are directed to that end, and Republicans surely are not. When you're a kid, and someone always demands that you share with them--but they never share with you--you eventually get the message that the person is a selfish prick and you ignore him. Now, if the DLC types continue to behave as if they're reasonable and the rest of us aren't, that can mean only one or both of two things: they're stupid and gullible (and in that case, shouldn't be holding public office) and/or they're as corrupt as their Republican counterparts (and want the continuance of same system the Repugs have set up to enrich themselves and their corporate pals).

When campaign law, confirmation of judges and political rhetoric are all geared toward giving big business what they want, one finally has to make a determination: it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. So, what is it?

One thing for goddamned sure, it isn't traditional Democratic principles at work. With the country's direction leaning harder right, further and further toward authoritarianism, one-party rule, greatly more entrenched Executive power and with more and more of the public treasury going to tax breaks, grants, subsidies, defense spending and war, which principally benefit large corporations and the wealthy--and with a firm majority in polls saying that the country is headed in the wrong direction--why are deeply-incumbent Democrats lobbying and campaigning for the maintenance of the status quo?

Yeah, no question about it, the voters are to blame for the situation--probably a third of them are so out of it that they can't even identify what an issue is, let alone the different sides of that issue and which politicians represent those opposing sides. But, Democrats who see that as an electoral advantage are no different than the Republicans they are enabling. By now, the Iraqi war has been revealed to be a mistake of staggering proportions and which was promoted on the basis of a towering stack of highly partisan lies. Outright bald-faced lies conjured up by the White House and sold by the Republicans. It was, regardless of the AUMF vote, a war dreamed up and forced through by Repugs. They own it. What a gift to any honest Democrat! Instead, the DLCers are saying, "stay the course," just like Bush.

Any Democrat who can stand before the voters and tell the truth, in so many words, that Bush is a lying, mean-spirited, lazy, corrupt, inept, psychotic dumbfuck, and that that Democrat is running to undo the damage Bush and the Republicans and big business have done to the country, that candidate will win in 2006. Why not say, "if Bush is your daddy, and he says he's keepin' you safe, why did 9/11 happen in the first place? After all, he was in office for eight fucking months when it happened, and he barely noticed the signs and signals." The Republicans think they own national security. Democrats haven't yet figured out that national security owns the Republicans.

The DLCers (and their Fortune 500 contributors) are pissing their pants just thinking about the prospect of someone actually saying such things out loud, let alone in front of a campaign microphone. Winning Democrats should be pointing at the growing puddles and laughing out loud.

It's hypocritical to say that you're a real Democrat and then play kissy-face with a lame partisan hack who loves the rich and hates the poor, such as George W. Bush. People in the Democratic Party who call out Bush and his toadies in both parties for what they are will win, in 2006, and 2008. Bush and the Repugs are fuck-ups who are doing the country damage, as are any Dems stroking these incompetents in the hope of a campaign money reach-around. Any Dem running against that status quo and has even a semblance of a plan to undo the damage they've done (like repealing bad legislation) is going to do well.


Post a Comment

<< Home