Vice President Biden noted yesterday that he hoped that the Tea Party might finally get Democratic and liberal votes out of their “lethargy.” The comment struck a nerve with me since various Democratic leaders have expressed surprise and mild criticism over the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters. What is striking is the fact that Biden and others continue to consider their own failure to give voters a reason to become active after years of broken campaign promises and outright betrayals of core values. The best that they can come up with (yet again) is that the other people are worse than we are.
It is unclear why Biden thinks, for example, civil libertarians should be energized after the Obama Administration embraced and expanded Bush-era policies in the war on terror. President Obama has shielded Bush officials from any investigation, let alone prosecution, for torture and has fought to block any cases that would hold companies or agencies responsible for violations of human rights or privacy.
It is unclear why Biden thinks environmentalists should be energized after the Administration opened up pristine areas of the East Coast for oil exploration and, even after the BP disaster, downplayed the spill damage to lift the moratorium.
It is unclear why Biden thinks that peace advocates should be energized after the Administration continued both wars and the gushing of both American blood and treasure.
It is unclear why Biden thinks gay and lesbian activists should be energized after the Obama Administration fought in court to preserve Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and then appealed to limit the major victory enjoining DADT.
For over a decade, the Democratic Party has based its demands for political support not on its own performance but on the “lesser of two evils” argument. They simply cannot understand why voters would be less than enthusiastic in fighting for them to retain power. Indeed, from the very start of this Administration, the clear message to liberals has been “you have no where else to go.” What the Administration and congressional democrats did not consider is that liberals, civil libertarians, and environmentalists could decide to simply go no where and stay at home.
Biden was speaking(at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md. when he noted that “[m[aybe the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins. Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.” Biden seems to welcome that there is finally a compelling reason for voters to take to the streets: even worse people are running for office.
How about another option? The Democratic leaders could actually fight on principle over things like torture and give voters a positive reason to care about their future. If you want voters to care, you can start by giving them something to care about — other than the job security of Democratic officeholders. If the Obama Administration did not actually jettison these issues for political convenience, it might not have been more popular, but it would have been more respected and it would have garnered far more enthusiasm from Democratic and liberal voters. Instead, the Democratic leadership has repeatedly conveyed that they are concerned only about retaining their offices and power at any cost — hardly a motivating message for votes.
So here is my suggestion for a new campaign motto: “Fighting Lethargy With Leadership.”
Source: The Hill
I don’t even know what liberal means anymore. It certainly is not defined by abortion policy. What I want is an anti corruption party and a commitment that the U.S. will abide by its own laws.
Tony C Do you really think if Russ Feingold loses a more liberal democrat will run in Wisconsin the next time?
Tony C.,
I don’t want to leave you with the impression that I’d vote for or support ANY Democratic candidate. I wouldn’t.
People like me? What do you know about me? Do you think you know how my mind works? Please don’t accuse me of being duped. I haven’t been tricked by Democrats. I’m not some witless ingenue. You don’t need to school me about what’s been going on in Washington. I keep myself current. I have a right to my opinions about Democrats and Republicans–just as you have a right to yours.
**********
“The next Democrat to run would NOT be Harry Reid, and in the next election Democrats would be motivated to make some changes, hopefully including finding a real liberal without a history of corruption.”
The Democrats could possibly look for a MORE conservative candidate than Reid.
**********
P.S. Telling people that they have been fooled into their beliefs/opnions or implying that they don’t have a brain if they disagree with you is not the best way to win an argument.
@Elaine: Alright, I see how that can be misinterpreted. Had I reviewed it before sending it, I would have expanded upon the thought.
Even if the religious nut job is just as corrupt, I believe letting the incumbent crook lose and therefore be punished for their lies is preferable to rewarding the incumbent crook with another vote and another term, which they will use to bilk us even more expertly and thoroughly than their last term.
To be specific, I would rather see the completely addled and corrupt as hell Sharron Angle win than leave Harry Reid in office. At least Angle is TRANSPARENTLY nuts, while Reid is expert enough to fool most of the people most of the time. My resolution is to no longer vote for crooks, so I wouldn’t VOTE for Angle, but I would be rooting for her to throw the bum out. Her winning would have two salutory effects: The next Democrat to run would NOT be Harry Reid, and in the next election Democrats would be motivated to make some changes, hopefully including finding a real liberal without a history of corruption.
By comparision, I feel the opposite about Christine O’Donnell. I think she is a transparent thief, liar and fraud. Her opponent, Chris Coons, does not seem to be corrupt. I am not a constituent there, but were I, I would vote for Coons.
I will no longer help by vote or donation or volunteer work to keep in office a corrupt politician. The Tea party has at least that tactic right, by throwing out moderate Republican incumbents that deviate from their ideology, they have scared the Republicans into publicly moving further to the right.
Liberals can do the same and win this fight, in every poll more Americans agree with liberal policy descriptions than do conservative policy descriptions. If they want to polarize the country into hard left and hard right, the hard left wins every important battle, on abortion, on civil rights, on the social safety net, on homosexual marriage, adoption, and military service, on progressive taxation, on foreign policy and on foreign trade. We win.
Or we WOULD win, if liberals punished our liars by throwing them out of office. But we don’t, so we end up with a government careening to the right on ALL those issues with a vengeance. Why don’t we? Because of people like you, tricked into thinking that somehow the Democrat is lying less than the Republican.
The current and previous administration should prove it to you. Under Bush, WITHOUT sixty votes in the Senate, Republicans steamrolled Democrats into one policy after another that benefitted the rich, the military, the security state and themselves.
Under Obama, Democrats with sixty votes and with all three houses let themselves be steamrolled by Republicans into one policy after another that benefitted the rich, the military, the security state and themselves.
If anything, the Dems have to lie harder than the Republicans, they have so much less excuse to fail. The only difference between the two sides is the platitudes they have learned to use so handily. The Democrats have our number, they know what to promise and how to promise it. The Republicans have learned to crack a different safe full of platitudes that speaks to the insecurities that define an American conservative. In my view, for at least 95% of candidates, it is all an act, the goal is to get into office and do whatever you want.
A few weeks after Bush and Cheney first got into the White House, a staffer asked Cheney (with Bush present) how they were going to fund some campaign promise they had made. Cheney responded, “We’re not. Leave it alone. That was just something we had to say for the campaign.” Which Bush accepted without comment.
That is what you are dealing with on BOTH sides when you re-elect incumbents that break their campaign promises. They do it on purpose.
Tony C.,
“I don’t assume that religious nut jobs cannot be bought; why do you think that?”
I read what you wrote in an earlier comment in which you seemed to imply that.
When I asked if you thought turning the country over to a religious “nut job” was a good idea, you responded: “Of course I don’t think it is a good idea, but it is preferable to leaving the country in the hands of crooks that sell us to the highest bidder.”
(Every so carefully she sticks her toe in …) My husband, a life-long, good democrat has stopped donating any money to the DNC and any political candidate and feels exactly as Tony C and HenMan. Although I have stopped donating to the DNC, I have donated to 1 candidate and feel more as SwM and Elaine do
My husband and I will both be voting in Nov., he on issues and me on issues and candidates … no matter which side of this argument is correct, one of us is brainless. Thus when we walk into the poll on election day we will possess, as a couple, only half a brain each.
Swarthmore mom: What?! Obama’s not running this year?! I could have sworn… I guess I had him confused with Harold Stassen. Well then, I won’t vote for him this year, next year, OR the year after that!! That’ll teach the blighter!
@Elaine: I don’t assume that religious nut jobs cannot be bought; why do you think that? I just don’t care, I won’t vote for one lying corrupt crook to keep another lying corrupt crook out of office. And if that means the country gets worse, so be it. I won’t vote for a known crook!
Let some new face run, If I investigate them and do not find corruption in their past, I will grant them the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and vote for them. If they screw me, I won’t vote for them again, if they keep a liberal promise I WILL vote for them again, and I will donate to their campaigns, until they break that promise at least.
In the meantime I do not care how bad it gets or how bad the crooks are, let the idiots funding those campaigns and voting for those crooks get what they deserve, the pain of supporting the people they know are lying to them.
This relativism is going to destroy the country. I will not aid or abet the sociopathic murdering criminals that run this country with money or votes. Show me a liberal progressive challenger that can withstand evem a modest amount of scrutiny and I am in, because I have a few hundred to spare. However, I suspect it will just be earning interest and in reserve for a long time.
ElaineI I am not staying home so the neo-Nazi tea party can take over either.
Swarthmoremom,
Please promise me that you won’t ever vote for a child molester.
😉
Henman Obama is not up for election this year. It is only 2010. The presidential primaries are in 2012 and the election for president is in November, 2012. I am quitting this for the night as the discussion is becoming increasing irrational. If we could only get a catholic priest to run as democrat then you could really go crazy. There was a very good priest named Father Drinan who was a congressman from Massachusetts. No one ever said he was a child molester.
Tony C.,
You’re assuming that religious nut jobs can’t be bought…that they wouldn’t sell us to the highest bidder. Why is that?
I think we’d be better off with a lot less religion in government and a lot fewer Bible-quoting folks in Congress. I don’t want another president like George Bush who thought God was giving him advice.
well getting back to the subject of Democrats, this was in my email
Dear Kay,
MoveOn members in Wisconsin have voted to endorse Russ Feingold for Senate. It’s up to all of us to stop the corporate takeover of Congress—you can volunteer with the campaign here:
http://www.russfeingold.org/
Below is a special message for you from Russ Feingold.
Thanks for all you do.
–Steven, Anna, Duncan, Adam, Carrie, and the rest of the team
Election Day is less than two months away and our race is a toss-up. Ron Johnson wants it bad. The extremists and the special interests in Washington want it bad. What I need to know is this: How bad do you want it?
Join the Feingold Campaign Team – Volunteer Today!
Ron Johnson wants his checkbook to decide this election. He’s outspending us three to one on television ads, but I know that if you support this campaign with a one-to-one effort, we will win.
We need new volunteers to join our grassroots campaign. With field offices across the state, there are endless opportunities to get involved. Please sign up to volunteer today!
Join the Feingold Campaign Team – Volunteer Today!
This election is in your hands. Don’t let Ron Johnson and the corporate special interests in Washington take it away. With your help, I will continue to move Wisconsin, and our country, forward.
Sincerely,
Russ Feingold
United States Senator
Now, if you look at Feingold as a good or service, where does the message above state what the benefits of having him are? Saw his t.v. commercial again, the same one with his garage doors, and it is also very vague. Probably a total waste of money.
I am looking for concrete commitments on civil rights from the head of the constitution subcommittee. If Feingold would make a concrete commitment on pro se rights I would campaign for him. What I want too is a legal peace corps to help people in other countries sue their governments.
And, by the way, I also understand that if I refuse to vote for the child molester, I will be solely responsible for the election of the Nazi death camp commander. This is a terrible responsibility you have given me.
Tony Why do you think religious nuts are not crooks also? Those Palins are not exactly known to be honest people. They are probably some of the more blatantly unscrupulous folks to come along in a awhile. Fundamentalists believe that you are “blessed” if you acquire money.
Swarthmore mom: Let me see if I understand this. A shoplifter is better than a bank robber. A bank robber is better than a child molester. A child molester is better than a Nazi death camp commander. Therefore, if the Republicans run a Nazi death camp commander and the Democrats run a child molester, it’s perfectly alright to vote for the child molester because he’s the Democrat. I think I understand now. But I’m still not going to vote for Obama. And yes, I hate Nazi analogies, too.
@Elaine: Of course I don’t think it is a good idea, but it is preferable to leaving the country in the hands of crooks that sell us to the highest bidder.
A religious nut job can be kept in check by the courts, and if they cannot, at least the majority of people will rebel in the next election when the religious nut job starts to have a serious impact on their lives.
So in that sense, I DO want things to get worse so that they can get better. Every election we let the crooks get away with being crooks, they will steal more and become more craven and open about it. It is a cancer that only punishment can stop. That punishment must occur at the polls. Do not vote for Democrats do not give them money. No matter what pain that causes for the next two years, it won’t be fatal to progressive causes, and it WILL HELP progressive causes in 2012 by moving Democrats BACK TO THE LEFT.
Tony C.,
I mentioned turning the country over to a “religious nut job.”
*****
And you think that’s a good idea?
Buckeye Some of the same things that people on here say.
Swathmore Mom
I read the same things on right wing blogs too, Buckeye.
—————————————————-
Which things?
Across the river in West Virginia the Republican running for governor, John Raese, is running a contest and offering $25 to the winner in each county that writes the most letters to the editor that mention himself or his wife Liz!!!???!!!
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/squawkbox/2010/09/21/state-dems-hit-raese-on-rally-flyer/