We previously discussed the disconnect between Democratic leaders and liberal voters in the increasing complaints of leaders like Vice President Biden over Democratic “lethargy.” Democrats in Washington once again seemed shocked that voters are not eager to fight for their retention. Now, Biden has added the helpful advice to Democratic voters to “stop whining” about things that they did not get in Washington and to “buck up.”
The “buck up” comment was meant as an improvement over the “whining” comment. It turned out that “whining” was not greeted by voters as an improvement over “lethargy.”
Here is the latest statement:
“And so those who don’t get — didn’t get everything they wanted, it’s time to just buck up here, understand that we can make things better, continue to move forward and — but not yield the playing field to those folks who are against everything that we stand for in terms of the initiatives we put forward.”
By “everything [we] wanted,” I assume Biden is including the fulfillment of our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute war crimes such as torture — which the Administration blocked.
I assume it includes removing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which the Administration is trying to preserve by asking a court not to impose a national injunction freezing the policy.
I assume it includes allowing dozens of privacy lawsuits to go forward against companies, which the Administration blocked despite evidence of unlawful surveillance by the Bush Administration.
I assume it includes allowing torture victims to seek review in federal court, which the Administration has successfully blocked.
I assume it includes protecting pristine areas along the East Coast from drilling, which the Administration has fought to open up for development even after the BP accident.
I assume it includes reducing the faith-based programs of the Bush Administration which raised concerns over the separation of church and state, which Obama expanded.
Well, it includes a lot of things that democratic and independent voters wanted. What they got was a Democratic majority saw power as the end to itself rather than the means to fight for principle. For civil libertarians, “those folks who are against everything that we stand” include the Obama Administration which has been a perfect nightmare in the adoption and expansion of Bush policies.
Yet, Biden wants civil libertarians, environmentalists, and liberals to stop whining and buck up. The Administration made a cynical calculation that liberals and civil libertarians and environmentalists have no where to go and that they have to support the Democrats regardless of these obnoxious policies. Now, they are simply shocked that voters are not enthusiastic about their continuing in power.
The Democratic leadership has conveyed that the only principle that they are committed to is their retention of power. All other principles — torture, the environment, privacy, free speech — are immaterial to that one overriding goal. They just do not understand why everyone does not see it that way.
Well, I am one of those whining, lethargic voters and I cannot get myself to buck up to support leaders who turned their back on such core values. Perhaps if enough Democrats are replaced, the party may rediscover the benefit of being principled and standing for something other than their own insular interests. They need to actually represent something other than “we are not as bad as those guys.” The problem for voters is that, by retaining these leaders, we reaffirm that they cynical calculation by the White House was correct. There is no reason why Democrats should fulfill their commitments in these areas if voters do not hold them accountable. I know some on this blog may disagree, but I personally think I will stick with the whining for now.
Source: Real Clear Politics
Tony C Your arguments constantly contain oversimplifications and black and white thinking. You so anti-democrat that you are not any different than bdaman. You have convinced none of us to stay home and have actually had quite the opposite effect.
>> the suggestion that Democrats should sit home on election night and let Perry and other Republicans like him who are morally bankrupt get elected to office is one that I find repugnant.
I understand that, and this is the relativism argument. I’m not putting words in your mouth here, I am about to point out what I believe is the logical consequence of the argument you are making: As long as the Democrat has not been plausibly accused of rape, we are better off than that guy. Even if the Democrat is lying to us about every policy position he holds, even if he is taking bribes, even if he is voting to gut the Constitution, imprison people indefinitely without charges or trial, silently affirming DADT and anti-LGBT policies — At least he hasn’t been accused of rape.
Elaine There are so many people either unqualified or with an actual criminal backround that are running in the republican party this year. I guess they thought they would ride the anti-incumbent wave and no one would ever catch on. Look at Miller in Alaska. He actually had reporters beaten up when they tried to find out about him. The one thing I have noticed is that incumbent republicans aren’t threatened. For instance, David Vitter with his racist ads and relationships with prostitutes isn’t in danger while Elliot Spitzer had to resign. There is a double standard and Tony aims to enforce it. He claims the high moral ground but the actual evidence does not support his preachings.
Swarthmore mom,
In addition to the tea party/birther/racist/nut job Republican running for Congress from my district, we have a reprehensible Republican candidate running for Congress from another district in my state. Professor Turley posted about that candidate, Jeffrey Perry, this morning:
“Congressional Candidate in Massachusetts Accused of Complicity in Sexual Assault While a Police Officer”
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/10/23/congressional-candidate-in-massachusetts-accused-of-complicity-in-sexual-assault-while-a-police-officer/
**********
Should Democrats stay away from the polls and let people like Jeffrey Perry get elected to office? Well, the suggestion that Democrats should sit home on election night and let Perry and other Republicans like him who are morally bankrupt get elected to office is one that I find repugnant.
This is something I read on another blog. Every time the democrats do their damnedest to demonstrate that there is not a useful distinction the GOP steps up its game to show there is a real difference. This year it is a “tsunami” of dishonest corporate financed ads and anti-muslim bigotry.
A few Slart quotes **about my strategy***:
2:39 I think you have an unrealistically simplified view of how government works
4:33 Since you have been advocating a strategy I consider ineffective and idiotic,
3:01 you have no evidence to support your irrational voting strategy (which fits nicely with your naive, oversimplified view of politicians)
3:04 your strategy is short-sighted, irrational, and self-destructive.
Then I ran out of time to review.
@Slart: I will try once more:
You claim that due to my short-sighted, irrational, self-destructive, ineffective, idiot argument, I expose a naively oversimplified view of politicians and how government works.
Dr. Turley makes the virtually the identical argument.
Now does Dr. Turley have a naively over-simplified view of politicians and how government works? Is he also short-sighted, irrational, self-destructive and idiotic?
If not, please point to either:
a) a logical element of my argument that is not in his argument, or
b) a logical element of his argument that is not in my argument.
Where by “logical element” I intend to exclude the form of presentation of elements and focus on their function.
Lacking that the two arguments are identical, and the proponents deserve equal reprobation. Until you either demonstrate a fundamental difference between the arguments or equalize the reprobation I decline further debate.
Bob,Esq.
Damn your good
Doc nothin personal accept to say I still like you.
P.S.
Your best defense is probably a utilitarian argument; but even then you’ll be hard pressed to find utility in excusing tyranny.
Kevin: “Wrong. I was using hyperbole”
Wrong, you defended that statement in the literal sense; thus attempting to distance yourself from it by labeling it hyperbole is simply lying.
Kevin: “but the fact remains that decisions and actions by the president are not independent from each other and to evaluate them as such is naive.”
And what of the policies that were inherited from Bush and dare I say expanded by Obama? Care to make exceptions for them?
Kevin: “On the whole I believe that President Obama has been far better than President Bush was or President McCain would have been.”
On the whole your belief is a claim without a reason and is thus irrelevant.
Kevin: “I believe that even if I grant you the worst possible interpretations of everything you’ve mentioned, the culpability of the Obama administration pales compared to that of the Bush administration”
Not for nothing, but do you have a moral standard that’s a tad less dependent on your whimsical beliefs? Street urchins carrying signs have ‘beliefs’ sans reason Kevin — is it too much to ask for a moral argument from you?
Kevin: “and that nothing (except maybe your sense of moral superiority) is served by drawing a false equivalence between the two.”
Should I derive a sense of ‘moral superiority’ from your inability to articulate your moral arguments? Seems to me the discussion would be much more enjoyable if you did something more than recite your ‘beliefs.’
Kevin: “In addition, I don’t think that there is the political will to address the crimes of ANY administration until the economy improves significantly (I’m not saying this is morally or ethically right or wrong, just that it is a true statement).”
Perhaps, but wouldn’t you also agree that the political will to address said crimes could only be increased by clarifying the moral problems associated with them? Unless of course one was not interested in increasing the political will to prosecute said crimes while one’s favored president happens to be in office.
Kevin: “I’m arguing that painting the transgressions of the Bush and Obama administrations as equally bad is a false equivalence and that it matters (at least to me) whether or not any actions have been taken under these doctrines.”
Bob: Because democrats, given current economic circumstances, must be held to a different standard than republicans. Right?
Kevin: “No. Circumstances should always be taken into account, but not all violations of standards are equal and, in my opinion, the sum total of all of the violations of the public trust by the Bush administration is orders of magnitude greater than that of the Obama administration.”
Oh goody, another wholesale claim sans reason. Perhaps you could share with us your reason for making such a sweeping dust storm of a statement. Analytically speaking, comparing Bush to Obama reduces Obama’s moral culpability how?
Kevin: “In addition, I think that any short term strategy other than supporting the administration in this time of economic crisis will result in slowing and possibly reversing the economic recovery.”
See, this is why I called you a liar for referring to that other statement as hyperbole; since you’re defending it again here as you did for days on the other thread. Per you defense, it lacks any foundation whatsoever in both law and morality.
Kevin: “I believe in standing behind the president during times of national crisis – just like I stood behind President Bush after September 11, 2001 (at least until he invaded Iraq…). That this crisis is an economic rather than military threat to our national security makes no difference.”
All you’re doing now is politicizing crime while cloaking yourself in the flag. This is Glenn Beck material.
Kevin: “President Obama should be held accountable for his actions (as should President Bush) AFTER he does what he feels is necessary to emerge from the crisis – we chose to let President Obama make the decisions and we don’t get to choose again until 2012.”
And this is how it continues. Republicans deny their leader is capable of wrong-doing while democrats admit the possibility and make promises that they’ll grow a spine to do something about it in the future. But that’s okay; you’ve got a crisis now …
Kevin: “If you want to talk about the topic the rest of us are discussing I’d be happy to answer any substantive arguments you make.”
So Faust, what is the argument today in favor of selling one’s soul?
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.” — Dostoevsky
Bob posted:
No. Circumstances should always be taken into account, but not all violations of standards are equal and, in my opinion, the sum total of all of the violations of the public trust by the Bush administration is orders of magnitude greater than that of the Obama administration. In addition, I think that any short term strategy other than supporting the administration in this time of economic crisis will result in slowing and possibly reversing the economic recovery. I believe in standing behind the president during times of national crisis – just like I stood behind President Bush after September 11, 2001 (at least until he invaded Iraq…). That this crisis is an economic rather than military threat to our national security makes no difference. President Obama should be held accountable for his actions (as should President Bush) AFTER he does what he feels is necessary to emerge from the crisis – we chose to let President Obama make the decisions and we don’t get to choose again until 2012.
If you want to talk about the topic the rest of us are discussing I’d be happy to answer any substantive arguments you make. Or you can keep twisting my words in order to somehow satisfy your apparent enmity towards me by pretending that you’ve forced me to score some kind of rhetorical ‘own goal’ if you want to, but that seems pretty pathetic to me.
I imagine the Founders didn’t think pols would spend 40 years making our lives miserable.
What did the Polish people do? 🙂 not a J
@Slart: “And apparently it doesn’t matter that throughout this debate you have been a condescending prick who tends to avoid defending his argument logically on its merits, while the professor has said nothing beyond his initial post?”
Is your logic here that his defense of his position is superior to mine because he made no attempt to defend it? THAT’S an interesting tactic.
I have defended my argument logically on its merits. You refuse to acknowledge that or attempt to refute the logic I provided, because I assume you are more interested in proving me wrong than in finding out what is right, or what irreconcilable difference we may have.
I make an argument, you call it a straw man. I make another, you assert something to the effect that my strategy will inevitably cause more harm than good, without proof. I try to use an argument from mathematics to try and put it in terms you know and you dismiss it as technobabble. I try to put it in terms of statistical sociology, or psychology, you dismiss that too.
So that generates its own irreconcilable difference: You and I cannot agree on what constitutes a fair debate, and there is apparently no channel of communication I can open. I have explained your logical error in a way simple enough for a ten year old to understand. But I will say it again:
There is no substantive difference between my position and Dr. Turley’s. Either his argument deserves the same labels YOU have tacked on mine, or you are a hypocrite, OR you admit the only real difference has nothing to do with the argument, you just don’t like me being rude. That last is what I believe is the case.
1) The argument that he never advocated not voting is false; to the average person reading his post he is advocating precisely that (Here is what I am doing, and why, and if enough people do it…)
2) To the average person reading his post he IS recommending punishment of Democrats by making them lose office, and believes that may work, and his clear implication is *all* Democrats, not some of them.
What else? My invocations against political liars and corruption? That is *more* specific than Turley’s, not less. So is he naive, illogical, possibly working for the other side? However inexpertly I have done it, is attempting to defend my ground what makes me a potential traitor?
I’m not a cry-baby, I’m just tired of trying to debate somebody that never answers a frikkin’ direct question, seems to purposely misinterpret every analogy or metaphor, and in general seems more interested in entertaining his peeps than investigating the source of a difference of opinion.
So answer the questions. Point at some SUBSTANTIVE logical difference in my position and Dr. Turley’s that warrants your disparate treatment of me (just yours, not anybody else’s), and justify that. Or just keep up your emotional ranting about how I am an asshole, because apparently you just cannot get over that.
personally Tony C. is proposing a viable alternative to voting. I have used it myself with certain republican candidates that are not “conservative” enough for me. Why not send a message to people who lie to you? All politicians seem to lie during the campaign and turn around and govern in an entirely different manner.
What is wrong with not voting or voting for the other party or writing in a candidate of your own?
Tony C has the right idea for both parties. Throw the sons of bitches out if they don’t listen to you. If we had more turnover in office maybe these jack asses would start listening to us.
If the Tea Party wins this time, then in 2012 your candidates will be more in tune with your goals. If the republicans don’t govern the way we want then conservatives should vote for liberals in 2012 and throw the bums out. Constant change is good for government and for the country. I imagine the Founders didn’t think pols would spend 40 years making our lives miserable.
Bob I don’t see Buddah. He might be taking another computer break. I am not accusing anyone of anything just have some suspicions but they are not clear.
Swarthmore mom,
If you’re going to accuse me of something then just come out and say it.
Or why not ask Buddha if he shares your suspicions.
Elaine They might be the same poster with a split personality. They don’t remember because it is spin.
Gerty
30%er
Jacob Marley
JACKPOT BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING
Kevin: “I’m not denying anything that the professor said above, nor absolving President Obama of anything because he is a Democrat (or any other reason)”
Because…
Kevin: “In my opinion, the president was faced with a decision to prosecute war criminals or avoid another depression – and I think he made the best choice available.”
False dilemma? Not if he’s a democrat; and especially if he’s been committing the same crimes as the previous administration. Right?
Kevin: “I’m arguing that painting the transgressions of the Bush and Obama administrations as equally bad is a false equivalence and that it matters (at least to me) whether or not any actions have been taken under these doctrines.”
Because democrats, given current economic circumstances, must be held to a different standard than republicans. Right?
When Bush did it, it was okay with republicans because he was their guy.
When Obama does it, it’s okay with the democrats because he’s their guy.
Sounds morally bankrupt to me.
JACK POT, BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING
EXACTLY !!!!!!!!!!!
Bob,Esq.
I wrote: “What does that have to do with Obama?”
You responded: “Exactly what J.T. brought up at the beginning of this thread.”
Can you be more specific with your answer? I’m not sure “exactly what” Professor Turley wrote that you think speaks to the comment and answers the question above that I addressed to you earlier.