(Almost) Spring Break Blogging
TOM DeLAY is being persecuted because he loves Jesus. Cynthia McKinney was racially profiled, and singled out for her hairstyle and liberal views. As for me, I only got an F in Algebra 2 in 10th grade because I had a lot of pimples and because I'm one-sixteenth Chilean. The reasons my teacher gave for grading me the way she did -- that I “did zero homework assignments,” “turned in blank tests,” and “often disrupted class with loud snoring”-- were nothing but a thinly-veiled disguise for her rabid bigotry.
THE U.S. IS BUILDING 125 new nuclear weapons. Remind me again why we’re angry at Iran?
…AND THE U.S. continues to have by far the world’s highest incarceration rate. Remind me again why non-violent drug offenders go to prison?
IN A MUST-READ Washington Monthly article entitled “Not as Lame as You Think,” the indispensable Amy Sullivan raises a lot of good points.
First, she points out that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are actually doing a much better job as opposition leaders than liberal critics (especially bloggers) have given them credit for. This is a point I’ve tried to make a few times before. While there have no doubt been occasions over the last two years when Democrats could have and should have put up more of a fight, they’ve actually been quite successful in blocking most of Bush’s atrocious agenda. Don’t believe me? Then let me know what major new policy initiatives Bush has been able to pass since his re-election. To me, it’s clear that his agenda has basically been derailed.
Second, she correctly notes that it has become a media narrative that Democrats are weak and divided. In truth, congressional Democrats are relatively united and fighting harder that it appears, and have actually voted in unison more often than the Republican caucus. She also argues correctly that the media often credits “moderate” Republican defectors for derailing Bush’s agenda, instead of the united and on-message Democratic caucus that has forced Republicans to defect for fear of the political consequences.
I personally recoil frequently when I read the many invectives on liberal blogs trashing Democratic leaders. And sadly, such criticisms are all over. When Nancy Pelosi posted on Daily Kos a few weeks ago, she was flooded with angry, general comments questioning her will to fight. (Sorry--can't find link).
I think liberals tend to do this because they’re in a pre-2004 mindset, if you will. After September 11 and until Bush’s re-election, it’s true that congressional Democrats just gave up any idea of resistance and let Bush get away with some of the most awful governance in this country’s history. That’s why I still think the best thing that happened in the 2004 elections was the defeat of Tom Daschle, whose legacy is one of incompetence and submission. Democrats, I think, were still so angry about the Daschle Democrats that they never gave Reid a chance. So far, he’s done a pretty damn good job, and his biggest test will be the midterm elections. Give him a chance to succeed before criticizing him; he’s earned it.
posted by Joe at 10:14 PM
4 Comments:
I agree, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing a pretty good job as leaders.
I can see why Harry Reid might not be liked by the anti-Democratic Party leftists- he's not a very dynamic personality, and indeed, is somewhat moderate politically- but Nancy Pelosi is a hard-left, San Francisco-style liberal. The truth is, the anti-Democratic radical leftists wouldn't like the leadership no matter who they were, unless they suddenly declared themselves anarchists or communists. I don't like these fringe factions anymore than I like Neo-cons. They're each helping to achieve the Neo-con agenda in their own way.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are fighting that agenda, by and large, and I like them for it.
And non-violent drug offenders should be given involuntary commitments to rehab clinics and be taken off the street. Not jail, but off the street. Buying drugs FEEDS violent offenses, no doubt about it- so they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity of making another purchase.
And fuck nuclear weapon building- by anyone. (Especially maniacal U.S. neocons) Unfortunately, this cannot be an excuse for allowing Iranian maniacs to build them as well.
Yaaaaaaaaaaay!!
I posted something that even Mr. Zatcoff himself agrees with!! This calls for celebration!!
That's actually a good point you make, one that I didn't consider, and one that would've boosted my argument. There certainly are people who just hate the Democratic leaders no matter who they are. Although this trait is occasionally seen on the right, it's obviously much more common on the left.
But I don't just mean crazy anarchists and communists-- there are plenty of people who actually call themselves Democrats and truly care about the party and its agenda who are also really critical of Dean and Pelosi. And I think a lot of that has to do with leftover outrage at Tom Daschle and his appeasement agenda.
And I agree with your other two comments, too. Non-violent offenders need rehab, not jail. But I'm for legalization, anyway, so I guess that point's kinda moot.
Obviously, I don't mean to suggest that Iran should be allowed to build nukes. I think no one should be allowed to... But if the US, the UK, and Israel stockpile them like crazy, how can they act like Iran should be treated like a pariah for wanting to join the club?
What to do about Iran's moves toward nuclear energy-- I don't know. But it's the hypocrisy that kills me.
Oy. Frankly I like Nancy Pelosi. I have a little bit of a harder time with Harry Reid. I do have to say he's more pliant than I'd like.
But it's refreshing to see that everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees: Cynthia McKinney is nuts.
Yeah, I hate drugs, as you know, but I guess I am for regulated legalization as well. It'll make a good tax, and it'll cut down on crime.
The only problem is how to prevent it from harming others. Alcohol has a breathalyzer detection which can determine whether or not someone is driving intoxicated, and therefore can potentially kill someone else. No such thing exists currently for marijuana, which obviously creates impairment as well. So it is diffuclt to accurately and immediately gauge the level to which someone is fit to drive- to regulate or set limits for public safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home