Stupid, Stupid Democrats
Bayh's group of about 15 centrists in the Senate could be a critical voting bloc.
He says the group won't be obstructionist. But he says most matters need sixty votes in the Senate, and his group will be a key to making that happen.
Good morning Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea....
Well now! You would think that the Democrats would start to show some long overdue profiles in courage now that they are firmly back in power, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you? Think again.
A tip of the hat to that silly party is in order. Once in a blue moon I'll find myself trying to remember why I disengaged myself from that stupid organization over a decade ago. But as soon as the thought crosses my mind, they will cheerfully remind me. At a time when the nation is desperate to take a decided turn to the left, a number of Democrats are in the process of sabotaging that party's traditional progressive agenda
Last week on MSNBC's Morning Joe, the announcement was made that Evan Bayh (pictured above) was going to be providing that program with an exclusive. Sure enough, within an hour, there was the distinguished senator from Indiana telling Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezezinski that he had organized a group of "moderate" Democrats in the senate whose sole purpose was keeping that party's Liberal wing in check.
First of all, let's get honest here. The goal of Bayh and his co-saboteurs is not to nudge "their party's liberal agenda to the center". Their purpose is to force that party's essentially centrist agenda to the far right. They are also positioning themselves to have their collective butts kissed by the party's rank and file in order to get anything done legislatively. Call it what you will, but my definition is outright political blackmail. It is one of the most disgusting power plays I've seen come from within "the party of FDR" in a long time. Count on it: Bayh is positioning himself to challenge President Obama in the primaries three years from now. Gee, I wonder if Evan Bayh would have been this dead-set against the president's agenda had he been chosen to be second on the ticket? This has got to be revenge.
To paraphrase the late, great Mr. Fred Rogers: "Can you say 'Contemptible Bastard'? Sure you can!"
Treacherous Democrats are hardly a new phenomenon. Remember poor old, crazy Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a duel immediately after addressing the 2004 Republican convention? Or how about "loyal Democrat" Joe Lieberman who refused to accept the verdict of his party when they denied him the nomination three years ago? He ran as an Independent and defeated the Democratic nominee. To show that there were no hard feelings, Joe would endorse John McCain in '08 and even did an award winning reprise of Zell Miller's much heralded performance when he made a key note speech at the GOP's convention last summer. Do you remember all of those cowardly Democrats who stupidly voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in October of 2002 without the constitutionally mandated Congressional approval? As far as yours truly is concerned, that party has damned near lost all of its much lamented credibility. As Theodore Roosevelt once said of President McKinley, they have "all the backbone of a chocolate eclair".
And while we're on the subject of wayward Democratic politicians, let us not forget the entire eight year reign of Bill Clinton. Clinton could have (and should have) put an end to the era of deregulatory madness that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Instead he ended up merely passively enabling it. For the first two years of his administration he had a majority in both houses of Congress and he blew it. Although he was an able and competent chief executive in many substantial ways, no Democrat since Johnson (Andrew, not Lyndon) was a more bitter disappointment than William Jefferson Clinton.
I quit drugs in 1977. It's days like these when I seriously consider taking up the habit again. Oy vey!
Show me a "conservative Democrat" and I'll show you just another cheap politician who has been bought and paid for by Corporate America. These so-called moderate Democrats are in the back pockets of the lobbyists who pay for their 'round-the-world "fact finding" jaunts, private jets and free, gourmet meals at five Star Restaurants. Every member of that party should ask him or herself the following questions: "Am I going to be a Joe Lieberman Democrat or a Russ Feingold Democrat? Am I going to be a Franklin Roosevelt Democrat or a Bill Clinton Democrat?" Damned good questions. Any answers?
What in the name of Mitch Miller is going on here? What the hell is the matter with these people? And while we're on the subject, what is the matter with Barack Obama? While it would be wrong to make an etched-in-stone, definitive assessment of his administration after only two months and three days, it's all too apparent that the man is off to a disastrous start. The editorial pages are packed to the margins with opinions as to why this would be so. Would you like to hear mine? The president has made a horrific error by placing within his administration men and women who are so ideologically out of step with the progressive ideas he envisioned during last year's campaign, they have rendered his programs impotent. To put it as simply as I can:
There are way too many Republicans in this administration.
Call it a hunch on my part, but I have a suspicion that putting Timothy Geitner in charge of a department he once tried to abolish was not a particularly smart idea. Come to think of it, it was a monumentally stupid one. While there were indeed a number of Republicans within the New Deal, they at least believed in the agenda. And don't forget that in 1933, there still existed a progressive wing of the GOP, a direct legacy of FDR's distant cousin, Theodore. That is no longer the case - far from it.
And speaking of the New Deal (and it's all-but-impossible not to refer to it during these trying times) I expected this president to have, at the very least, a remedial understanding of American history. During the campaign he constantly referred to Doris Kearns-Goodwin's excellent biography of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals. As I said at the time, right author, wrong book. The book he should have been reading was her bio of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, No Ordinary Time. The reason New Deal was so successful three-quarters-of-a-century ago (recent right wing revisionism notwithstanding) was because Franklin Roosevelt's Brain Trust understood full well that 1933 was not a time for caution and timidity; it was a time for bold, experimental "action" - a word that Roosevelt used consistently in his speeches at the time. Why does President Obama seem to not get this? If he continues on the course which he has apparently set for himself, he is doomed to failure. Remember you read it here on The Rant, Mr. and Mrs. America.
It is high time that the Dems throw some ice-cold water on their clueless faces and realize that their entire reason for being is not to position themselves as Republican Lite. They are - or at least they're supposed to be - the party of progressiveness. They can begin by ensuring that those "timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat", the Evan Bayh crowd, are badly defeated in the primaries of 2010 and 2012. This country can only be saved by making a hard turn toward the left. That is not merely my humble opinion, that is a statement that is backed up by two-and-a-third centuries of historical fact.
Wake up, Democrats, it's later than you think.
YO, DEMS! HERE'S SOME SUGGESTED READING FOR YOU:
Profiles in Courage
by John F. Kennedy
Jack Kennedy. Remember him?