Have I mentioned how much I like Gene Lyons' writing (mentioned it in the last day or two, that is)?
On Wednesday, he has the perfect images for our recent national debate on the Iraq War. You know, the topic pretty much everyone is discussing except, well, most of the Democrats in Congress? Lyons writes in Democratic bickering reveals mistrust of votersArkansas Democrat-Gazette 03/22/06:
Recent bickering among Democrats about Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold’s motion to censure President Bush over warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps of American citizens reminded me of one of my favorite "Far Side" cartoons, In it, a nuclear mushroom cloud looms above a city skyline. Motorists flee, bug-eyed with terror. In the foreground, a dog widdles on a fire hydrant as a second dog barks furiously from a car window. The caption reads something like "Suddenly, Fred spotted something that caught his attention." Civil war looms in Iraq, where Bush memorably declared victory during his 2003 "Mission accomplished" aircraft carrier photo-op. Made wary by three years of triumphal rhetoric and bad predictions, six in 10 Americans now say invading Iraq was never worth the effort. A recent poll of U. S. soldiers in Iraq showed that 72 percent think they should be withdrawn within the year.
Bush responded with yet another speech, vowing to make Iraq "a strong democracy that will be an inspiration throughout the Middle East" and a "partner in the global war against the terrorists."
Everybody who believes in Tinkerbell, clap your hands.
Some blogger (Digby?) used to ask all the time, "Why, oh why, can't we have a real press corps?"
The current situation has got even a completely unrepentent Jacksonian Democrat like me asking, "Why, oh why, can't we have a real opposition party?"
No, I'm not ready to throw in with the Greens. Even though former German Green leader and former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is one of my favorite living politicians.
But, still. Political pragmatism I can understand. I'm all for it as long as it doesn't get too craven. So if Bush is at 60% approval and the war at 70%, I can understand Democratic elected officials choosing their words carefully. It might not be the noblest thing to do. But I'll generally take effective over noble.
But with Bush's popularity in the toilet, and Cheney barely more popular than the measles, it seems the opposite of pragmatism for the Democrats to be tippy-toeing around what anyone this side of OxyContinLand can see is a major disaster in Iraq.
And the warrantless spying on Americans, the subject of Feingold's censure resolution? It should be a no-brainer. I mean, in a situation like this, you would think even the most craven opportunists among the Democrats would be jumping on the bandwagon to bash Bush over stuff like this? What is going on?
Then Bush goes out there in public and talks absolute jive like this, from Tuesday:
I think during these difficult times - and they are difficult when we're at war - the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that's how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that's what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used. They ought to take their message to the people and say, vote for me, I promise we're not going to have a terrorist surveillance program. That's what they ought to be doing. That's part of what is an open and honest debate.
I did notice that, at one point in time, they didn't think the Patriot Act ought to be reauthorized - "they" being at least the Minority Leader in the Senate. He openly said, as I understand - I don't want to misquote him - something along the lines that, "We killed the Patriot Act." And if that's what the party believes, they ought to go around the country saying we shouldn't give the people on the front line of protecting us the tools necessary to do so. That's a debate I think the country ought to have. (my emphasis)
Why wasn't every Democrat in Congress in the news today saying what a lying sack of horsepoop this is?
And they should just start mocking this pseudo-hick nonsense about "the Democrat Party". "Duh, how come all them people in the Republic Party don't know how to form adjectives?"
Lyons reminds us of the runaway spirit of fanaticism in today's Republic Party, where even the "moderates" are rightwing jerks who fully support even blatant lawbreaking by the Republic Party President.
Domestically, there are signs of schism among Republicans. No less infatuated a Bush cultist than Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan recently called him a "liberal" due to ruinous budget deficits. Conservative dogma, understand, can’t be wrong; it can only be betrayed.
But this is just more hokum from the Republic Party to scam the rubes, too. They pass obscene tax subsidies for the wealthiest Americans, and then want to cut every program that benefits working people so that Halliburton can keep on having its $250- million-unaccounted-for contracts.
Bruce Bartlett is trying to pose as a scam heretic to the Bush cult, too. As Lyons explains:
During a recent forum at the Cato Institute in Washington, Bartlett variously described the Bush administration as "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." He then wrote a very odd column in The New York Times making excuses for his intellectual cowardice. See, it had been all too easy for Times columnist (and Princeton economist ) Paul Krugman - whom Bartlett once compared unfavorably to Uncle Scrooge's irascible nephew, Donald Duck - to tell the truth about Bush's fantastical budget numbers. As a tenured academic, Krugman had job security.
In Washington, that’s what passes for an apology. You might want to keep it in mind when evaluating the pronouncements of the resident intellectuals at the McDuck Foundation for Godly Journalism and the McDuck Institute of Strategic Studies.
Oh, just go read the whole Gene Lyons column. Here are a few more memorable quotes:
Many Senate Democrats seriously considered censuring Bill Clinton's sexual antics after the GOP's impeachment effort failed, but hesitate to chastise Bush for declaring monarchical powers in defiance of the Constitution.
None [of the Democrats] thinks that the constitutional clause making the president "commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy" makes him a wartime dictator. Apart from savants at the McDuck School of Law, few Republicans think so, either.
And the bottom line:
Unless FBI agents get caught searching Jennifer Aniston's underwear drawer, they suspect that the constitutional argument's too abstract for many voters. Sure it's pitiful to see Democrats (and Republicans) too timid to defend the Bill of Rights. But the Bush administration’s political fate won’t be determined by symbolic gestures.
