200!
According to the handy dandy post numberer on Blogger, this is my 200th post on Surly Librarian. I know the odds are against my even reaching 300, given my incredible slowdown over the last year, so I thought I'd give a little extra for this milestone.
The reason for my declining writing pace should have been in exultation (is there another time of year anyone ever uses that word?) after last November's stunning Democratic "takeovers" of the House and Senate, but let's face facts, the massively underwhelming amount of activity in Congress pretty much shoots that theory out of the water, eh? I suppose the truth is that I was hoping that the 2006 election would mean more than it does; my overall feeling of depression for the sake of our country's future has dampened my enthusiasm for pointing out Smirky and the gang's sins. I mean, there are so many of them, right? And nobody in a position of power seems to care. The simple fact is, most Congresspeople are so out of touch with what they've been put there to do, those of us paying attention are losing faith. Are we any closer to getting out of the Middle East? Nope. Are we any closer to getting off our addiction to oil? No. Are we retrieving any of our lost civil liberties? No. Have we even begun any investigations that might lead to impeaching the felonious members of the Administration? Not since Pat Fitzgerald's hollow conviction of Scooter, and that was done before 11/06.
The obvious question in response to all of these is: why? Why haven't the Democrats moved on any of these (or any others even more intrinsic to modern Democracy, such as reauthorizing the Fairness Doctrine for media, reregulating industries to guard against their misbehavior, tossing out restrictions on legal awards for the winners of civil lawsuits, and so many more)? Why are we squandering the good will earned with the public over the last few years by not being incompetent, corrupt, and vindictively screwing over everyone except the super-rich (i.e., by not being Republican)?
The cynical answer is that the majority of Democrats in office are no different than the Republicans; let's call this the "Naderite" position, since this was Ralph Nader's stated raison d'etre for running for President in 2000--thereby helping to saddle the world with Smirky, by the way. Is it true? The more time goes by without any substantive changes being made, the more likely it is, although it is still really hard to argue that we'd even be talking about this kind of stuff if we were in the 6th year of a Gore Administration (even a Gore-Lieberman one!). (In other words, while the parties themselves may be 2 sides of the same coin, I hardly think that President Gore could have been in any conceivable way similar to Smirky the solipsist.)
Those still retaining faith in the Democratic Party as a whole claim that the reason nothing is being done is that their majorities simply aren't big enough to accomplish what needs to be done, but the truth is that nothing should be "getting done" that follows any similar path the previous Congresses were pursuing. If the Democrats do indeed possess an ideology that runs counter to the Republicans, they would be passing bills left and right for the betterment of the country (if not the world at large) regardless of whether they become laws. Taking a stand for something usually means not compromising or "doing the nation's business", at least until enough opponents begin making serious concessions of their own, especially when your stances are supported by big majorities of the public. I have yet to see much evidence of that from this Congress, let alone even a shred of self-respecting insistence on following the laws of the country. (Remember the subpoenas issued to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten? None of those three are in jail for refusing to respond, and that was over 5 months ago . . .)
For some reason, the Democrats think that they should be doing something, meaning that they should be getting bills passed that will receive Smirky's signature. They think that the public wants "bipartisanship", or "compromise", or new laws to be created regardless of their actual effects. This is nuts, of course, because any bill they pass that Smirky would sign is, ipso facto, not a bill that any Democrat--really, any thinking human being--should want to get signed by that wretched scumbag! How hard is that to understand? Smirky and the rest of the felons with an "R" next to their name do not compromise, they do not barter, they do not behave rationally, and they don't care about you or anyone else but themselves, get it? Stop behaving as if there is going to be some magic enlightenment on the other side of the aisle or at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. at some point if you play nice, ok? Haven't the last 13 years given you enough proof of their character? For chrissakes, all you have to do is pay attention to your own polling; the American public is telling you what we want, and more pillaging by the Republicans ain't it. What part of STOP ROLLING OVER don't you get?
(Clearly, the "STOP" part, but I digress.)
*sigh*
The reason for my declining writing pace should have been in exultation (is there another time of year anyone ever uses that word?) after last November's stunning Democratic "takeovers" of the House and Senate, but let's face facts, the massively underwhelming amount of activity in Congress pretty much shoots that theory out of the water, eh? I suppose the truth is that I was hoping that the 2006 election would mean more than it does; my overall feeling of depression for the sake of our country's future has dampened my enthusiasm for pointing out Smirky and the gang's sins. I mean, there are so many of them, right? And nobody in a position of power seems to care. The simple fact is, most Congresspeople are so out of touch with what they've been put there to do, those of us paying attention are losing faith. Are we any closer to getting out of the Middle East? Nope. Are we any closer to getting off our addiction to oil? No. Are we retrieving any of our lost civil liberties? No. Have we even begun any investigations that might lead to impeaching the felonious members of the Administration? Not since Pat Fitzgerald's hollow conviction of Scooter, and that was done before 11/06.
The obvious question in response to all of these is: why? Why haven't the Democrats moved on any of these (or any others even more intrinsic to modern Democracy, such as reauthorizing the Fairness Doctrine for media, reregulating industries to guard against their misbehavior, tossing out restrictions on legal awards for the winners of civil lawsuits, and so many more)? Why are we squandering the good will earned with the public over the last few years by not being incompetent, corrupt, and vindictively screwing over everyone except the super-rich (i.e., by not being Republican)?
The cynical answer is that the majority of Democrats in office are no different than the Republicans; let's call this the "Naderite" position, since this was Ralph Nader's stated raison d'etre for running for President in 2000--thereby helping to saddle the world with Smirky, by the way. Is it true? The more time goes by without any substantive changes being made, the more likely it is, although it is still really hard to argue that we'd even be talking about this kind of stuff if we were in the 6th year of a Gore Administration (even a Gore-Lieberman one!). (In other words, while the parties themselves may be 2 sides of the same coin, I hardly think that President Gore could have been in any conceivable way similar to Smirky the solipsist.)
Those still retaining faith in the Democratic Party as a whole claim that the reason nothing is being done is that their majorities simply aren't big enough to accomplish what needs to be done, but the truth is that nothing should be "getting done" that follows any similar path the previous Congresses were pursuing. If the Democrats do indeed possess an ideology that runs counter to the Republicans, they would be passing bills left and right for the betterment of the country (if not the world at large) regardless of whether they become laws. Taking a stand for something usually means not compromising or "doing the nation's business", at least until enough opponents begin making serious concessions of their own, especially when your stances are supported by big majorities of the public. I have yet to see much evidence of that from this Congress, let alone even a shred of self-respecting insistence on following the laws of the country. (Remember the subpoenas issued to Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten? None of those three are in jail for refusing to respond, and that was over 5 months ago . . .)
For some reason, the Democrats think that they should be doing something, meaning that they should be getting bills passed that will receive Smirky's signature. They think that the public wants "bipartisanship", or "compromise", or new laws to be created regardless of their actual effects. This is nuts, of course, because any bill they pass that Smirky would sign is, ipso facto, not a bill that any Democrat--really, any thinking human being--should want to get signed by that wretched scumbag! How hard is that to understand? Smirky and the rest of the felons with an "R" next to their name do not compromise, they do not barter, they do not behave rationally, and they don't care about you or anyone else but themselves, get it? Stop behaving as if there is going to be some magic enlightenment on the other side of the aisle or at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. at some point if you play nice, ok? Haven't the last 13 years given you enough proof of their character? For chrissakes, all you have to do is pay attention to your own polling; the American public is telling you what we want, and more pillaging by the Republicans ain't it. What part of STOP ROLLING OVER don't you get?
(Clearly, the "STOP" part, but I digress.)
*sigh*
Labels: Al Gore, Congress, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Ralph Nader, Republican Party
posted by bryduck at 8:53 AM
5 comments
