i don't trust these bipartisan people
A bunch of politicians and retired politicians are going to meet in Oklahoma next week to try to force the Democrats and Republicans to pledge to form an administration that "seeks national consensus." And their threat? If they DON'T, this group will back sombeody - maybe New York Mayor Bloomberg - as a third-party candidate.
Let me see if I understand this. The Republicans had complete control of the Federal government and Congress (except a period in the Senate) from 2001 to January 2007, and still hold the Presidency. During that time, they made an utter hash out of everything with the most corrupt, incompetent, venal and overtly partisan regime ever seen in the United States.
And now the Democrats are supposed, going into an election campaign they are expected to win, to pledge to let some of these damn Republicans join in?
Why? Hey, I remember all that crap from the so-called experts in Washington how de facto President George Bush, having won so narrowly in 2000 (in fact, having LOST but then succeeded in stealing the election with the help of the yuppie Republican riot in Dade County, and of the meddling by the Supreme Court on partisan lines) would seek to build a consensus - to be a uniter, not a divider. Republicans took every opportunity they could to crap all over any Democrat - even luring some like Ted Kennedy into cooperating on some things before yanking the rug out on them and screwing them over.
So my question, for current and former Democrats involved in this stupid, stupid project (people like David Boren, Sam Nunn, and Charles Robb) is why the hell should the Republicans be given ANY consideration in 2008.
I see why the Republicans are involved - it gives them some hope of retaining some influence in Washington should Clinton, Obama, or Edwards win in 2008.
And of course, it holds out the prospect for a third-party candidate that could deliver a split election to Romney, Giuliani, McCain, or Huckabee. Florida 2000 would not be remembered today if Ralph Nader hadn't been running. And the way this idea is described, if the Republican candidate refuses, then they'll back a third party candidate, which could change the currently quite negative dynamic (for the Republicans) of the 2008 race.
For all Democrats involved in this idea - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING? Sam Nunn, you say you haven't decided whom to support in 2008? If it isn't automatic that you'll support Clinton/Obama/Edwards/whoever out of the Democratic party, then hand in your damn party ID card, call yourself an independent, and quit claiming to speak for fellow Democrats.
We don't need any more Liebermans.
As for the Danforths and others who are disenchanted with the Republican party, two options. Quit and join the Democrats. Or (for the non-retired ones) show a willingness to work with the Democrats in Congress instead of partisanly backing each and every Republican filibuster - the current Congress will SHATTER the record of bills blocked by a 40-plus strong minority, all thanks to the Republicans who put partisanship ahead of "national consensus." Don't trust them.
Let me see if I understand this. The Republicans had complete control of the Federal government and Congress (except a period in the Senate) from 2001 to January 2007, and still hold the Presidency. During that time, they made an utter hash out of everything with the most corrupt, incompetent, venal and overtly partisan regime ever seen in the United States.
And now the Democrats are supposed, going into an election campaign they are expected to win, to pledge to let some of these damn Republicans join in?
Why? Hey, I remember all that crap from the so-called experts in Washington how de facto President George Bush, having won so narrowly in 2000 (in fact, having LOST but then succeeded in stealing the election with the help of the yuppie Republican riot in Dade County, and of the meddling by the Supreme Court on partisan lines) would seek to build a consensus - to be a uniter, not a divider. Republicans took every opportunity they could to crap all over any Democrat - even luring some like Ted Kennedy into cooperating on some things before yanking the rug out on them and screwing them over.
So my question, for current and former Democrats involved in this stupid, stupid project (people like David Boren, Sam Nunn, and Charles Robb) is why the hell should the Republicans be given ANY consideration in 2008.
I see why the Republicans are involved - it gives them some hope of retaining some influence in Washington should Clinton, Obama, or Edwards win in 2008.
And of course, it holds out the prospect for a third-party candidate that could deliver a split election to Romney, Giuliani, McCain, or Huckabee. Florida 2000 would not be remembered today if Ralph Nader hadn't been running. And the way this idea is described, if the Republican candidate refuses, then they'll back a third party candidate, which could change the currently quite negative dynamic (for the Republicans) of the 2008 race.
For all Democrats involved in this idea - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING? Sam Nunn, you say you haven't decided whom to support in 2008? If it isn't automatic that you'll support Clinton/Obama/Edwards/whoever out of the Democratic party, then hand in your damn party ID card, call yourself an independent, and quit claiming to speak for fellow Democrats.
We don't need any more Liebermans.
As for the Danforths and others who are disenchanted with the Republican party, two options. Quit and join the Democrats. Or (for the non-retired ones) show a willingness to work with the Democrats in Congress instead of partisanly backing each and every Republican filibuster - the current Congress will SHATTER the record of bills blocked by a 40-plus strong minority, all thanks to the Republicans who put partisanship ahead of "national consensus." Don't trust them.
Labels: politics
posted by Don Q Blogger at 2:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home