What Say We Give Democracy a Try Here?
I don't know about you, but I am intrigued by the results from Iowa and New Hampshire. I want to continue to see these folks having to work under duress. It would be great to have them actually be asked insightful questions by the corporate-monopolized media (okay, yes, that hasn't happened yet and perhaps I am indulging in fantasy).
When there is competition, we might actually learn something (perhaps by accident?) about who they really are and how they might act if they were trusted with authority. Almost like finding out whether we should consider voting for them.
For me, the fact that the results in those two states came out as they did is terrific. Just to get cards on table, Edwards is the only one of the whole mess (aside from Kucinich; even more spot-on in terms of speaking truth) I am truly enthusiastic for now that Dodd and Richardson have withdrawn.
But that's not to say I won't support others. And those "others" can certainly change/morph as this circus goes on. My hope is that at least one or more of those D front-runners will realize that their to-date triangulation and corporation subscriber-ships might be subject to major overhaul.
Nota Bene HRC and BHO: to gain my support you will have to take a far stronger anti-corporation stance. Democracy will not survive if we continue this business of companies being more powerful and important than people and value to stockholders being the pre-eminent dogma controlling federal policy as it has for the last 21 years or so.
While we're at it, Dan Froomkin has some interesting questions for our candidates:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are falling all over each other arguing that they alone have the leadership ability to achieve change.
But reporters should be asking them a simple question: What kind of leadership are you showing right now? Why should we believe you have great leadership ability if you’re not showing any on critical issues currently facing Congress and the nation?
-clip-
It’s understandable that the presidential candidates themselves want to focus on what they would do once elected. And sure, being president is awfully different than being just one member of a political party whose majority, at least in the Senate, is tenuous. But to the extent that part of their promise to the American people is that they will be strong leaders, that they will have the courage of their convictions, and that they will reach across party lines and build working political coalitions – why shouldn’t journalists ask for evidence in the here and now?
When it comes to the dominant issue of the day, Iraq, Democrats say they are devoted to ending the war. But so far they have been afraid to use – or even threaten to use – the only truly potent weapon in their arsenal: a cutoff of funds. Democrats in Congress may not have enough votes to override a presidential veto, but a simple majority is all it takes to stop writing Bush blank checks. The dominant argument against doing so appears to be that if they did, they would be attacked for being against the troops.
But what kind of principled leadership is it for politicians not to act on their beliefs out of fear that their actions will be misinterpreted? True leadership demands that they articulate their position in a clear and persuasive way -- and defend it under fire if need be. And yet, even though the public is overwhelmingly against this war, and a solid majority want the troops to start coming home now, Democrats are apparently paralyzed into inaction -- by fear of being called names.
Q. Why aren’t you articulating a clear position on the war? Why aren’t you willing to threaten Bush with defunding the war if you really care so much about this? Why aren’t you trying to mobilize the majority of Americans who agree with you? Why aren’t you leading protest marches?
Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program may go down in history as the most egregious assault on American civil liberties since Watergate. Despite the Democratic control of Congress, Bush appears to be on his way to winning Congressional reauthorization of his program --- along with retroactive immunity for what may well have been flatly illegal behavior by obliging telecommunications companies. Once again, most Democrats (Sen. Chris Dodd being a notable exception) appear to be afraid to stand up to Bush out of fear of being attacked as unpatriotic. Once again, they are crippled by their failure to clearly articulate their viewpoint: that civil liberties are worth defending, and that a devotion to civil liberties does not preclude being tough on crime and terror.
Froomkin has a number of other equally-interesting questions that I have to agree are totally reasonable to ask of these candidates (see below, and check link to Dan's piece for elucidating info). Why not some action now, if they are so into "change"? It cannot be doubted that we the American people are intent on change, can it? For brevity, I am including Q's but that is all. Please do follow link to original.
It occurs to me that there are more than a few aspects of the Froom-questions that we might personally want to contemplate, yeah?
Q. Why haven’t you been more outspoken in support of civil liberties? Why have you done nothing as the government built an enormous surveillance apparatus which is used to spy on American citizens without probable cause? Why have you failed to reach across the aisle and put together a bipartisan plan that reasserts that domestic surveillance can only be conducted with a court warrant?
-clip-
Q. Why haven’t you done everything in your power – coalition-building, speechifying, filibustering, whatever – to stop this country from having anything to do with torture?
-clip-
Q. If you can’t build any kind of bipartisan governing coalition now, why should we believe you can do it later?
-clip-
Q. Why aren’t you urging Americans to be brave? Why aren't you urging them to be more tolerant? Why aren’t you condemning the new anti-immigration fervor in the strongest way and constantly reminding voters that we are a nation of immigrants and that these are human beings people are talking about so viciously?
-clip-
Q. Are you afraid of being called unpatriotic? Are you afraid of being attacked if you stand up for what you believe in? Are you afraid of sticking your neck out too far? Is it leadership ability you lack – or is it courage?
-clip-
When there is competition, we might actually learn something (perhaps by accident?) about who they really are and how they might act if they were trusted with authority. Almost like finding out whether we should consider voting for them.
For me, the fact that the results in those two states came out as they did is terrific. Just to get cards on table, Edwards is the only one of the whole mess (aside from Kucinich; even more spot-on in terms of speaking truth) I am truly enthusiastic for now that Dodd and Richardson have withdrawn.
But that's not to say I won't support others. And those "others" can certainly change/morph as this circus goes on. My hope is that at least one or more of those D front-runners will realize that their to-date triangulation and corporation subscriber-ships might be subject to major overhaul.
Nota Bene HRC and BHO: to gain my support you will have to take a far stronger anti-corporation stance. Democracy will not survive if we continue this business of companies being more powerful and important than people and value to stockholders being the pre-eminent dogma controlling federal policy as it has for the last 21 years or so.
While we're at it, Dan Froomkin has some interesting questions for our candidates:
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are falling all over each other arguing that they alone have the leadership ability to achieve change.
But reporters should be asking them a simple question: What kind of leadership are you showing right now? Why should we believe you have great leadership ability if you’re not showing any on critical issues currently facing Congress and the nation?
-clip-
It’s understandable that the presidential candidates themselves want to focus on what they would do once elected. And sure, being president is awfully different than being just one member of a political party whose majority, at least in the Senate, is tenuous. But to the extent that part of their promise to the American people is that they will be strong leaders, that they will have the courage of their convictions, and that they will reach across party lines and build working political coalitions – why shouldn’t journalists ask for evidence in the here and now?
When it comes to the dominant issue of the day, Iraq, Democrats say they are devoted to ending the war. But so far they have been afraid to use – or even threaten to use – the only truly potent weapon in their arsenal: a cutoff of funds. Democrats in Congress may not have enough votes to override a presidential veto, but a simple majority is all it takes to stop writing Bush blank checks. The dominant argument against doing so appears to be that if they did, they would be attacked for being against the troops.
But what kind of principled leadership is it for politicians not to act on their beliefs out of fear that their actions will be misinterpreted? True leadership demands that they articulate their position in a clear and persuasive way -- and defend it under fire if need be. And yet, even though the public is overwhelmingly against this war, and a solid majority want the troops to start coming home now, Democrats are apparently paralyzed into inaction -- by fear of being called names.
Q. Why aren’t you articulating a clear position on the war? Why aren’t you willing to threaten Bush with defunding the war if you really care so much about this? Why aren’t you trying to mobilize the majority of Americans who agree with you? Why aren’t you leading protest marches?
Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program may go down in history as the most egregious assault on American civil liberties since Watergate. Despite the Democratic control of Congress, Bush appears to be on his way to winning Congressional reauthorization of his program --- along with retroactive immunity for what may well have been flatly illegal behavior by obliging telecommunications companies. Once again, most Democrats (Sen. Chris Dodd being a notable exception) appear to be afraid to stand up to Bush out of fear of being attacked as unpatriotic. Once again, they are crippled by their failure to clearly articulate their viewpoint: that civil liberties are worth defending, and that a devotion to civil liberties does not preclude being tough on crime and terror.
Froomkin has a number of other equally-interesting questions that I have to agree are totally reasonable to ask of these candidates (see below, and check link to Dan's piece for elucidating info). Why not some action now, if they are so into "change"? It cannot be doubted that we the American people are intent on change, can it? For brevity, I am including Q's but that is all. Please do follow link to original.
It occurs to me that there are more than a few aspects of the Froom-questions that we might personally want to contemplate, yeah?
Q. Why haven’t you been more outspoken in support of civil liberties? Why have you done nothing as the government built an enormous surveillance apparatus which is used to spy on American citizens without probable cause? Why have you failed to reach across the aisle and put together a bipartisan plan that reasserts that domestic surveillance can only be conducted with a court warrant?
-clip-
Q. Why haven’t you done everything in your power – coalition-building, speechifying, filibustering, whatever – to stop this country from having anything to do with torture?
-clip-
Q. If you can’t build any kind of bipartisan governing coalition now, why should we believe you can do it later?
-clip-
Q. Why aren’t you urging Americans to be brave? Why aren't you urging them to be more tolerant? Why aren’t you condemning the new anti-immigration fervor in the strongest way and constantly reminding voters that we are a nation of immigrants and that these are human beings people are talking about so viciously?
-clip-
Q. Are you afraid of being called unpatriotic? Are you afraid of being attacked if you stand up for what you believe in? Are you afraid of sticking your neck out too far? Is it leadership ability you lack – or is it courage?
-clip-
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:39 PM
0 comments
