Talk To The Hand
I’ve been going trough a longish series of posts highlighting yesterday’s NSA hearing; those of you with less patience may prefer the Dana Milbank take: Gonzales wasn’t offering much, and the Senators weren’t demanding much…
Yet another case of a superior Republican strategy: by framing the issue around national security, the Administration forced Democrats into an almost apologetic stance.
If George W. Bush is a lame duck, he’s sure doing a lot of quacking…
Gonzales: Wiretaps Essential; Specter, Plan “Defies Logic”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified — but not under oath — for eight hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, asserting the Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program is both vital and legal. At the close…
Well put.
I don’t think the Democrats were forced into anything — rather, I think their ineptitude and lack of a forceful leader are the causes of their flaccid response –
I think the biggest problem is the apparent Democratic feeling that you have to take a completely different or more “hardline” tack than Specter. I think that Specter could be a little more tough, but he’s asking the right questions. Democrats, in trying to go one further or whatever, have been making fools of themselves by looking like zealots. Specter’s questions are concise but difficult (“Why not take your whole program to the FISA courts and have them review it?”), and the Democrats should be trying to capitalize on the answers, not the bravado of asking “tough questions.”
It’s symptomatic of what we’ve discussed earlier – the Dems have no identity regarding what they stand for, but quite a lot of blather about what they stand against.
If the Democrats ran as the good government party, they should be able to regain the White House in 2008. Everything the Bush administration has done has exemplified unforgivable incompetence: pre-war intelligence, the occupation, Katrina, the deficit and the refusal to use veto power, the new Medicare plan, energy, and foreign affairs. If the Democrats can show that they know how to make the government work again, then ideology will scarcely matter.
As usual, Peter, you’ve thrown in everything but the kitchen sink here, which correlates nicely with the DNC talking points these days, but does not convince (but then, that’s not your aim). Repeating charges such as these ad nauseum does not make them so, and the Dems have better learn that lesson before it’s too late.
You cannot run solely against another party’s policies, you’ve got to run on your own agenda at some point in the process – and if the Dems want to run as the party of “goo – goo’s,” then they will be promptly hoisted on their own petards post haste.
Repeating the charges does not make them so. Facts make them so. Taking the deficit as an example, I can quote facts showing how the Bush administration went from a surplus to a ~$450 billion deficit or how the amount of US government debt in the hands of foreigners has basically doubled since Bush came to office. However, this is tedious and unnecessary. If you believe that the Bush administration has acted competently regarding the deficit (or Katrina, or protecting nuclear and chemical plants against terrorist attack, etc.), then I am eager to hear it. However, I don’t believe that this case can be made with a straight face.
Also, the Democrats have an eight year record of good government from 1992 to 2000. Using FEMA as an example, the Democrats can easily show how they inherited an ineffective organization filled with cronies from Bush I (example: the Florida hurricane), improved the performance under a competent administrator (example: the Oklahoma City bombing), and had it return to an ineffective organization run by cronies (Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job). Ditto for the budget, which went from deficit (Bush I) to surplus (Clinton) to huge deficit (Bush II). If you want to make the case that the Republicans under George Bush are better stewards of the government than the Democrats under Clinton, then (to steal a quote) bring it on…
Facts are funny things, as the saying goes, Peter. You may cherrypick of any that you prefer, but bloviating about them does not help your case.
You do not seek to persuade, but to listen to the voices in your head that you repeat again and again…but still I implore you to go to the Daily Kos and find like – minded screamers to share in your frustration. You’ll feel so much better, I assure you.
I feel fine and there are no voices in my head, but I am grateful for your concern.
Actually I do seek to persuade. Since you ignored the substance of what I wrote — and instead attacked me personally — it’s reasonable to conclude that you are unable to make a cogent argument showing that the Bush administration is at least minimally competent.
If you want to debate the wisdom or folly of George Bush, fine. Writing that I have voices in my head suggests that you don’t have a case to make and you choose to obscure that with bluster instead.
I have voices in my head…they’re telling me “Get some sleep tonight, you idiot”…
…just in case anyone was wondering…
See, I don’t think that it’s no identity as to what they stand for, I think they have a terrible concept of being an opposition party. At best they seem to have decided that some things that have worked for Republicans when they were in opposition (Gingrich’s push to clean up Congress) will work for them, but they don’t actually know how to do it that well. That should be okay. They have somehow gotten the idea that stirring up a rabble is the essence of opposition, as opposed to (I think this is what Peter was getting at) letting the majority party make their own rope? Whether or not these things are illegal, Specter was asking the right questions to put the AG in a tough place. Democrats should have been taking the same style of questioning but letting it lead in different directions (not so frantic ones) if need be.