« El Diablo o El Idioto? | Main | Repubicans Approve Underage Gay Sex! »

October 01, 2006

That Growth Between Their Legs

I, among many others, have been bitching about how the Democratic Party just lies there and whimpers in the face of repeated assault and lies from the Right. They’re programmed to fail; they seem to enjoy being the whipped underdog. Most Democrats are nice folks in the way naïve children are sweet, but in fact they’re the Chicago Cubs of politics.

This is really a shame, because the Democratic Party is one of only two parties permitted under our institutionally imposed power structure. But maybe there’s hope.

In a Fox “News” interview that followed the week after Disney’s made-for-teevee lying hatchet job about the build-up to 9-11, Bill Clinton finally went on the attack, disclosing with appropriate fervor that when he was president he was trying to assassinate Osama bin Laden and that he failed. But in failing, at least he left detailed notes and reports for his successor, who promptly did absolutely nothing until the September following Clinton’s departure from office.

Within hours, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said no such reports were given to the Bush Administration. Her comments contradicted recorded history and testimony from those who were involved, some of whom Bush appointees. It was really, really cute. Secretary Rice put the entire weight of the Bush Administration’s credibility up against Bill Clinton’s.

Fox “News” honcho Roger Ailes said Clinton gave him “$100,000 worth of free publicity.” Big deal. $100,000 won’t even buy you a quarter-hour worth of advertising on Fox “News.” Ailes also said Clinton’s behavior was an insult to all journalists, putting him in a good position for the news media’s hypocrite of the year award. Ailes was G.H.W. Bush’s hatchet man and the person behind the live frontal assault on another journalist, CBS’s Dan Rather. Ailes’ comments were simply and completely asinine; they were also what you’d expect from George W. Bush’s pet Joseph Goebbels.

It is clear that Bill Clinton’s remarks inspired some Democrats to actually grow some balls and stand up and defend themselves, their politics, and the basic inhumanity of supporting an administration that would debate, let alone ramrod, the legality, the morality and the efficacy of torture. I hope it continues; maybe the Democrats will start to be viewed as a real alternative to the right-wing extremism and lies that boil out of the White House and fester inside of their fools and lackeys.

Like I said, maybe there’s hope. Yeah, right. And as we Chicago Cubs fans have been saying for 98 consecutive seasons, “wait ‘till next year.”

Posted by Mike Gold at October 1, 2006 03:21 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


If the Democrats want a real shot at taking control of the House or Senate, they have to stand up and stand FOR something. Simply becoming more aggressively AGAINST the current administration's policies isn't enough, although it would at least be a start.

As long as the Republicans frame the debate, the Democrats lose.

What I find most curious/disturbing about the whole Path to 9/11-Clinton "outburst" sideshow is why anybody cares. Personally, I don't care what Clinton did or did not do prior to 9/11 because 1) it has no bearing on the path our government has chosen to take in the five years since then, and b) I never voted for the guy in the first place. And I feel the same about George Bush's actions prior to 9/11. This whole 9/11 debate is as pointless as the debate about what FDR did/didn't know/do prior to 12/7.

But the Republicans say, "Hey, look over there! Bill Clinton is having sex with Terry Schiavo!" And the Democrats take the bait every time. Meanwhile the swing voters swing to the right again because they still don't know what the Democrats stand for.

Somewhat ironically, I live in a traditionally conservative congressional district in which the Republican challenger is, AFAIK, running on a platform of "Vote for me, because I'm not a Democrat." In this case, he has little else going for him because the Democratic incumbent has voted with the Republicans on every major issue.

Posted by: Rick Oliver at October 1, 2006 04:10 PM

Just wait until the Foley mess finishes shaking out. And just in time for the elections, too.

What's that line about the worst thing for a policitian is to be found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy...?

Posted by: Glenn Hauman at October 1, 2006 07:19 PM

Foley himself is now irrelevant. I don't think the Republicans even have to name his replacement prior to the election. Foley's name stays on the ballot, and voters can consider a vote for Foley a vote for "Republican TBD". Remember when dead Mel Carnahan beat John Ashcroft? Of course, that time it was the "Democrat TBD" who won.

It all depends on how conservative/Republican the district is. In 2004, Foley got 68% of the vote in his district. That's a pretty big margin. The seat may be in play, but don't count out the unnamed Republican.

Posted by: Rick Oliver at October 1, 2006 07:45 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)