It is becoming CW that GOP leadership is corrupt!
Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 08:46:17 PM PDT
This occurred to me when I found out that, despite the fact that it is unlikely to change the outcome of the election, it looks like the Democrats are prepared to contest Ohio's electoral votes. Recently, there seems to be a lot of stories coming out that paint the Republicans in, well, if not a bad light then at least a suspicious light. There are at least 4 (discussed below the fold) recent developments that, added up, are probably only moral victories for the Democrats. But the press generated by Democrats with spines opposing these policies, and moderate Republicans' reactions, is shaping a new CW: that Bush and the Republican leadership play dirty and have become corrupt because of their power. This is no surprise to us, of course, but it may finally be sinking in to the less-informed public and becoming CW.
First, a word on where this has suddenly come from. The right-wing noise machine will say it's the liberal media, but honestly it's probably due to the end of the 2004 campaign. This frees journalists from their seemingly self-imposed vow to not inform the public for fear of being accused of "unfairly" "manipulating" voters. That and, of course, the unprecedented level of graft and deceit coming from the right. A short discussion of these new issues, and how each one contributes to the idea that Republican leaders are playing dirty and are getting corrupt. Note that this is not to say that all Republican lawmakers are no-goodniks - that assertion, even if true, is too easily dismissed as "politics as usual." But the leadership is just so corrupt that its deceit is getting unavoidable and inexcusable.
First, the recent issues:
- Formally calling into question Ohio's electoral votes won't give Kerry the White House at this point, of course. But it does cast more light on Blackwell and the multiple laws that were broken by the Republicans in Ohio. This is incontrovertible and will hopefully be what sticks in the public consciousness after this exercise. Not "sore losers," "crybabies," or "never actually elected by the people," but "willing to break laws to get elected."
- I was driving home this afternoon, then back to work an hour ago, and both times decided my ulcer needed some encouragement and turned to right-wing radio. In the afternoon, I was treated to Sean Hannity and Mark Levin defending torture against a well-informed but out-shouted caller. They fell back on two ideas: one, that what we did was not torture (there are pictures and sworn accounts that makes this only a semantic argument that won't fly in the long run with decent folks) and two, that it was necessary to get information. This second point is easily debunked (torture does not provide reliable information, and what prosecutions have resulted from this oh-so-critical information?) None of these excuse torture. The other program had Laura Ingraham defending Gonzales by saying that at the time, in Aug 2002, we were all still crazy to prevent another 9/11, and that in hindsight it was rash but we can't fault him for being rash. This is bullsh*t, and tantamount to admitting that the Democrats were right all along. She was shouting, too. Listening to them squirm just hit home: the Republicans are defending torture. Torture is not legal, not effective military policy, and disastrous as a policy within the war on terror. It is not Christian, and it's fundamentally unAmerican.
- The eroding support behind Tom Delay, which once seemed so strong, seems to reveal some unwillingness to blindly follow the party when things like ethical integrity are at stake. The fact that his own party has reversed course in defending him at all costs makes it that much harder for him to say it's a partisan witch hunt. Bottom line: Delay has not been able to quiet the growing sense among Americans that he is corrupt, and even Republicans are acknowledging that they need to reassert high ethical standards. Hence the "we've just taken a shower" quote.
- The mess in Iraq. The WMD lies, the nonexistent planning, the inability to change course, the callous disregard for our brave soldiers. I can't really add much to this other than that the heat on Rumsfeld may finally bring this to a boil. The sting of all the Iraq lies was blunted by the campaign and the presumed partisanship of everything reported, as well as most people's ambivalence toward the war and their inability to tell whether we were accomplishing anything. Maybe now that it is more evident that we, and more specifically our soldiers, are stuck in a long-term, no-win situation, there will finally be consensus among all Americans that this was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Bottom line with respect to the overall movement towards the emerging self-evidence of GOP corruption: Bush sold the Iraq war using inexusably wrong facts and hollow promises
Not so recent but still worth adding to this growing cloud over the GOP leadership:
- The Cheney energy task force. What is the latest? Secrecy in nonintelligence matters reeks of corruption to most Americans. So, let's see what Cheney's been hiding.
- Investigation into the source for naming Plame is steadily progressing. Novak has got to be held accountable (this infuriates me!!!!!!) but in any case the whole thing reeks of pettiness. Someone close to Bush is guilty of treason and he appears to have done nothing to find out who.
- I was personally appalled by the episode last year in which the Republicans abused their power to extend "debate" on the USA patriot act long enough to coerce those who dared put principles over party. I wish more people were exposed to the video "Shame! Shame! Shame!" This was not some procedural abuse, but a temporary wholesale takeover of the legislature by a corrupt GOP leadership.
And some issues that could add to this growing cloud over the GOP leadership, if Democrats maintain a spine and shine some light under the rock that is the GOP circa 2005.
- Implementation of the nuclear option. Much as Frist and the GOP try to spin furiously, this will come out as an unprecedented step to shut up a minority. Honestly, how unwilling to compromise do you have to be to find yourself unable to ally with five people not in your party? Whatever happens legislatively and with regard to judicial nominees, it needs to become obvious to everyone that Republicans would rather change the rules than try to compromise.
- Social Security - this is remarkable if only because Bush's lies during the campaign were nuanced, some were lies of omission, others obfuscations, etc. But I think his rhetoric on Social Security, just as with his "tour for the Iraq war" two years ago, is too full of lies to not come back and bite him in the ass. But once Bush commits to a plan and it is eviscerated by the likes of Krugman and other economists, it will be too easy to throw back at him his statements from the last week. So I guess the lesson here is, while this is debated and even voted on, whatever the outcome it needs to come out that Bush lied about Social Security. Again, just like the other points, not that his policy is terrible (which it is) but that he is willing to lie to America to push a policy through.
- The deficit. Recent revelations about how Bush intends to "halve" the deficit gives new meaning to the term "fuzzy math." Fiscal conservatives are getting more passionate by the day, and this book-cookery just won't fly. Again, Bush fudges the numbers so that he can pretend to fulfill one of his empty campaign promises. This is another issue that, if framed right, will leave Americans with a clear picture of who Democrats are, who moderate Republicans are, and how the reasonable Republicans are wholly separate from the corrupt GOP leadership.
- Tax reform - I admit I am jaded from the public support of Bush's tax cuts. I honestly think this is the most dangerous issue coming up. Bush might cave on Social Security and then use that to insist that those "obstructionists" not block his next proposal, tax reform. And it is too easy for him to throw a few hundred dollars to a small proportion of low income earners (say, those who live on two incomes which total between $20,000 and $20,005 with some farm income and five dependents, one of which is a crustacean of any kind) and claim everyone benefits. My only answer to this is for people to examine not who benefits, but who benefits the most from the proposed tax changes. Obviously, the super-rich.
I tried to put in bold the key conclusions that are entering / might enter the CW from each of these issues. Let's keep talking, writing letters to the editor, callingour representatives on Capitol Hill, reminding the Democrats that they are obligated to take the moral high ground, however uncomfortable, to draw a stark contrast to Republican deceit. Reminding the moderate Republicans that voters will remember if they side with party over principle. And reminding the GOP leadership that their corruption will be their downfall, and sooner rather than later!
Permalink | 95 comments