Okay. I'm paying less and less attention to politics these days because every time I do I just feel... let's just say, extremely disappointed with the reality of the Democratic Congress. A heated, shouting, teeth-gnashing, kind of disappointed.
This b.s. about they aren't in charge...? Well, does anyone think that if the numbers and situations were reversed--with Republicans in by the skin of their teeth, and a Democratic President--that Democratic bills, or symbolic statements, would be passed? And that Republican offerings wouldn't? (Oddly, the Republicans control the media megaphone regardlss of whether they are in the majority or not. I count that a Dem failing.)
Well, being a proud member of the Reality-based community, which trumps any other factional interest in my life, I've got to account for the de facto victory of the Republicans in the only aspects of politics that counts: the actual execution of power, and actual setting of agendas.
Here's what I come up with:
The motives of Bush/Cheney and their various agents are transparent and self-evident to damn near half, if not more, of the people. Any reasonable person can be shown that B/C have as their aim the destruction of the Constitution, to be replaced by an all-powerful Executive.
This, for B/C, can most effectively happen if only sufficient damage can be done to America so as to get the average person's full consent in this hand-over. More wars of course are the quick way to assure such damage is inflicted. Such wars also have the added advantage of either gaining direct control of, or ending another nation's ability to compete with, natural resources. Like oil, say.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have been, frankly--well, extremely disappointing.
Pelosi reiterates that they are going to hold Bush accountable, while at the same time renouncing the sole means of doing so. It is fair to ask if it's that she thinks we're stupid, or is that...?
Reid seems to have had something put in his tea, which makes him very very agreeable and disinclined to make Republicans have to work very hard to get their way.
Bush refuses to give documents, testimony, and even the physical presence of subpoena'd employees to both the House and Senate. Looking up the correct spelling for "subpoena'd" I find it comes from the Latin "under penalty".
So the Congressional leadership offers the American people "penalty-free, under penalty" orders. The proscribed penalty being removal from office.
Can you define "spinelessness" more succinctly? kos? Anyone?
Then there's the Presidentials. Those the media has assigned for us as the legitimate, serious, ones offer no "Paul Revere" moments, and have, with their carefully hedged comments, confimed that they support American hegemony by virtue of military in the Middle East. You might want to fool yourself otherwise, but they are with killing however many thousands, hundreds of thousands, innocent Iranians as it takes to get control, or off-market, Iranian resources. Here in the Hømelähnd, such increase of tension and danger means no reversion to basic Constitutional guarantees. Or respect for inalienable rights. Wouldn't be prudent.
Mainly, I look at these guys and am left with "They're all just angling to get a seat on the escape spaceship the Corporate masters are building."
I've liked Dodd, and Richardson, and Kucinich, even Gravel, for saying true things about our current situation, but of course, it's been decided that none of them are really viable long ago. And the media is not going to allow that perception to change. (And heaven forbid we focus on changing the mass media. We'll win with the internet!!! It's magical! And special! And... and... and... NEW!)
I like Gore. I suspect he is not only smart, but a very decent human being. He's been talking in public, and relatively plainly, about the coup d'etat. But he repeats he's not running.
Who's left? Who could I a) believe, and b) care about? I've not been impressed by most Democratic candidates for Congress or President, the current crop included. But that's my take on politics. Me and my cousins went door to door raising money for the Democrats when JFK ran in 1960. Somehow he conveyed great hope, a kind that's hard to credit ever existed, these days. Then there was RFK's bid. After Nixon was pardoned, I left political concerns.
Until Paul Wellstone. I saw him speak on C-Span, in Iowa. He defined national security as starting with this: you have to make sure every single child in America gets full nutrition, full attention, and constant positive interactions with the world and people for their first 3 years. Science, he pointed out, has established that if children get these things they grow up bigger, healthier, smarter, more compassionate, and more capable, and happier, than children who don't get these things. Now, there's a man who grasped national security.
Here's what I'm left with: Howard Dean spoke the truth, comes across like a decent human, knows how to handle the slime-machine, and probably still has the brains, and the heart, he was born with. Which is unlike almost anyone else I can see playing at leader at the moment.
So, draft Howard Dean?
What say ye?