Yesterday, even after the failure of the filibuster to stop Alito, I felt elated. Yes, it would have been great to stop him from being nominated, but there was really no chance of that. The Republicans thoroughly greased the PR skids - and the 'liberal media' stepped up to the plate and did a yeoman's job of creating a warm, charismatic, complely fictional persona for Alito, which bore no resemblance whatsoever to the actual individual - a small, charmless, calculating and ruthless idealogue.
But that's what we're dealing with. A self-important celebrity press which slavers and drools at the behest of the ruling class of radical rightists while foaming and snapping at anyone or anything perceived as 'liberal'. By the way, anytime you hear a pundit make a comment about a 'liberal' just substitute the word 'jew' and you'll have a good deal of insight into what it probably felt like to live through the early days of the Third Reich. I'm not exaggerating. Think about it. The hostility, the contempt, the condecension, the hate - is palpable. We have become the whipping boys, the scapegoat, the enemy within, to an awful lot of people.
We can blame our party leaders to a certain extent, for being so insular, so comfortable and dug in that they simply were unable to see beyond the beltway. They did not, and apparently still do not, understand that a revolution had taken place. Dems talk, and act, like a political party, which gets together every couple of years and fields candidates. The rest of the time they all go their own way.
Republicans, on the other hand, consider themselves a 'movement' and everything they do is calculated to push that agenda. It is easy to see why evangelicals are attracted to them. All zealots have utter faith in the virtue of their cause and a relentless determination to convert or crush the unbeliever. They also need a common enemy to unite them. Like Emmanuel Goldberg, we fulfill that need.
Passion is the engine that drives them to victory. Yesterday I saw that kind of passion in the netroots community. And John Kerry and Ted Kennedy saw it, too - and I think they were surprised by it. Why Kerry led the filibuster has been the subject of a lot of conjecture and cynicism. But why he did it doesn't matter so much. The fact is, he did it because he saw that he could - that we had his back, and that our pressure would cause others to change their votes and fall in behind him. And it did.
I could feel the surprise in the voices of the aides who answered the phones as they rung off the hook, and the e-mail boxes and the fax and voice message boxes filled up, and when all the circuits were busy and the Capitol switchboard was flooded and overwhelmed. Something happened. A dam somewhere burst.
As Digby[scroll down to 'It is the Only Way We Can Live] notes, the fact that we pulled 25 votes for filibuster in a situation where the Dems knews they couldn't win and did not, in fact, want to step into - for fear of being painted 'obstructionists' and 'daschled' in the next election, that was a victory and acknowledgement. And every single viable potential presidential candidate for 2008 [except for the delusional Leiberman] stood with us. [Of course, they also probably realize that by 2008, the newly radicalized Supreme Court will have inflicted some really painful, politically unpopular damage on the most defenseless people of this country].
Just the fact that we have had 2 blogger conference calls in as many days, with Senator Kennedy and Rep. Pelosi is significant. There is momentum. And when even the Wall Street Journal calls Bush 'politically weakened' we know we've got some opportunities. Even on this day of the stomach-churning State of the Union speech, take heart in this little snippet:
A politically weakened President Bush addresses the nation tonight facing two clear demands from the American public: solve problems in the health-care system and bring U.S. troops home from Iraq.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows health care at the top of Americans' priority list, with 76% calling increased access and lower costs "an absolute priority" for 2006. Two-thirds say it is time to reduce troop levels in Iraq, while just 28% support maintaining existing troop levels.
Those sentiments haven't been lost on Mr. Bush, who has signaled his intent to reduce troops and who plans to make health care a centerpiece of tonight's State of the Union address.
Yet Mr. Bush's lower personal ratings since the start of his second term suggest he will have a hard time controlling the debate in the face of opposition from congressional Democrats and some Republicans seeking an independent course. Asked who should take the lead in settling national policy, just 25% say Mr. Bush, while 49% prefer Congress to take charge.
The poll of 1,011 adults, conducted Jan. 26-29, has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Mr. Bush's overall job-approval rating remains at 39%, down from 50% immediately following his 2004 re-election.
The proportion of Americans who credit the president with being "honest and straightforward" has fallen to 38% from 50% in January 2005; the proportion that gives him high marks for "strong leadership qualities" is 42%, down from 52%.
The results show Mr. Bush "is off track," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC survey with Republican counterpart Bill McInturff. Mr. Hart adds that it raises a question about Mr. Bush's nationally televised speech tonight: "How much of an olive branch will we see" the president extend to his critics?
That last graf shows you how much we need to do - and the first thing is getting rid of the Dem's Beltways 'consultants'. These people are criminally clueless. 'How much of an olive branch will we see?' Olive branch? What planet has this Mr. Hart been living on for 5 years? The only use Bush has for a branch is to shove it up the collective arse of anyone who defies him. These people NEVER EVER apologize, or consult, or compromise. They instead, attack - rape, pillage, bulldoze, destroy.
So Americans want 'increased access and lower costs' for health care? You know what Bush is going to give them? Health savings accounts, so that more of health care costs can be passed on from employers to employee. People need to 'take more responsility for their own health.' You see, Bush and his fellow travelers believe most Americans are 'over-insured' and that if they have no access to conventional insurance, they will have an 'incentive' to 'stay healthy'. For most of us who live in the actual world, this is a patent absurdity, ludicrous on the face of it. But it's amazing the kind of twisted rationale you can develop when you live in a cosseted, thinktank world and you want to believe certain things, because they will make you a lot of money.
And this is where the real truth is. Everything Bush does is to further his single focus - to enrich the already very rich. His friends, his relatives, his campaign donors. Every challenge the American people face can be twisted and jammed into a solution that will enable a small, select group to reap vast sums of Amercan miidle-class taxpayer's dollars.
The old-style health insurance business was, to a certain extent, regulated. Profits were high, of course, but not totally outlandish. There was a certain amount of risk, because sometimes you have to pay off. But with the new system, where your health care' will be administered through the tender mercies of banks and mutual funds, well - let's just say the possiblities for profit are endless. And why will anyone stay in the old, regulated insurance market, when they can reap a windfall in the new? And thus, the money we spend on healthcare will skyrocket, the individual will pay much more, and will get very much less for it. Your healthcare dollars will go straight into the pockets of bankers, who incidentally, are crying for the capital gains tax they now pay on their handsome profits [15% ] to be reduced to zero, an idea Bush loves.
Bush is sincere when he says he wants to lower the cost of healtcare. For business. And he's sincere when he says he wants to reduce taxes. For business. And he's sincere when he says he wants to increase competitiveness. For trans-national corporations. We, the people, don't really exist for him. We're an abstraction, a prop, a photo op, a tool.
We must fight this so-called 'healthcare' proposal and expose it for what it is - a fraud, a cruel, cynical joke foisted upon us by mercenaries. Just like everything they do, just like the attempt to privatize social security, if we can help people understand what is really at stake, they will balk at this the way they did that. And it will further erode their misplaced trust in these thieves and con artists. It's going to be a long haul and a painful struggle, a sisyphean task, to get some leverage in DC again. Our 'leaders' will not budge if we do not push. But what are our other choices?
I leave you with this I picked up at firedoglake [highly recommended if you don't know it]. I laughed, but then I had to admit, it was darn inspiring:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage.
The future of our country truly is at stake. It's time - for all of us - to get off the sidelines and fight.
Crossposted at http://claudialong.com/...