The courageous leadership of the Democratic Party
It sure was nice of John Edwards to throw his hat back into the Democratic presidential ring when he could make a difference. Say what you want about John McCain but at least he has the guts to take stances that are risky, unpopular and move against the prevailing tide. Not Johnny boy though! With unwavering courage and desire for change, John Edwards waited until the race was over to jump to the side of the winner. Since he is little more than an empty suit – a political version of Ryan Seacrest – it really doesn’t matter. But it does demonstrate that Democrats will promise or do virtually anything to regain and maintain power. Needless to say, they have come a long way from JFK’s concept that “we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.” For Edwards and others, they will “purchase at any price, not bother to be burdened, face none of the hardships, selectively choose their friends when it is convenient, and create foes where none exist to ensure the success of themselves.” Edwards is but one example.
Henry Waxman is a man of great courage. This ’superest’ of superdelegates carefully weighed his options and when the winner became clear, he sided with the victor! Said Super Henry, “that has been one of the major reasons I have remained an uncommitted superdelegate. I wanted to make sure that Senator Clinton had every opportunity to bring her campaign to the American people. It is now clear, however, that the Democratic Party is nearing a broad consensus on our nominee. And it is with great pride that I endorse Senator Barack Obama for President.” Touching, Henry. It really is. Way to take a stand early on!
Former Democratic Party chirman Joe Andrew was courageous when, after North Carolina and Indiana, he switched his support over to Obama. Nothing like jumping ship when you have the chance. Andrews isn’t just a Clinton voter. He is a Clinton loyalist! Hell, with friends like him, who needs enemies?
Indiana Congressman Pete Visclosky endorsed Obama, saying in a statement: “America needs a President who offers a vision of the future comprised of sensible solutions to today’s troubles. My choice is Senator Barack Obama, who promises to seek pragmatic, progressive solutions to problems like jobs, Iraq, the energy crisis, and healthcare. Barack Obama will bring people together, give them hope, spur change, and set the U.S. back on a course toward progress, prosperity, and global leadership.” Somehow I don’t think that speech would have been any different if Hillary were the slight leader.
And when the superdelegate lead for Obama gets insurmountable, the Dems will make the “bold” step of deciding to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. What courage! What leadership!
What a joke!
Instead of acting decisively, many Dems have engaged in a self-flagellating orgy of distinctions based upon soundbite friendly rationales like ‘the will of the people,’ that effectively achieved the same result but spared the consummate politicos the potentially unpleasant backlash of more direct and public expressions of supports. If anything, the whole affair has demonstrated an utter cowardice and spineless nature that speaks unsettlingly about the leadership of the Democratic Party. For us to entrust the Democrats to the highest seat of power in the world, shouldn’t they and their cronies be forced to demonstrate even the most minute ability to stand against a power greater than themselves?
The coming Democratic “Chickenocracy” will make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt. The GOP deserves and needs a period in the wilderness, but The Beast dreads the consequences for the Nation and the World. At least Bubba was a fighter, not an effete intellectual who cries when people use his middle name in public.
hairybeast
May 16, 2008 at 9:07 am
The Wise One comes up with the best line of the day, in describing former Senator John Edwards:
That’s great!
Dana
May 17, 2008 at 6:09 pm
[...] through The Constitution Club — the site which referred new commenter Pangolin — I came upon the best description ever of former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), from E the Wise: Since he is little more than an empty suit — a political version of Ryan Seacrest — it [...]
Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Ouch!
May 17, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“Say what you want about John McCain but at least he has the guts to take stances that are risky, unpopular and move against the prevailing tide.”
Yes indeed, like when he went to give the commencement address at Liberty University, founded by a man he once decried as an “agent of intolerance”, in order to suck up to the religious right.
Or maybe when he declared that he wanted to make the tax cuts that he twice voted against permanent, even though he had said before they were bad for our economic future. No posturing there.
Perhaps we can talk about the former champion of campaign finance reform, who took out a loan using his public financing as his collateral, nodding and winking as he told his lenders that he would stay in the race long enough for him to pay it off, just in case Super Tuesday didn’t go his way. He renounced public financing a few days later.
Talk about a joke.
Andre the Defiant
May 18, 2008 at 12:26 am
But Andre, don’t you see? All his current positions ARE unpopular. It isn’t that McCain wants to take unpopular positions, it’s that he can ONLY take positions that are unpopular. So when the economy went to pot, he had no choice but to embrace the policies that sent it there. I hope that after November, McCain can get the help he deserves.
Wes
May 18, 2008 at 8:11 am
Do you two seriously think this is really about “my guy is better than your guy”? I really think somehow you do. How do you reconcile what you say here with your Dean post Andre? Wait – don’t bother I am not serious.
pg - your humble messenger
May 18, 2008 at 11:08 am
I see Andre has no argument about the substance of my post. Meanwhile, Wes still thinks the economy has “gone to pot” even though GDP went up .8% last quarter. Golly, its a Great Depression out there!
But more to the point, Andre cannot really be serious when he derides a speech at Liberty while simultaneously supporting a guy who sat in the pews of United Trinity for 20 years, can he?
I also love the HuffPo talking points on McCain. I really do.
E the Wise
May 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm
No, PG, I think that the McCain I voted for in 2000 is no more. He really is just running for Bush’s third term. Besides climate change (which I doubt my conservative friends would agree with him on), can you give me one substantive difference between McCain and Bush?
As for E’s comment, I’m glad you’re not feeling the pinch, because the rest of us are (Almost $50 to fill up my 12 gallon tank… I miss the nineties, when I would get change from a twenty). Glad to know you want to keep chugging along the course we’re on.
Andre the Defiant
May 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm
PG- Do you two seriously think this is really about “my guy is better than your guy”?
Uh, yeah… I think that’s the definition of an election, last time I checked.
Andre the Defiant
May 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm
And if you think gas prices are bad now, just wait until the enviro wackos get some serous posts in the next administration and start making war on oil and gas exploration and listing everything from moose to salmon as “endangered” just because they “might” be endangered by the chicken little fears of catastrophic climate change. The polar bear listing alone will unleash a massive wave of litigation against the energy industries as every sneeze by a oil pipeline worker might upset a female bear during breeding season, and we can’t have that can we?
The wacko Left, and the “oil is bad no matter what” crowd, have helped contribute to the wrist slitting policies that have driven the price of oil through the roof and turn the corn crop into fuel while vigorously opposing such things as nuclear energy. You can tell when a country is starting its decline when it refuses to help itself and its “protectors” and leading citizens advocate policies that don’t allow it progress. It is sad to see. What idiots, morons, and imbeciles. I’m disgusted by their actions, their hamstringing ideologies, and what I suspect is their deep seated resentment against their own country.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
May 18, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Yeah, because eight years of two oil men in charge have made things peachy. Oil is fine, for now, but we really need to find something to replace it (sugar beets), otherwise we are seriously fucked.
And, for the record, the polar bears are equally fucked. But at least we’ll have trade routes through the Arctic! WOOT!
The real idiots, morons, and imbeciles are those who think we can just keep on the same course and everything will work out ok.
Andre the Defiant
May 18, 2008 at 8:35 pm
More great economic advice from the leftists on this site. Pinning gas prices on the current administration is just soooo chic. And “trade routes through the Arctic.” Thats rich.
E the Wise
May 18, 2008 at 9:30 pm
The Defiant one wrote:
Senator McCain defied President Bush on judicial nominations, on the tax cuts, and he broke with him on several budget items as well. If Mr McCain had morphed into a Bush-clone, why do you think so many Republicans have a difficult time with this nomination?
Now, I happen to be one who would like to see John McCain as a “third term” for George Bush, but he won’t be any more than the elder George Bush was a third term for Ronald Reagan. I want someone who will fight Islam, I want someone who will keep taxes down, and I want someone who will appoint judges who won’t make cockamamie rulings like the California Supreme Court just did. The only area in which I am disappointed in President Bush is government spending, and I hope — don’t know, of course — that Mr McCain would be better on that score.
Dana
May 19, 2008 at 4:55 am
One might ask the two Clubbers who enter through the left-hand door: since you are so worried about oil consumption, do you support a strong move toward the one technology that is proven to replace fossil fuels in electric power generation, nuclear power?
This, you see, is the test: you can’t bemoan oil prices or consumption unless you are willing to do something to replace it. Pie-in-the-sky visions of things which are decades in the future — if not positively Star Trek in their concept — are not responsible answers.
Dana
May 19, 2008 at 4:59 am
As usual I’ve got some catching up to do.
Dana although I’m not one who “came in through the left door” I do think it is in our best interests to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels and yes I would support a move toward nuclear power. Matter of fact that has always seemed to me to be the smartest course of action using current technology.
E said- even though GDP went up .8% last quarter
Fair enough but how much did inflation go up?
As for the original topic what is wrong with Edwards and Waxman waiting until there is a clear winner before deciding who to throw their support behind? Huckabee just threw his support behind McCain today and I don’t hear anyone crying about that.
No doubt the dems are seriously in need of some strong leadership. The whole 3 ring circus that has been their primary is proof of that but Edwards and Waxman’s actions don’t speak to that as far as I’m as i’m concerned.
thompaine
May 19, 2008 at 7:40 am
Andre, my friend, as usual you missed my point completely. Carry on!
pg - your humble messenger
May 19, 2008 at 10:20 am
thom – your inflation question is inane. Sorry but it just is. What was inflation? What type are you talking about? What is it due to? Is it rising or falling? What does it mean? and then… and then… and then…
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
pg - your humble messenger
May 19, 2008 at 10:30 am
The GDP is measured in US$ I would have to assume. So if it goes up .8% but the value of the dollar goes down 2% then there wasn’t any real growth.
I made up the figure on the value of the dollar. That is just used as an illustration of the point I was trying to make. I don’t know for a fact that the dollar’s value has gone down as the most current data I could find was all for 2007 but it continues to slip vs the Euro correct?
thompaine
May 19, 2008 at 10:53 am
thom it is a little more complicated than that. For instance 2% is the goal the Fed likes to keep inflation to. Economies like all living organisms go through cycles. But I hate to break it to you; the value of the dollar is not how inflation is figured.
First quarter inflation was 2.5% excluding food and fuel. Well excluding fuel as best you can (because fuel affects everything). My overall point was that you did not even know what inflation is, how it is calculated, and what it was. You have just been conditioned to think it is bad, to fear it, right now before the election.
It is also Bush’s fault right? I mean regardless what it really is – it is BAD and Bush did it. That is called fear mongering. BTW – inflation under Carter was? Yes you guessed it – over 12%!
I am still waiting for the promised 21st century depression!
pg - your humble messenger
May 19, 2008 at 11:19 am
I never said it was Bush’s fault. I’m not sure if that’s the point E was trying to make as this thread has taken quite a few twists and turns. Hey you and I agreed at one point that US president gets far too much credit when the economy is doing well and too much blame when it is not.
The fact is that I like many other Americans measure economics by how we am doing personally. My electric bill has gone up as has my fuel and food costs etc.etc. Blame it on whoever you want but from where I sit my cost of living has gone up more than my income. If you are doing as well or better than last year then God bless but I for one am not.
thompaine
May 19, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I was not saying you were saying it was Bush’s (GOP could be substituted) fault. I was saying it is being sold as if it is Bush’s fault. I also did not say the economy is doing great. Again, my point was not about you, sorry if that was not clesr.
Will I am on disability. One year’s sorry income is as bad as the next. LOL
pg - your humble messenger
May 19, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Also there is nothing wrong with not knowing the ins-and-outs of economic statistics, its pretty arcane stuff. There is something to be said about not letting the media manipulate us. Also there is something to say for challenging broad accusations that seek to masquerade as an argument, which is what 99% of political speech is, 99.9% of the Democrat’s speech.
pg - your humble messenger
May 19, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Also there is something to say for challenging broad accusations that seek to masquerade as an argument, which is what 99% of political speech is
Well said, very well said. Attempting to extract the truth from political rhetoric and the media coverage thereof is a challenging affair. Truth always seems to lie somewhere between both sides of a political debate and as a wise man once said “we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.”
thompaine
May 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm
There is plenty of blame for rising prices, poor wages, hyperactive fuel prices, outsourcing of jobs, ridiculous immigration policies, and all the rest. Plenty of blame for both parties. This is what happens when greed, short sightedness, political expediency and unwise ideological committments all manage to combine into a Frankenstein monster. Certain things will improve, and some things will not. That is the nature of things, policies and politics, and Conclub will be here to document, analyze and comment on it all.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
May 19, 2008 at 9:09 pm
McCain had shouting matches with Bush’s Secretary of Defense in the middle of a war and even called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. He was early in calling Iraq a “mismanaged war.” When Joseph Liebermann voiced similar criticism against his own party’s President, he was viciously and disgracefully smeared by liberals who continue to slander him to this day. Liebermann, it is said by his left-wing opponents, provided aid and comfort to the political enemy, but McCain’s far bolder actions are dismissed by them.
The reason I supported McCain for President is the same reason why I like Liebermann. It is also, despite what they may tell you, why Andre and others supported him in 2000: Because both McCain and Liebermann are just more serious and more statesmanlike than 99% of Washington. That’s how each man has drawn the ire of his own party.
It is in the Democratic Party’s interest to make McCain look like just another right-wing Republican, but nobody’s buying it.
DFV the Scribe
May 21, 2008 at 12:07 am
I thought, and still do, that McCain was the best choice in a very imperfect field of candidates. I am on record about it.
DFV characterization of McCain and Rumsfeld is cartoonist and not accurate. Further that relationship and McCain’s views on the war had absolutely nothing to do with how McCain was viewed by his party. It certainly does not figure in McCain’s testy relationship with the more conservative members of the Republican Party.
It is simplistic, inaccurate and unfair to characterize McCain’s early misguided desire to have a larger conventional force present at the start of the invasion as some kind of cry to get prepared for a counter insurgency that he knew was coming. To act as if those like McCain and Joe Biden who advocated a larger troop presence early on were really advocating a “surge” is just not true. The facts do not support McCain having had a better sense on how to handle what developed into the insurgency from the start.
You bet McCain and Rumsfeld went at it, but not for that overly simplified reason. It had to do with an overall approach regarding the military and its size.
If you like the “narrative” that McCain was “right” on the war from the get go fine. It is just not true. What he has done is kept the faith. He has not tried to rewrite history for political expedience. That is what he shares in common with Lieberman. The profile in courage with McCain going against his party must be constructed out of material other than Iraq. That involves taxes, immigration, and campaign finance for starters.
But you are right Scribe – McCain over the years took time out to undercut the president, he sure did. He has had shouting matches with just about everyone come to think about it. This going to be a very INTERESTING next four years no matter who gets elected!
Is everybody on this planet going to rewrite the facts of the last eight years? The Iraq War went south due to the State Department’s approach. Man I want off this reservation. “Just another right-wing Republican” huh? Hell yes, that would be terrible!
pg - your humble messenger
May 21, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I believe that McCain was in effect calling for ‘a surge’ well before the surge came into being. He has been more consistently “right” on Iraq than anyone else that I know about. He may be “wrong” on a lot of other things but his foresight on Iraq can’t, and shouldn’t, be ignored or downplayed.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
May 21, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The Iraq war now has its “Grant”. Now we need a Lincoln to see it through to the end. We didn’t need a McClennan then, and we certainly don’t need one now.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
May 21, 2008 at 7:49 pm
It is simplistic, inaccurate and unfair to characterize McCain’s early misguided desire to have a larger conventional force present at the start of the invasion as some kind of cry to get prepared for a counter insurgency that he knew was coming.
Well if he didn’t want the larger force to defend and attack the coming insurgency, then what on earth did he want them for. The initial invasion was a cakewalk, but almost immediately after the insurgency began to develop, Mccain said we needed a larger ground force to forcibly secure the country. Years later, we did just that and it worked.
The facts do not support McCain having had a better sense on how to handle what developed into the insurgency from the start.
This is just nonsense. He saw the flaws in the State Dept. approach, such as trying to use the UN too much, and reluctance to get tough with various Iraqi elements. He also saw the DOD flaws in having too light a force and not emphasizing securing the nation (allowing looting, allowing militias to bud, etc.). Most of all, he recognized when things were going badly and called for change at a time when the Pentagon and the White House kept saying to just be patient, all was well. Among his most insistent arguments for a change in course was an increase in troops, which was finally acceeded to and worked marvelously. Almost nobody had a worse sense in how to handle this than Bush and Rumsfeld.
As for political expediency, I remember quite clearly that when McCain was advocating a surge in troop strength, the public was turning swiftly against the war, the Democrats were tripping over themselves to see who could advocate the fastest retreat, and even the President was talking about drawdowns. It was abundantly clear at the time that McCain’s political future was tied to a dramatic turnaround in Iraq. It was a political longshot he took, but it also happened to be completely consistent with what he has always advocated. in other words, McCain took the riskiest possible position because it was what he believed to be in the nation’s interest.
PG’s right that this position didn’t earn him scorn from the right, I was merely pointing out that he was never shy about tangling with Bush and his administration, which shows he’s anything but a W clone.
DFV the Scribe
May 21, 2008 at 11:45 pm