« What will we do with them? | Main | Is it a frame or a lie? »
08 December 2005
This is INSANE
CNN just flashed a poll that says that only 34% of the pollees believe the Republicans are ethical. No surprise there — you can fool some of the people...
But the shocker is that only 31% believe the Democrats are. They launder money, lie to grand juries, take bribes — I could go on — and still more "people" believe they're ethical than believe we are. Huh?
Posted by EDN on December 8, 2005 at 03:16 PM in Moral Values | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451648869e200d834643c9353ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is INSANE:
Comments
It's been apparent in polls for a long time that as bad as Congressional Republicans look, the Dems don't look much better.
Unfortunately, we are paying the price of mealy-mouthed speeches and (sorry to say) sort-of flip-flops from the Dems that average Americans recognize: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and all the idiots who "voted for" before they "voted against."
This has been the subject of endless and sometimes rancorous debate at sites like DKos.
Dems must articulate a core philosophy of principles and governance. And it can't be the endless, clause-filled, third-person bullshit that enveloped Kerry in a sick miasma of hot air during his campaign. It has to be three or four memorable and meaningful over-arching ideas.
It's not about "programs". It's about what we believe is right and good for America. It's who we represent and what we're willing to do to move forward. It's about taking risk and putting ourselves out there to say something that needs to be said. That's why Murtha is a winner and someone like Kerry or Clinton is a loser.
I wasn't particularly a Dean supporter in 2004, but when he was running in front the Dems should have recognized that we finally had someone who would put it all on the line. Instead, we allowed Kerry to come in with the old Dem hackery and money and abandoned Dean like a disease. And what did we get? A haughty milquetoast who couldn't even be bothered to stand up for his own reputation against a bunch of lying yahoos.
Do you think that kind of behavior and pusillanimousness isn't noticed by the electorate-at-large? Of course it is.
Now, when the usual Sunday gasbags are trying to make out that when it comes to corruption and taking dirty money, "everybody does it," I have yet to hear a Democrat stand up and say, "Bullshit!"
No one is going to give the microphone to Democrats. Like Murtha, they're going to have to seize it, and then be prepared to say something worthwhile.
Posted by: Chiaroscuro | Dec 8, 2005 4:45:45 PM
Aw, crap. So I go to CNN and find that even Dean has been afflicted with the Dem Disease:
Dean recasts statement that U.S. can't win in IraqDemocratic chairman says new strategy needed
Thursday, December 8, 2005; Posted: 12:37 p.m. EST (17:37 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday his assertion that the United States cannot win the war in Iraq was reported "a little out of context," saying Democrats believe a new U.S. strategy is needed to succeed there.
Seeking to clarify a statement in a Texas radio interview that Republicans harshly assailed and some Democrats questioned, Dean said, "They kind of cherry-picked that one the same way the president cherry-picked the intelligence going into Iraq."
Dean was questioned on CNN about an interview he gave Monday to radio station WOAI in San Antonio. "The idea that we're going to win this war is an ideal that unfortunately is just plain wrong," the former Vermont governor and unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate said.
His Republican counterpart, Ken Mehlman, called Dean's prediction "outrageous" and said it "sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy, and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections."
On Thursday, Dean stressed at several junctures in the interview that Democrats support U.S. troops struggling to secure Iraq. He seemed to be striving to counter charges that statements by some Democrats suggesting a pullout are having the effect of undermining U.S. servicemen and women.
Struggling to find one voice Democrats have been struggling to find party unity on Iraq. Dean's broadside Monday, likening Iraq to the Vietnam experience, went beyond an earlier call by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, to begin to pull troops out. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, embraced Murtha's position Wednesday. But other Democrats have been more cautious about second-guessing President Bush on this issue.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said earlier this week that Democrats "undercut the president's credibility at our nation's peril."
And there, in a nutshell, is the problem.
Posted by: Chiaroscuro | Dec 8, 2005 4:55:24 PM
Chiaro, see also my comment on your V for Victory (aaarrrgh) post.
Frankly, I too wish that Dean had won the nomination. Then he'd have lost and be gone from Democratic national party politics.
To quote the lamest phrase-maker in history, "Together we can do better."
Posted by: Ellen Dana Nagler | Dec 8, 2005 5:55:03 PM
wow, ellen - i had no idea that you wanted dean "gone from Democratic national party politics". i'm left wondering where did that come from.... would you (please) explain? thanks.
Posted by: selise | Dec 8, 2005 10:53:37 PM
Ah, Selise — I never drank the Kool-aid. I never liked Dean. My guy was Wes Clark (I think my fondness for Clark is still evident), who was also against the Iraq adventure, but in a mature and considered way. I guess I never felt that Dean's positions were mature and considered. ;-)
And for DNC chair, Simon Rosenberg was my guy. I think he's done a superb job with the NDN and is the sort of technocrat that position calls for — a behind-the-scenes guy who at the same time is able to articulate the progressives' vision for the party. And do it with the sort of credibility the position requires.
Howard, in my view, was and is a loose cannon. In the words of some of his other detractors, "He doesn't speak for me."
I haven't written much about these feelings, because there's no reason for me to. But since you ask...
Posted by: Ellen Dana Nagler | Dec 9, 2005 10:37:14 AM
ellen, thanks much for the reply. i was just suprised by your passion (of the negative sort). wanting someone out of national politics is very different than supporting someone else.
dean wasn't "my guy" either... but his continued (and apparently) tireless work to reform the dem party (especially with regards to funding sources) has earned my respect.... i'm much more interested in actions than in rhetoric.
on the other hand, i've learned to have a great deal of respect your views (except for clark - i'm so sorry, but he seriously creeps me out - hopefully i'm totally wrong about him).... so i'll try to be open minded... thanks again for the response.
Posted by: selise | Dec 9, 2005 1:14:53 PM
Ellen, Dean may be a "loose cannon" but at least he's firing more than bird-shot.
I guess I'm longing for the candidate who isn't so "mature" that he's above the fray, but has better aim when he brings out the cannon.
Posted by: Chiaroscuro | Dec 9, 2005 2:26:00 PM
Selise,
I, in turn, would be fascinated to know why Clark creeps you out!!
Chiaro,
To continue your metaphor: what about a sharp shooter?
Posted by: Ellen Dana Nagler | Dec 9, 2005 4:26:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
