Blasted Again!
The Democrats, as much hey as they are trying to make of the Foley scandal, and Woodward book, are still having an image problem of their own.
Once again a writer who has been a fairly reliable friend of the left lets them know why they may not pick up as many seats as they'd like in five weeks.
This time it's Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post, who writes "A Party Without Principles" in today's paper.
I was surprised at the subject he spent most of his time on in the column, Social Security, which has of course been something the Democrats have epitomized "do nothing" on for the last two decades. When they controlled Congress they did nothing to fix it, since they lost control they've only blocked any attempt at reform.
They were the party who's blue ribbon commission in the 1990's recommended investing Social Security surplus money in the stock market via personal accounts; and the minority of the panel in rejecting personal accounts still said invest in the market. Yet in this decade they act as if either idea is akin to selling out to the devil.
Why is that? Well, the only answer I can come up with is BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Anything that GWB says is obviously evil, so therefore personal accounts, or investment, must be bad things.
He also questions why, if the recently passed immigration bill in the Senate is nothing but "a concession "to the radical anti-immigrant right wing" of the Republican Party", as Harry Reid put it, did more Democrats vote for the bill than against it? (26-17 was the count).
The answer to that one is easy, the 26 who voted for it live in states where it's an issue that is seen as important. Selling principles for votes isn't new in politics, to either party, and the vote on the immigration bill is proof the practice is still alive.
Mallaby ends the column with a wonderful statement:
The truth is, what they have a concern with is gaining power, without telling anyone what they'd do with it. The plan that they've let out so far is they won't be George Bush's "rubber stamp Republican Congress", ignoring the fact that the "rubber stamp congress" has held up dozens of Bush's pet projects, including the aforementioned Social Security reform.
Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, Sebatian Mallaby, Washington Post, Congress, Social Security, Immigration
Once again a writer who has been a fairly reliable friend of the left lets them know why they may not pick up as many seats as they'd like in five weeks.
This time it's Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post, who writes "A Party Without Principles" in today's paper.
I was surprised at the subject he spent most of his time on in the column, Social Security, which has of course been something the Democrats have epitomized "do nothing" on for the last two decades. When they controlled Congress they did nothing to fix it, since they lost control they've only blocked any attempt at reform.
They were the party who's blue ribbon commission in the 1990's recommended investing Social Security surplus money in the stock market via personal accounts; and the minority of the panel in rejecting personal accounts still said invest in the market. Yet in this decade they act as if either idea is akin to selling out to the devil.
Why is that? Well, the only answer I can come up with is BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Anything that GWB says is obviously evil, so therefore personal accounts, or investment, must be bad things.
He also questions why, if the recently passed immigration bill in the Senate is nothing but "a concession "to the radical anti-immigrant right wing" of the Republican Party", as Harry Reid put it, did more Democrats vote for the bill than against it? (26-17 was the count).
The answer to that one is easy, the 26 who voted for it live in states where it's an issue that is seen as important. Selling principles for votes isn't new in politics, to either party, and the vote on the immigration bill is proof the practice is still alive.
Mallaby ends the column with a wonderful statement:
But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lostThe truth is, the guys who have taken over the party have no real concern for pro-market anything, or for that matter fiscal responsibility. They also have no concern for coming up with solutions to the economic insecurities they've been trying to exploit for this election. They prefer the role of demagogue, only railing against things, not actually coming up with suggestions.
interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next
month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.
The truth is, what they have a concern with is gaining power, without telling anyone what they'd do with it. The plan that they've let out so far is they won't be George Bush's "rubber stamp Republican Congress", ignoring the fact that the "rubber stamp congress" has held up dozens of Bush's pet projects, including the aforementioned Social Security reform.
Technorati Tags: Harry Reid, Sebatian Mallaby, Washington Post, Congress, Social Security, Immigration
posted by Crazy Politico at 10:29 PM
5Comments:
The truth is, what they have a concern with is gaining power, without telling anyone what they'd do with it.
Good point. How anyone can openly support either of the major two parties is completely beyond me.
The real problem Dems have with any privatization of Social Security is simply this: it gets that money out from under their direct control. They're greedy bastards at the heart of it.
I suspect that the Foley mess will seem less important to the masses (who have a very short attention span) in a few weeks. They are probably looking for something else to accuse the GOP of so that they can avoid talking about their beliefs and policies.
Shoprat, unfortunately I think you are right on that one. Why not have a diversion from real issues seems to be the mantra.
Jeff, true, and unfortunate. No one has ever been able to find a 20 year period where putting social security into the market would have been worse for it than the "junk" Treasury bonds have been. But they'll still demogogue it so they can control it.
PT, supporting any politician is getting hard these days. One of the bigger problems is the "gotcha politics" we've seen since the late 1980's. Unfortunately now more politicians are worried about covering their asses than doing what's right for the folks they represent.
Unfortunately now more politicians are worried about covering their asses than doing what's right for the folks they represent.
Totally.
Post a Comment
<< Home