No real change coming

[Michael Tee]

Kind of depressing.  Here's an article from brickburner.org (http://brickburner.blogs.com/) entitled "A Progressive Sweep?" which compares the members and numbers of the CPC (Congressional Progressive Caucus) with the New Democrats and the Blue Dog Democrats.

I know that names don't mean much anymore.  Hell, what's a Democrat anyway?  But when Frank (the author of the article) points out that over half of the CPC support Murtha's call for redeployment (as compared to, say, bringing them all home) you gotta wonder what is so "progressive" after all.

Here's an example of the kind of "winds of change" we can expect to blow through the halls of Congress in 2007:

<<Like their leader Nancy Pelosi, the CPC’s members also overwhelmingly support Israel and remain committed to the neo-con principles underlying Bush's war on terror . . . >>

In short, it's a long haul ahead for those Arabs still fighting for their land and their freedom.  We all know the basic principles of Bush's war on terror - - studiously avoid any examination of the real sources of enmity between Arab radicals and America; stick with the tried and true "They hate us for our freedoms."  (as if any of them really gave a shit whether women can drive on the Interstate or not) and invent reasons (which don't even have to be plausible) to attack and occupy any Arab country with a large enough supply of oil under its sand.

Well, it's a unipolar world and apparently a uni-party Republic - - looks like the world is in for a lot of this shit.

[BT]

Wise of you to distance yourself from the incoming congress. It is far easier to carp from the bleachers than it is to defend from the center ring.

[Michael Tee]

<<Wise of you to distance yourself from the incoming congress. It is far easier to carp from the bleachers than it is to defend from the center ring. >>

You speak as if there were a huge difference between the "incoming Congress" and the present one.  Basically what I'm "carping" at is the same team, second string.  The changes will be barely perceptible.

BTW, it's just as easy to "carp" from the sidelines as to "defend from the center ring."  There's no real difference between saying what you'd do if given the chance and doing it when you get the chance.  The problem is that not all the Democrats were saying they'd do the same thing, and now not all the Democrats will be doing the same thing.

[sirs]

[BT]

There's no real difference between saying what you'd do if given the chance and doing it when you get the chance.

You are kidding, Right?

[Michael Tee]

I'm not kidding, but I was speaking of individual Democrats only.  Obviously, a "bring 'em all home in 30 days" Democrat, even if elected, would have a major problem fulfilling his promises because of opposition from his own party, but I don't see any problem with the implementation of such a policy if there had been enough Democrats with the guts to make the promise in the first place.  Not in theory anyway.  In real life, I guess the people who really call the shots in your country would probably be driven to some pretty desperate measures, but the Kennedy Brothers solution would be a little hard to implement because taking out the One Big Target would not be an option.

[BT]

"Executive Action" is always an option, but in this case it is not an individual who would be a problem, but a group of individuals.

Probably would take some plausible gas explosion or fire to silence them. Though Tom Clancy did have an airliner crash into a joint session of congress.

Campaign promises and your posts have much in common. There is always room for weaseling after the fact.

[Michael Tee]

You really like that word, weaselling.  Enough to use it as much as you can as often as you can.  Whether it applies or not.

I don't know how you can call my posts weaselling though.  I make a simple statement of fact or opinion, you consistently misinterpret or twist it, often 180 degrees, and when I correct or rebut the misinterpretation, which was probably deliberate in any event, that becomes "weaselling."  Whatever.

[Plane]

A tactical change now and then is a good idea in any case.

But is the strategic plan undergoing large or small change?

The USA is capable of maintaining a policy for generations thru various administrations if the goal is widely supported.

Consider the US stance against Bolshivism that the Bolshivists never could really overcome , there were several large changes in tactics , but the basic anti -communist stance lasted more than a century and helped the Rise of Communism convert to the fall of Communism .


What exactly are we against this time?
Are we against it so much that we can be against it for several generations ?

[Plane]

http://www.progressiveu.org/142153-the-110th-congress-the-end-of-fight-club

[Michael Tee]

<<What exactly are we against this time?>>

I think basically you're against anyone who wants to cause large or small groups of you to explode and/or burn.  That's the basic political stance of every American.  After that, the unanimity starts to fray.  Who wants you to explode or burn, why do they want that, how can we go about neutralizing them . . . etc.

<<Are we against it so much that we can be against it for several generations ?>>

As long as it exists you have to be on guard against it, don't you?  How you fight it, that's the question.

[Michael Tee]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.progressiveu.org/142153-the-110th-congress-the-end-of-fight-club

Kinda misses the point, IMHO.  There are much bigger problems afoot than a lack of civility.  People are dying in a war.  There's a way out of the mess and a way deeper in, and each side is gonna push for its own agenda.  Both of them can't be right.  Both of them can't be good for the country.

This was another one of those "bi-partisanship for its own sake" pieces.  Bipartisanship IMHO usually is code for "You give up your opposition to my program and I'll throw you a few basically meaningless perks and maybe invite you to my Sunday morning prayer breakfast."

I always thought of partisanship as the hallmark of a democracy, and bipartisanship as the enemy of democracy.  I notice that whenever I refer to Cuba's rather unique need for national unity over the tolerance of dissent and divisiveness, I get regularly mocked and slammed in here as if I had suggested some particularly perverse form of cannibalism. 

[BT]

I always thought of partisanship as the hallmark of a democracy, and bipartisanship as the enemy of democracy.  I notice that whenever I refer to Cuba's rather unique need for national unity over the tolerance of dissent and divisiveness, I get regularly mocked and slammed in here as if I had suggested some particularly perverse form of cannibalism

Perhaps that is why you get mocked. Your standards for one country vs the other are in conflict and inconsistent. One standard is idealistic, the other pragmatic.

[Michael Tee]

<<Your standards for one country vs the other are in conflict and inconsistent. One standard is idealistic, the other pragmatic. >>

That might be the case if the two countries had the same set of problems, but they don't.  Cuba's fighting to survive next to a hostile giant.  The U.S. has no such life-or-death issues facing it, so it can afford to allow more freedom to its citizens.

[Amianthus]

That might be the case if the two countries had the same set of problems, but they don't.  Cuba's fighting to survive next to a hostile giant.  The U.S. has no such life-or-death issues facing it, so it can afford to allow more freedom to its citizens.

Well, we do have that hostile giant to our north.