Democrats Keeping Promises: Saying NO! to Bush's on Iraq

Well, whether I want it or not, posting here invites questions ;-)

Thanks. Two things struck me on first read:

1. This vote on Iraq didn't "enact" anything- right? - much less legislatively fixing anything to make us safer or freer. Is that an example of the new leadership fulfilling a promised governing purpose then?

I'm not arguing that it was unimportant, just noting that its importance wasn't legislative. It didn't in fact enact anything or block anything, except with whatever public opinion effect it might enhance? So is it appearance then, that makes this important? Sort of the telling of a different story, putting a different face on American political leadership for the world, that kind of thing?

I do think much WAS done by these same folks and so many others of course, through campaigns, discussions, editorials, blogging, etc, also the developments on the ground over the past three years) to inform and change public opinion. To me that's always the key part and policy-legislation-court decisions follow.

2. Bipartisanship, which here you mention as a good thing? - do you have generally applicable criteria for when it's a good thing and when it's not? Other than simply which party's proposal prevails I mean? It occurred to me that maybe again, public opinion is the key? Not so much the legislating but the persuading . . . sometimes the power of the story is in sharper difference, sometimes in coming together?

1. In a way it is. The promise made was to push for a different direction on Iraq. Bush is pushing for the same old tired illgal immoral bloodbath he has been stuck in for years. Democrats, and one Republican, are telling America it is okay to say no to Bush. Since we are only in our first month of the new congress, it is nice to see even this small step. However, you are right that in the end this particular vote, which was only in committee, mind you, is merely a statement of principle. The House has so far enacted extensive and excellent legislation. I am still waiting to see if the Senate will follow suit while keeping in mind that things will be harder in the Senate. You have a much tighter split, the Lieberman factor, and, in cases where there is a tie, the Cheney factor.

I believe in encouraging Congress Critters when they do good because sometimes they need lots of positive re-enforcement to keep them from cowardly paralysis.

2. Basically agree that it depends on the situation. Bipartisanship is an ideal because it means there is a broad consensus. Those are ideals. But other times principle demands taking opposing sides. In general, I feel that Bush's refusal to brook even slight disagreement, even within his own party, has squashed BOTH. Instead of bipartisanship, which implies a two way compromise and discussion, you had Democrats often excluded from proposing legislation or even into meetings. One side was kept out. In too many cases this led to Democrats giving in where they shouldn't have. That gave an image of bipartisanship, but because it was such an unequal exchange of ideas it really was bullying and cowardice. Now we have Democrats finally showing backbone and taking firm stands. You also have Republicans taking strong stands in opposition, but rather than being excluded, the procedures are more fair than they have been recently. That allows an exchange of ideas that has led to a few cases of Democrats siding with the Republicans, and in more cases Republicans siding with the Democrats. This allowed some good votes to pass despite disapproval from the extreme right wingers who have been running the nation for the past five years.

I guess I don't have a clear cut answer. It partly depends on the issue, and partly depends on what Republicans we are talking about. The traditional Republicans were more reasonable in general and hence could bring very good ideas to the table. Currently, the Republican Party has been dominated by an extremist fringe and there can be almost no compromise with them. Any compromise with horrible ideas remains horrible. Now I am seeing some of the more reasonable, more traditional Republicans seemingly released from the hold the extremists had over them and bipartisanship becomes reasonable again.

That's off the top of my head, so not sure how much it makes sense. But I think it makes sense.

actually -- I think it makes sense too. Thanks mole.

Prosecutorial zeal is the same kind of conundrum to me. Is it always dangerous or does it depend on who they're after? I tend to distrust the critical thinking skills of anyone who can blithely damn the Duke lacrosse prosecutor to disbarment and jail, while in the same breath exalting Fitzgerald for what's being done to Libby. Either it's okay to prosecute people whose identities we despise, just because they are who they are, or it's NOT. . .well, you've heard that rant before.

I was in the car all afternoon, running kids around and listening to the radio --

Here's an NPR program on "bipartisanship" that might be of interest in this context.

Also on NPR this afternoon was longtime war correspondent Chris Hedges, author of the new American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. He was compelling enough for me to head to the bookstore. Scary stuff indeed.

But something folks here might not realize, given traditional Dem-teacher union bashing over the years, is that the homeschool community has been on the front line battling "Dominionists" for years. Juan Williams and Donna Brazile said all the partisanship had gotten too "angry" and so nasty, stupid that it was driving principled people away (like me!)-- some of us have been writing about this for years and trying to cross some dividing lines to connect like-mided folks in seemingly opposed "groups" and so I was thinking if Dems could stop kicking homeschoolers, the progressive among us could maybe help beat the wackos?