Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (18702)	5/25/2005 3:44:29 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361250

p m carpenter's commentary May 25, 2005 It’s the bullying, stupid The Senate locked horns over the filibuster; TV’s talking heads lectured on the filibuster; op-ed pages, talk-radio asylums and political Web sites parsed every parliamentary aspect of the filibuster -- and the debates were mostly an irrelevance. More on that in a minute. First things first, and the very first, of course, is that the issue isn’t dead. It’s just under warming lamps. The Christian right -- these days virtually the entire Republican Party during primary season -- will pressure the leadership to make it all better, and soon. Neither gives up this easily and neither suffers compromise for long. They’re just regrouping. They’ll be back, which makes the filibuster “agreement” irrelevant. And compared to the real issue at hand, the pro-and-con arguments employed were just as irrelevant. The most amusing irrelevance was the right’s teary-eyed crocodile warning that should the filibuster be defended successfully, well, boy, the left would regret it. Some day the right will be the minority again and it will flip and apply the parliamentary scourge with renewed vigor. Imagine that. Republicans -- Republicans, mind you -- hypocritically filibustering this and filibustering that after all those principled, anti-filibuster arguments. Say it could never be so, Shane. The debate was at its oddest, though, when the anti-filibustering’s very origins went unexamined; origins that have little to do with judicial nominees and nothing to do with the filibuster itself. And those deepest origins, to put it with fair economy, are the right’s tiresome bullying. True, power-grabbing played a part -- ensuring that the judiciary marches in ideological step and stays in step long after the right’s electoral demise -- but the power-grabbing at issue here involved forcing one set of social mores on a whole lot of individuals and groups with different social mores: in short, bullying. That’s what the filibuster exercise came down to: The most blatant and potentially most self-defeating display of obscene bullying in America’s recent political history. The heart of the matter did come up from time to time, but largely got buried by endless debates on the filibuster’s propriety as a parliamentary tool. Perhaps the right’s bullying has become so routine it’s barely noticed any longer. Or perhaps the media’s attention to what’s news-relevant has now surpassed mere deficit-disorder levels. After all, everyone knows that these days at least the networks’ news coverage starts and ends with Michael Jackson’s rating-grabbing crotch-grabbing. But however inadequately covered, it remains that the filibuster circus was brought to town chiefly by right-wing bullies, and that’s the fundamental aspect the Dems should push harder politically than any other. Nobody likes bullies but bullies themselves, who account for maybe 25 percent of the electorate (hard-right evangelicals, Heritage Foundation donors and the John Bolton Fan Club). There’s far more history to this bullying business than the filibuster, yet the larger electorate has failed to appreciate Republican history for what it is, mainly due to the opposition’s repeatedly botched message delivery. We had the 1995 government shutdown, the first sign of the finest in contemporary political bullying to come. We had the perennial Clinton investigations, but outside the (then) scandal-obsessed Washington Post and New York Times, who cared? We had an unconstitutional impeachment, which the perpetrators then managed to twist into a character issue and carry into a stolen election -- a bit of bullying there, I’d say. We had mammoth bullying leading up to the Iraq invasion. We’ve had regularly served bullying on the dangers of free speech from totalitarian spooks like Ashcroft and Fleischer and Rumsfeld…. One could go on. So let’s just agree that the history is clear enough. What doesn’t seem to be clear to Democrats -- now there’s a surprise -- is how to capitalize on what Republicans have handed them on a platter: the longest, most clear-cut record of political bullying in modern history. Why? Because they can’t seem to keep the basics in mind very long. And the basics are what Clinton singularly got right and what the right has always gotten right -- a simple, single message, over and over and over till cranial numbness sets in. It’s the bullying, stupid. pmcarpenter.blogs.com