Friday, August 05, 2005

It's Fuck You Friday

To the filthy DLC corporate Democrat Evan Bayh: fuck you.

Bayh gave an appalling interview to the Associated Press yesterday while he was trolling for caucus votes in Iowa in preparation for a Joe Lieberman-style presidential bid in 2008. Bayh apparently learned nothing from Joementum's spectacular flameout in the primaries, to wit, Democrats tend to vote for Democrats. Bayh and Lieberman don't qualify.

Proving again that the DLC Democrats would rather see their ideological soulmates in the GOP win elections than true Democrats, Bayh took aim at the large portion of the Democratic party the tiny clique within the DLC can't control:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Thursday that his party lacks credibility on national security and needs to convince Americans that Democrats are willing to use force when necessary.

Until the party can persuade voters, it will be unable to move the debate to issues that work for Democrats, Bayh said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Unless the American people know that we will be good stewards of the nation's security, they're unlikely to trust us with anything else," said the two-term Indiana senator. "That's a very important threshold we have to get over."

Bayh said there are legitimate grounds to criticize President Bush's approach to fighting terrorism, but until Democrats establish more credibility on the issue, many voters won't listen.

"Many Americans wonder if we're willing to use force to defend the country even under the most compelling of circumstances," Bayh said. "The majority of Democrats would answer that question that, yes, there is a right place and a right time. We don't get to have that discussion because many people don't think we have the backbone."

Sounds eerily similar to Republican talking points, doesn't it?

Note that his comments assume that Republicans are trusted with "being good stewards of the nation's security". Rather than hold to this false assumption, perhaps Bayh should mention that despite overwhelming warnings that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent a Republican president left the airspace over New York and Washington completely unguarded on 9/11. Provoking a war with a country that presented no threat that is now a complete quagmire was hardly "being a good steward of the nation's security". Allowing Afghanistan to fall into the hands of tribal warlords and Taliban remnants because of the rush to war in Iraq is hardly being a "good steward of the nation's security". Bayh could run an entire campaign based on Republican failures in the area of national security (Kerry tried, but his IWR vote doomed him from the beginning), but no, Bayh would rather repeat Republican lies about what is ostensibly his own party. One is left baffled how Bayh expects this tactic to garner Democratic votes.

This tired mantra from the DLC war wing of the party - Hillary, Biden, Bayh and Lieberman - is completely out of touch with the mood of the public, who are growing more doubtful of the policy of pre-emption daily. Despite our penchant for violence in our culture, we are not a warlike people. As we learned from the Vietman experience, the public will also not accept an endless war waged for unclear reasons with a vague definition of success. The DLC, however, is more interested in racking up a huge war chest from campaign donors who profit from war - so war it is.

To illustrate how Bayh is just as divorced from reality as his beloved war president, he adds this ridiculous claim:

Bayh said his electoral success in heavily Republican Indiana and moderate views are a model for Democrats to end their recent electoral failures. Summing up those failures are polls that show voters overwhelmingly trusting Republicans on national security, he said.

"We've got a few voices out there who would be a little bit more on the fringe," Bayh said. "Unfortunately, too often they define the entire party."

Okay, so since Bayh wins in a red state by voting for the Bush tax cuts, supporting a corporatist dicatorship and cheerleading for the war everyone in blue states should simply fall in line and lose what little representation they have by turning the party into a branch of the GOP? I'm sure Californians will love a little Indiana-type Democratic party. And typical of the DLC arrogance, Bayh casually brushes off the huge majority of Democrats as "the fringe". News to Bayh (whose late father Birch, a true populist, must be screaming from the grave): "the fringe" is now the majority of not only Democrats, but of the American public. Perhaps he should peruse the latest AP-Ipsos poll, which shows Bush tanking fast on those bedrock "national security" issues.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he's honest.
A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to abandon Bush on his handling of Iraq in the last six months.

...William Anderson, a retired Republican from Fort Worth, Texas, said Bush "has the right intentions, but he's going about them the wrong way."

"Iraq is one of the issues that everybody has a problem with," Anderson said. "There are some big discussions about it around town. Everybody's got their agreements and disagreements. It seems like there's no end. Is it going to end up another Vietnam?"

Wow, even those hardy midwesterners - and Indiana was in the midwest, last time I looked - are turning against Bush's war. Bayh isn't even in touch with his own constituents, much less with the rest of the country. I suppose the coin of the realm is now campaign contributions from war profiteers above the true "national security" of our country.

Looking ahead to 2008 is more depressing by the day. So far, we have three candidates who are considering a run - Hillary, Biden, and Bayh - all controlled by the DLC and determined to keep this country under corporatist Republican rule. I would truly vote for Nader rather than any of this unholy trio and help throw the election to a Republican. What's the difference? At least I can vote my values. God help the Democratic party if we don't have a real Democrat heading up the ticket.


Blogger Mudpuppy said...

There are two good things about Biden, though -- I can listen to him without gagging, and he actually has a real sense of humour. He doesn't do a Beavis and Butthead cackle like you-know-who. At this point I'll accept those qualities as being important in a Presidential candidate.

10:36 AM  
Blogger Flippy said...

I wouldn't vote for Nader. He caused Al Gore to lose. I would rather stay home and get drunk than vote for most of the Democrats who are considering running.

I would vote for Nancy Pelosi, maybe. Hell, maybe Oprah will run. At least she'll help poor people with social programs.

2:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home