Friday, September 23, 2005

I Disagree

with the Moose on this one.

The logic: Feingold votes for John Roberts, even though he doesn't agree with much of what he says, but he is qualified. Since Feingold votes for Roberts now, one day when a Democrat is in office, Republicans will vote for his/her nominee because Democrats played nice with Roberts.

Oiy. It doesn't matter, I don't understand how we haven't gotten this through our heads yet. In theory, the Moose and Feingold are right. But it doesn't matter. Republicans opposed Clinton in Kosovo, saying they love America but don't agree with Clinton. Then when people oppose Bush and his war(s), they're called America-haters and are helping the enemy. The whole fillibuster debate was the same crap, they used fillibusters on a ton of Clinton judges (if not other parlimentary rules) while they were the minority party. But when Bush is in the White House, and they own the congress, they change the rules, make it harder to block nominees and try to eliminate the fillibuster all together.

So to think because Feingold does the right thing, that Republicans will do the right thin in the future is just stupid. That isn't how it works. They don't care about hypocrisy.

Dibgy sums it up pretty well (different subject, foreign policy, same idea):
On what planet did liberals think that the modern Republican party gave a flying fuck about what they thought about anything? It certainly wasn't planet earth circa 2003. Bush had just recaptured the Senate and was striding around the country, codpiece bursting, proclaiming to the entire world that he didn't care what they thought. Did liberal intellectuals actually believe some fantasy that Bush could blow off Europe and ultimately the entire security council but listen to them? My God.

Why are people so unwilling to admit what they are seeing before their eyes, even today? The Republican party is corrupt, incompetent and drunk with power. And no matter what their intentions, they are incapable of setting things right. We have seen this over and over again.

Yet still I see a flurry of earnest discussion about how we should deal with Iraq and what plans should be implemented --- as if they have real world implications. They do not. As I wrote earlier, I think there is political value in doing this as it pertains to positioning for the next election. But I have no illusions, and never have, that anyone in the Bush administration gives a damn what we think or will follow any policy advice from liberals, hawks or otherwise. They do not operate that way.

I don't believe in purges or demands for disavowels; they have a faint whiff of Stalinism that rubs me the wrong way. Nobody has to apologise to me for what they believed about the war. But, considering that their credibility is more than a little bit tattered, it would probably be a good idea if the liberal intellectuals who backed the war finally recognized that everything they say and do is being used for political fodder and adjust their thinking and writing accordingly. They are not going to affect Bush administration policy. There is still a chance they could affect politics, however, if they will just stop pretending that the Republicans are operating on a logical basis in which they can find some common ground.

I think this is where we separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. If, after all you've seen these last five years you still believe that the Bush administration can be given the benefit of the doubt, that they will do the right thing, change course, follow sage advice, reevaluate their strategy, bow to the facts on the ground --- then you have the same disease the Bush administration has. As Ben Franklin said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

No comments: