Friday, May 27, 2005

Ending bipartisanship

With the refusal to end debate on U.N. ambassador John Bolton by Senate Democrats, the happy, happy, joy, joy, “let’s just all get along” mood of the Senate evaporated quickly. With Bolton’s history of abusing authority and manipulating intelligence, his lack of regard for official U.S. policy and the tendency to promote his own ideology, it appears this guy was tainted from the start. But to President Bush and his hard line followers, they aren’t going to let it concern them in the least.

“The honeymoon is over,” said Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) after senators voted 56-42 to end debate on Bolton’s nomination. This fell four votes short of the required 60 needed to end the filibuster and move the vote for confirmation. The vote for confirmation would require only a simple majority of votes.

For me, the fact that the Democrats are still providing some opposition to the fascists in control is a good thing. I don’t buy into this whole bi-partisanship myth about it being necessary for government to function. The less smoothly the government operates, the better, in my opinion. I’m with Thoreau on this one in “that government is best which governs least.” If there is an inability for both parties to come together, in my opinion, this ‘ain’t a bad thing at all.

Why would you want to work together with people who desire to dismantle what remains of a social safety net that’s worked well for over 50 years? Why would you help a crew that has a mentality that in many cases wants to send us back to the Salem Witch Trials? The Republican Party, at least it’s hard-right proponents, favor shutting down dissent via the Patriot Act, waging unending war and have us committed to Iraq for the next decade or more, plus gives us a failed system of education reform in No Child Left Behind? On top of that, they favor despoiling our environment, as well as extending tax breaks to the wealthiest citizens, at the expense of the working class stuck holding the bag (robbing the workers and giving it to the rulers). I think it’s high time the Democrats stopped going along, if the few of us who still hold progressive or non-theocratic ideals have any hope for the future. If you have any ethics and a shred of dignity left as a Democrat, how can you side with criminals?

The Republican Party is under the control of theocratic thugs and xian fundamentalists—fiscal radicals who are keen on dismantling government and don’t care how high the deficit goes. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has shifted rightward, so now, the average member of that party is the equivalent of yesterday’s moderate Republicans. Thankfully, Democrats still are holding the ground (barely) on issues of tolerance—gay rights, rights for women, minorities and the disabled—in these areas, they are still attempting to expand democracy outward. But by doing this, they’ve paid dearly, particularly with the media being complicit with the Republican’s ability to spin the truth on the issues. Unfortunately, people most likely to be hurt by these policies are the ones marching blissfully towards the cliff.

I don’t care about bipartisanship one iota and I hope that Democrats dig in their heels and stop siding with crooks and criminals and men who have no compunction at all about violating the rule of law. I hope blocking the Bolton nomination emboldens Democrats and that they continue to piss off Republicans. By doing this, they’re doing what an opposition party should be doing.

1 comment:

asfo_del said...

Well said, Jim. I couldn't agree more. It's an old trick that has served the sharks in power very well: call a murderer to task, and you're the one being impolite for calling someone a murderer. The answer is not to retreat and start calling murderers "differently opinioned life-enders" or some nonsense, it's to scream louder!