Marching Toward November
I've written about this a couple of times in comments, but now it's time to bring it up top and put it in one of my occasional Sunday editorials. I realize that politically, not everyone who reads this post is going to agree with its conclusion and though I describe myself as liberal Democrat, it may not always be obvious from my stance.
Recently, I made fun of something I thought somewhat arrogant and entirely stupid that came out of Jane Fonda's mouth; "When I was an active anorexic/bulimic, if I had read my book, it would've had a big effect on me". The cockiness of that statement is obvious. The stupidity is rooted in the idea that's she's saying, if I knew everything that I know now, I would've made different choices.
She made this statement on an episode of Charlie Rose and I only caught the tail end, as I was surfing around. The next afternoon because I wanted to get the phrasing right and because I've always liked Lady Jane, I watched the entire interview.
During the part where she was discussing the current administration and its propensity toward war, Guest Host Barbara Walters asked her about the Democrats and though I'm not going to pay $9.95 for the transcript or even $1.99 for the Google Video; Basically, she said that it's time to stop waiting for the Democrats and we should form a new party, a national group dedicated to a new way of thinking and use that to counteract the neocons and Bush.
In the past, I've made reference to the way that Tina Fey, Jay Leno and people of that sort have been belittling the Democrats and diffusing the little power that our former candidates might possess. And in a comment to another journal, I've clipped the following quote from Timothy Crouse's 1973 book, The Boys on the Bus;It is an unwritten law of current political journalism that conservative Republican Presidential candidates usually receive gentler treatment from the press than do liberal Democrats. Since most reporters are moderate or liberal Democrats themselves, they try to offset their natural biases by going out of their way to be fair to conservatives. No candidate ever had a more considerate press corps than Barry Goldwater in 1964, and four years later the campaign press gave every possible break to Richard Nixon. Reporters sense a social barrier between themselves and most conservative candidates; their relations are formal and meticulously polite. But reporters tend to loosen up around liberal candidates and campaign staffs; since they share the same ideology, they can joke with the staffers, even needle them, without being branded the 'enemy'. If a reporter has been trained in the traditional, 'objective' school of journalism, this ideological and social closeness to the candidate and the staff makes him feel guilty; he begins to compensate; the more he likes and agrees with the candidate personally, the harder he judges him professionally. Like a coach sizing up his own son in spring tryouts, the reporter becomes doubly severe.
Because they are out of power and with the proliferation of television channels, along with a perceived overcompensation by journalists, not to mention the fact that CNN goes out of their way not to appear "liberal"; The Democratic message has failed to gain traction. This will most likely remain true until they have an identifiable leader and with all apologies to my friends in Nevada and California, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not what the doctor ordered.
In all actuality, if you oppose the current administration, their missteps and grabs for power, you don't have time to form a new party. Instead, many people need to temporarily let go of their allegiance to the Greens and the uninformed, web-based Libertarian movement. Both of these parties have existed for a long time and they've fielded candidates up and down the line, but no one expects them to take a majority in either house of Congress next November.
Alternatively, if you oppose the current administration, you're going to have to let go of the long-run, futuristic dreams and blindly support your Democratic candidate for Congress. For, if the Democrats can secure the majority in the House, they will get subpoena power and by bogging the administration down in investigations, they'll be able to throw a monkey wrench into many of their plans. A new party, third party, or either of the alternatives mentioned may be a laudatory goal, but you have to work with what you've got. If you oppose the administration, their goals or methods and if your local Democratic candidate for Congress isn't a complete idiot, a child molester or arrogant legacy; You really have no other choice.
Recently, I made fun of something I thought somewhat arrogant and entirely stupid that came out of Jane Fonda's mouth; "When I was an active anorexic/bulimic, if I had read my book, it would've had a big effect on me". The cockiness of that statement is obvious. The stupidity is rooted in the idea that's she's saying, if I knew everything that I know now, I would've made different choices.
She made this statement on an episode of Charlie Rose and I only caught the tail end, as I was surfing around. The next afternoon because I wanted to get the phrasing right and because I've always liked Lady Jane, I watched the entire interview.
During the part where she was discussing the current administration and its propensity toward war, Guest Host Barbara Walters asked her about the Democrats and though I'm not going to pay $9.95 for the transcript or even $1.99 for the Google Video; Basically, she said that it's time to stop waiting for the Democrats and we should form a new party, a national group dedicated to a new way of thinking and use that to counteract the neocons and Bush.
In the past, I've made reference to the way that Tina Fey, Jay Leno and people of that sort have been belittling the Democrats and diffusing the little power that our former candidates might possess. And in a comment to another journal, I've clipped the following quote from Timothy Crouse's 1973 book, The Boys on the Bus;It is an unwritten law of current political journalism that conservative Republican Presidential candidates usually receive gentler treatment from the press than do liberal Democrats. Since most reporters are moderate or liberal Democrats themselves, they try to offset their natural biases by going out of their way to be fair to conservatives. No candidate ever had a more considerate press corps than Barry Goldwater in 1964, and four years later the campaign press gave every possible break to Richard Nixon. Reporters sense a social barrier between themselves and most conservative candidates; their relations are formal and meticulously polite. But reporters tend to loosen up around liberal candidates and campaign staffs; since they share the same ideology, they can joke with the staffers, even needle them, without being branded the 'enemy'. If a reporter has been trained in the traditional, 'objective' school of journalism, this ideological and social closeness to the candidate and the staff makes him feel guilty; he begins to compensate; the more he likes and agrees with the candidate personally, the harder he judges him professionally. Like a coach sizing up his own son in spring tryouts, the reporter becomes doubly severe.
Because they are out of power and with the proliferation of television channels, along with a perceived overcompensation by journalists, not to mention the fact that CNN goes out of their way not to appear "liberal"; The Democratic message has failed to gain traction. This will most likely remain true until they have an identifiable leader and with all apologies to my friends in Nevada and California, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not what the doctor ordered.
In all actuality, if you oppose the current administration, their missteps and grabs for power, you don't have time to form a new party. Instead, many people need to temporarily let go of their allegiance to the Greens and the uninformed, web-based Libertarian movement. Both of these parties have existed for a long time and they've fielded candidates up and down the line, but no one expects them to take a majority in either house of Congress next November.
Alternatively, if you oppose the current administration, you're going to have to let go of the long-run, futuristic dreams and blindly support your Democratic candidate for Congress. For, if the Democrats can secure the majority in the House, they will get subpoena power and by bogging the administration down in investigations, they'll be able to throw a monkey wrench into many of their plans. A new party, third party, or either of the alternatives mentioned may be a laudatory goal, but you have to work with what you've got. If you oppose the administration, their goals or methods and if your local Democratic candidate for Congress isn't a complete idiot, a child molester or arrogant legacy; You really have no other choice.