Thursday, March 16, 2006
Democratic Senators are a Bunch of Pussies
And yes, I mean that in the prejorative sense. Feel free to call me a sexist ass-wipe later.
Wisconsin's Russ Feingold - he of casting the only vote against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act fame - moves one little resolution to censure George Bush for authorizing wiretaps without any legislative authority to do so, and the Hill-Donkeys lose any will to fight. Well, that's not true - they're happy criticizing the deficits that the President's adventures are created, but when it comes time to do something as distasteful as defending their constituents' freedoms, they duck and cover. Or, if you prefer, cut and run - that bunch of cut-and-runners.
What says Barak Obama, a man highly-touted as a 2008 (or maybe 2012) Presidential candidate despite a relative dearth of accomplishments other than mildly inspirational speeches?
"I haven't read it."
John Kerry, often maligned as the United States' most liberal senator, refuses to say how he'd vote (but does grant that the proposal is "interesting").
Hillary Clinton won't even comment. Ted Kennedy? Nowhere to be found.
Feingold's motion may well be the dumb politics that his incensed critics withing his own party claim. Maybe going after Bush for illegal wiretapping is unwise at a time when much of the public is congregated firmly on the security end of the security-liberty axis. But I somehow don't think so. The Democrats are going to need a candidate in 2008 who, unlike John Kerry, will actually challenge George Bush's core contentions, not dissect them for some nuance based on which he can claim to represent a different vision.
Russ Feingold - who, unlike John Kerry, opposed the invasion of Iraq and who, unlike John Kerry, voted in favour of hearing evidence against Bill Clinton when the former President was impeached - has taken one more of many steps towards being this candidate.
|
And yes, I mean that in the prejorative sense. Feel free to call me a sexist ass-wipe later.
Wisconsin's Russ Feingold - he of casting the only vote against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act fame - moves one little resolution to censure George Bush for authorizing wiretaps without any legislative authority to do so, and the Hill-Donkeys lose any will to fight. Well, that's not true - they're happy criticizing the deficits that the President's adventures are created, but when it comes time to do something as distasteful as defending their constituents' freedoms, they duck and cover. Or, if you prefer, cut and run - that bunch of cut-and-runners.
What says Barak Obama, a man highly-touted as a 2008 (or maybe 2012) Presidential candidate despite a relative dearth of accomplishments other than mildly inspirational speeches?
"I haven't read it."
John Kerry, often maligned as the United States' most liberal senator, refuses to say how he'd vote (but does grant that the proposal is "interesting").
Hillary Clinton won't even comment. Ted Kennedy? Nowhere to be found.
Feingold's motion may well be the dumb politics that his incensed critics withing his own party claim. Maybe going after Bush for illegal wiretapping is unwise at a time when much of the public is congregated firmly on the security end of the security-liberty axis. But I somehow don't think so. The Democrats are going to need a candidate in 2008 who, unlike John Kerry, will actually challenge George Bush's core contentions, not dissect them for some nuance based on which he can claim to represent a different vision.
Russ Feingold - who, unlike John Kerry, opposed the invasion of Iraq and who, unlike John Kerry, voted in favour of hearing evidence against Bill Clinton when the former President was impeached - has taken one more of many steps towards being this candidate.
