This was cross posted at MyDD, and Daily Kos, but I thought y'all would enjoy hearing someone tell it like it is, regarding Katrina and Bush's role in it.
Because if the Democrats say why he needs to be impeached, because he lied about Iraq, and lead the war poorly, and therefore is unfit to govern, it will force those who disagree, mainly Republicans, to defend him. The more they're tied to him, the more unpopular they'll be. The more unpopular they'll be, the more likely they'll loose. Now of course the Republicans will steal a few lines out of the Lieberman playbook, and claim that the Democratic Party is being "narrowly partisan".
But look-y here.
The fact of the matter is this: Bush is politically toxic. As we know the main reason, other than possible voting related "shenanigans", that endangered Republican incumbents will survive is because of their personal appeal to their constituents, and their ability to run away from Bush as fast as possible. Now of course this strategy won't work very well if certain Democrats, unfortunately most of them, argue that the President shouldn't face Impeachment hearings. And, umm, thus defend him. But if they leave the possibility for impeachment open, at the least, then they'll force their opponents to defend him and put them on the wrong side of an unpopular issue (the war!) and tie them to a symbol of that issue (Bush!). The Republicans, and other Bush defenders, will be relegated to whining like babies will the grown ups talk about the real issues.
One of the reasons the Republicans are so successful is because they create divisive hot-button issues that place the Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion. With the Iraq war going the way it is, this is a chance for the Democratic Party to make big gains. It focuses political attention on the "culture of corruption" and "abuse of power" allegations, nay observations, that the Democratic Party is making with good reason against the Republicans and Bush. And with ballot measures like increasing minimum wage on various states, that favour the Democrats, I think they're starting to learn how to play the game better. Adopting this strategy would confirm that they are learning how to play the game better.
...here's an intresting view from a Canadian columnist, regarding the Lamont vs Lieberman fight for the Democratic nomination in Conneticut:
Challenging the Democrats-in-Name-Only
Six years ago, Joe Lieberman was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President of the United States (and, were it not for some well-organized cheating by the Republicans and the collusion of the Supreme Court, he would have been elected). In a quirk of the American electoral system, he was also running at the same time for re-election for a third term representing Connecticut in the Senate, a race that he won handily.
This election cycle, with the Senate seat again on the line, Lieberman is facing another electoral battle, but his major challenge is not coming from Republicans. Rather, it is coming from Democrats who argue that Lieberman might as well be a Republican. Since 2000, Lieberman has steadfastly supported the Bush Administration on everything to the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, energy policy, the Terri Schiavo case, and judicial appointments. He's the most obvious example of the frustrating phenomenon known as DINOs — Democrats in Name Only.
{snip}
Lamont overcame long odds to force Lieberman into a primary on August 8. Polls now show him trailing Lieberman by only six percentage points. He's collecting endorsements from unions, local elected officials and even former Connecticut Governor Lowell Weicker (a former Independent who lost to Lieberman when he was first elected to the Senate). In a speech to Lamont supporters, Weicker commented: “I am not a Democratic activist. I am an anti-war activist. I am not some left-wing nut or liberal crazy. I am an American of common sense who can recognize failure and pigheadedness.”
Meanwhile, Lieberman is relying on endorsements from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and running an anti-Lamont attack ad that more than one progressive blogger has labelled “the most embarrassing political ad ever.” He's using the same accusations of irrational “Bush hatred” that the American right regularly throws around (even though, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting noted in their May/June newsletter, polls show that “a majority of Americans 'hate' the president”). He's even compared Lamont supporters to “jihadists” and “crusaders.”
{snip}
As The Journal Inquirer noted in an editorial, “Lamont is near the centre of the Democratic heart. And Lieberman is far from it. He flunks almost every litmus test. Of course Lamont is a strong primary candidate. Of course Lieberman can win the primary only by smearing Lamont, in the great GOP tradition of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove… Is he running as a Democrat?”
If the Democratic Party wants to salvage any shred of the limited credibility that it still has among American progressives, it will turf Lieberman and back Lamont.
I hope other people have articles to post regarding other challenges to incumbent 'DINO's.
This contest is really intresting to me, because it's one of the few that I know of, where the challenger has a good shot at winning.
Posted by V. Kid in Canada
Sat Apr 15th 2006, 06:19 PM
...now that I've gotten your attention with that cliche, let's all invade the sports forum and talk about Hockey. The Playoffs are starting soon, so we may as well.
Posted by V. Kid in Sports
Sat Apr 15th 2006, 06:16 PM
...woot-woo! Nahh...personally, I'm pretty sour. My team, the Canucks, were awful. A theoretical Stanley cup contender at the beginning of the year, they were even leading the league back in November, but collapsed down the stretch and as a Vancouver Sun columnist said "they earned 9th place". Regardless of all of that, the Playoffs must go on.
So without further ado...who are you cheering for?
Other random NHL hockey related things you'd like to talk about?
But, more relevant to my poll, who do you think will win the Cup?
I included Tampa in the poll choices because they are the defending champions, even though they just might mis the playoffs.
Posted by V. Kid in Canada
Wed Apr 12th 2006, 10:59 PM
...although one should point out that the Bloc isn't very bright for doing this. Because they could well make the Tories look too good, and endanger much of their support. Who would've really thought that the Tories would've won 10 seats in Quebec this election? I was shocked, some seats that the Bloc won by massive landslides last time, switched hands. One of their young stars, Richard Marceau, was upset by a Conservative nobody. So while people may criticize the NDP consistently for being "Stephen Harper's best friend", they don't have nearly as much to loose, whereas the Bloc could easily find its self loosing even more "pure laine" seats to the Conservatives in Central and Eastern Quebec.
...now that I've gotten your attention, I'd like to say that opposition to the seal hunt is racist and stupid. Now, I don't apply this to the non-reasonable mass slaughters, those are not but so often celberties, and otherwise well meaning people, are opposing it on the bases that it's just so bad.
Now I know alot of people will go "waaahht" and raise their eyebrows in confusion. After all a good many liberals, think they're doing a good thing by opposing the seal hunt. That said, lets cut through the propoganda that people put out there to make themselves feel nice about themselves.
TORONTO (AP) — Actress Pamela Anderson's has added her name to the growing list of celebrities speaking out against Canada's annual seal hunt, which just got underway.
Anderson, a native of British Columbia in western Canada, said she hopes to visit Ottawa on Monday to meet with Harper. The prime minister turned down a similar request by French film legend Brigitte Bardot, who traveled to Ottawa last week to protest the hunt.
The seal hunt has attracted plenty of celebrity protesters this year, including former Beatle Paul McCartney and his wife, Heather Mills, who called the cull "a stain on the character of the Canadian people" and urged the government to turn to ecotourism in the region.
British singer Morrissey said he won't include Canada on any tours until the seal hunt ends.
Okay, so it sounds horrible. And yes, clubbing baby seals to death is unpleasnt. But the response of many cleberties, is just so silly it isn't even funny. And if they were really liberal they would consider that many inuit and first nations people in Canada, an oppressed group througout Canada's history, rely on the seal hunt. I'm quite sure it's the same in other inuit populations throughout the arctic.
IQALUIT, Nunavut — Two Inuit leaders say pop star Paul McCartney's recent campaign against the Canadian seal hunt is silly and disrespectful to wildlife.
The ex-Beatle visited the East Coast region this month to stage a high-profile photo-op on the ice floes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, calling for the end of the centuries-old commercial hunt.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the elected Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, and Duane Smith, president of the conference, say in a news release issued Monday that Ottawa should reject McCartney's advice.
They are urging a federally funded campaign in Europe and the United States to counter his message.
Watt-Cloutier said if McCartney wants to save seals, he should help Inuit stop climate change which is destroying sea ice - the habitat of seals.
She invited the pop star to visit the Arctic to learn what seal hunting means to Inuit.
Also, people must remember that the Seal hunt is conducted along the Labradorian coast, which is largely populated and conducted by Innu people.
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - A top Canadian Inuit official defended his country's seal hunt Monday, saying it was vital to the survival of aboriginal peoples in the Arctic and provided an economic lifeline for an area desperate for jobs and growth.
Paul Okalik, premier of Canada's northern Nunavut territory, said the majority of the 30,000 people in his region were dependent on seals and other native species like polar bear and fish for their everyday food.
"This is our daily basic diet - we can't grow potatoes. . . . It's something we require to continue to survive and its far more nutritious than what is imported from southern Canada," Okalik told reporters.
"So we will continue to eat it, and assist our diets in living healthy. . . . You do your thing and we will continue to do ours."
So essentially my point is this, nuance people. Remember that certain people rely on this, and while you may think that your doing a good thing by opposing it. With out remembering the nunance that the Inuit rely on it, your really being racist. Why such a harsh word? Because it's a part of their culture, and your ignoring that. So oppose the commercial, un-regulated hunt if you must, but don't be so wide reaching and simplistically unrealistic.
Posted by V. Kid in Canada
Wed Mar 29th 2006, 07:04 PM
...as the Liberal Party is far too far to the right economically for him to fit in. He's a quintessential tory. People always get confused when they saw him in the Progressive Conservative party, but that party was traditionally full of people like him as well as economically right-wing people. It had been a coalition between red and blue tories.
Essentially he's a red tory, in the traditional sense, not in the modern sense that moderate or socially liberal (but economically right-wing) Conservative MP's are somehow "red". He is conservative, as in doesn't like change. And therefore he doesn't like the way that the NAFTA agreement have hurt Canada's previously traditional pro-nationalist institutions, and thus hurt Canada's identity and sovreignty. He doesn't like GMO's, becaues he prefers to be cautious, and thinks they are un-healthy. Apparently he's moderatley socially conservative, ie: doesn't approve of Gay Marriage. But that said, he's not a religion thumper either. I'd say he's like Diefenbaker and other real "red" Tory leaders, who are somewhat infavour of a mixed-economy between socialist and free enterprise solutions, but still in favour of traditional institutions like the Monarchy.
