Washblog

Sean Hannity spews his typical rhetoric about "emboldening the enemy" and "betraying the troops," and what does Harold Ford, Jr. do?

Nothing. Zip. Doesn't say a word.

Newshounds has more.blockquote>When Hannity made the dubious claim that "(People) feel like (Democrats, as led by Senator Harry Reid) have emboldened the enemy and betrayed these troops," Ford quickly said, "I don't associate myself with (Harry Reid)" ... ..

I've also been extremely hard on Alan Colmes, but lately he's the only one of Fox "News" offering any push back for Democrats at all. He even had to do Ford's job for him. What's Ford's job? He's the head of the DLC. Worst performance by a Democrat ever.From Democrats who think they have their fingers on the pulse of everyday working America?

The Republicans have yet to define what success in  Iraq looks like. Much of what Republican candidates discuss or refuse to discuss still reeks of a permanent presence over there. If the DLC can't or refuses to tell Americans what success looks like are they not in bed with the Republicans?

Ford's jump back from a fight is neither the talk - let alone action - of an adequately contrasted opposition party nor the supposed wisdom of progressive thinking.  Nope, it's pure unadulterated fear-based timidity.

Aren't these the actions and words from would-be governors of society who apparently have no skin in the game, no personal stake in what happens over there and not much applied military experience?

In other words, has not the DLC neglected to prioritize voters' personal risk with who is in Iraq and why?

DLC'ers don't seem to be speaking for nor with the best interests of the poor and middle class in this country at heart. Try as they may, their strategy and tactics seem to reflect nothing deeper than political abstraction ... how to WIN moreso than how to HELP.

Help from the DLC is not on the way, America!

Is all the DLC after is getting into the driver's seat themselves  - seeking only a better way to continue the game - breaking more things and cause more damage worldwide in pursuit of economic and military security?

Deny it as they may, the DLC seems to be assuming that their opposition tangent is the true reflection of voter dissatisfaction.

But is that true when the DLC seems to mirror the arrogant Republican assumption that American policies - primarily because America entered the 21st century as THE sole superpower - constitute the wisest and unquestioned choice for global harmony?

It's an assumption based on sustaining the current application of military and pretend economic power, whether Republican or Democrat, so long as a well-lobbied leadership minority remains permanently in the national and global driver's seat.

In reality, is the DLC priority one of not losing the wealth of the lobbyists?

Ford's remarks seem to confirm a DLC strategy designed to have its hands on the party steering-wheel with a Democratic Party victory in 2008.

Would such guiding hands be the best thing for America?

Do we want a party led by DLC'ers - no matter how you defend them - that sought nothing more than a circumstance changed only by whose hands are out to accept lobbyist cash envelopes in exchange for influence?

Do we want a Democratic victory seeking those  spoils of victory already alive and well in corporate America? You know ... is what's good for the corporation good for the people?

The primary components of both the Demo and Repub political leadership can't seem to get past the notion that what's good for America - including the sustaining of a standard of living garnered by exploitation of more than just the needy 3rd-world global partners - is good for the planet....

... the sort of thinking that justifies slow corporate movement toward repentance from America's sinful long-time contributions to global warming.

Would not the DLC have to establish a more legitimate perception that counters the idea that to them and their party, global community is nice, but America comes FIRST, no matter who else suffers?

Because that idea is a long-time historical priority of genuine self-serving imperialism; the tactic of all global historical villains ....

... which of course defines the real consequence of American foreign and economic policy going back for decades, whether we liked it or approved or not.

There is no justifiable apologetic for that foolish self-serving foreign policy based on economic and security fears. It is the very historical path that has meandered to today's global circumstance.

Does it not seem that repudiation or reformation of the DLC is imperative if progressives and liberals are going to unite and take back the country?

Otherwise the style modelled by Ford and the DLC will the leave us a status quo that depends on the same tragic and silly corporate economic and military course of global rape.

A Democratic electoral victory in 2008 might very well unfold as a  decision with no substance ... resulting in no changes.

Taking back America does not mean using a victory to hand America over to another leadership minority afraid of big business and too timid to do something about the plight of its citizens.

Oh, Democrats have demonstrated their ability to talk and make self-serving speeches about plights, consequences, bungled wars, mismanaged VA hospitals leaving our vulnerable troops unappreciated, government waste, religious bigots, and the like.

So much cheap talk?

Like when Harold Ford stepped back from a fight with a junior-high level shallow and philosophical blowhard?

If the DLC keeps doing that and the party keeps pretending its leadership is wise ....

... well, the situation will not have improved even slightly.